Why do you think the U.S. auto industry is falling apart? [Archive]

Philster

01-23-2006, 09:50 AM

I don't want a debate; I seek your perceptions.

From my perception, it is definitely a combination of factors:

1. I percieve their products as junk. Reading reviews reinforces this notion. I would NEVER buy a small American car. I do own a Dodge Dakota Quad Cab, but regret that I didn't buy a Toyota Tundra.

2. When I look at a company like Toyota, I think quality/longevity...and a distinct product line - well thought out.

3. When I look at foreign brands like Honda, Toyota, Nissan, it is very clear what their product line-up is.

Take Toyota:

Scion = entry level/sport/tuner...
Toyota= midddle America...Corolla up to Avalon, something for everyone
Lexus = Premium Brand

Take GM:

Chevy = entry level???? Not really... Corvette (which I think should be it's own brand)
Buick = Cataract glasses on driver and Kleenex box on back window ledge????
Pontiac = sport???
GMC= trucks...but the same as the other divisions?
Cadillac= premium, but seem like premium Buicks, not Lexus killers.

Don't even get me started on Ford...Lincoln....Mercury, whatever.

Worse yet, young people don't want U.S. cars. And from the looks of it, U.S. mfgrs don't want the young people. The 'tuner' crowd is cutting their teeth on Japanese cars....movies are made about Japanese cars.

GM and Ford can't even enhance their brand image by rolling out an honest to goodness attempt to produce a NASCAR inspired model that is actually worth anything!

And then, there are the high costs of the Unions....

Johnny L.A.

01-23-2006, 10:06 AM

movies are made about Japanese cars.
American Graffiti
Corvette Summer
Smokey And The Bandit

;)

Philster

01-23-2006, 10:15 AM

Showing your age.... ;)

QuickSilver

01-23-2006, 10:17 AM

Songs too...:

- little red corvette
- hot rod lincoln
- mustang sally
- little 409

(Probably more I can't think of right now....)

It's cyclical this entire auto industry thing. Cars fall in and out of favour depending on market trends and advertising campaigns.

Who would have thought, for example, that SUVs would make such an impact.

Necros

01-23-2006, 10:40 AM

IMHO, there are a couple of reasons for the decline of the US auto industry:

-High cost of unions, as you mentioned, who also counts the extraordinary liabilities the automakers carry in pensions and health care for retired workers
-Lack of any attention on the small car market. I agree with you that US automakers don't seem to care at all about these buyers, which ties into
-Over-reliance on trucks and SUvs, which have a very high profit margin. But, you can't base an entire company around them. You need to base your company on small and mid-sized sedans.
-Squandered public goodwill. By this I mean that US automakers made crappy cars for so long, and ignored the demands of consumers that even now when they are making significantly better cars, everyone still thinks that Japanese automakers are better quality. It will take a long time to change this perception.
-Poor "soft" details. While mechanically able, today's Big Three cars STILL suffer from underwhelming interior and exterior aesthetics.
-More emphasis on "flavor-of-the-month" than boring longevity. Unfortunately, most people who buy cars are not people who are interested in cars. Search this forum, and the words you will find most about people looking for a car are "good gas mileage" and "reliable". That is all people care about. Unfortunately, the Big Three have not focused on these attributes very much. Instead, they've gone for "sporty" or "most cargo capacity" or whatever. These are important, but they are not why people buy normal cars.

I could go on and on, but I think these are some main issues.

Johnny L.A.

01-23-2006, 10:59 AM

Cars I've owned:

1966 MGB
1966 MGB (currently in restoration)
1977 MGB
1977 MGB
1977½ Porsche 924
1979 Porsche 911SC
1948 Willys CJ2A
1946 Willys CJ2A
1984 Chevrolet (Suzuki) Sprint
1988 Chevrolet (Suzuki) Sprint Metro
1963 Triumph Herald
1999 Jeep Cherokee (my first new car)

As you can see, most of the cars I've owned (even the Chevys) are foreign. I was a teenager in the mid-'70s and early-'80s. My first car was a hand-me-down '66 MGB. My parents got Toyotas in 1972. So I grew up with foreign cars. In 1973 we had the Oil Embargo. At the time U.S. auto makers were making land-yachts, and they continued making them even after the second embargo in 1979. Though the MGs had 'British problems', they were tight little cars. My best fiend had a 1972 Buick Skylark that was a POS.

From my perspective American cars were too big, didn't handle well, didn't look good, and burned too much gas. When U.S. automakers tried to compete with the Japanese it seemed to me to be a slap-dash job. I remember hearing about the poor build quality, and fuel efficiency seemed to lag behind the imports. In the 1980s it was more of the same.

Then in the mid-1980s a friend's father got a new Ford Thinderbird. Its styling was fresh for the time. Then there was the Ford Taurus. That was a sharp-looking car in its day too, as was the new Pontiac Firebird/Trans Am/Chevy Camero. My impression at the time was that U.S. automakers were finally catching up to the Japanese. But my tastes still ran toward smaller, more efficient cars.

At the time Japanese cars seemed to become more 'tinny', probably as a weight-saving measure. American cars seemed to be just as cheaply made. And there were a lot of new American cars around. They seemed to deteriorate as quickly as the low-end Japanese models. Then came the SUVs...

I was driving a 911 in the mid-to-late-'90s. Very solid car, and fast!. SUVs were just too big. But eventually I found that the 911 was too small for my needs at the time. I was going to get a Honda Civic, which was small, efficient, and could carry more gear than the Porsche; but I got the Cherokee (the smallest 'real' SUV) instead. It's been great. But it still suffers from relatively poor mileage. Gas was relatively cheap, and everybody was driving SUVs. I still longed for a small, efficient car, but I liked being able to haul stuff and people in the Jeep.

Anyway, it's been obvious for a few years now that cars are too big. Even when the economy took a nosedive and gas prices rose sharply, Detroit was pumping out monster-sized vehicles. It looked to me like a repeat of the mid-1970s: The Japanese were improving their small cars, and Detroit was (and is) burying it's head in the sand. 'Americans want big, powerful cars!' That's what they said in the '70s, and they paid a price.

So IMO the U.S. auto industry is falling apart because they do not recognise trends. At least, they do not recognise trends that point to small cars. They're all about offering more power and bigger cars. They met the SUV fad with gusto. But while the Japanese looked at hybrids, they made only half-hearted steps and kept making behemoths. Quality has improved over the past 20 years, but there are still a lot of people who remember the Bad Old Days. Costs rise as unions demand more. But I think the big reason the industry is falling apart is that they are always a step behind what the public wants.

Johnny L.A.

01-23-2006, 11:24 AM

So IMO the U.S. auto industry is falling apart because they do not recognise trends.
Heh. Just heard on CNN that Ford will now 'listen to the customers instead of just filling factories'. U.S. carmakers should have been listening to customers all along.

Vlad/Igor

01-23-2006, 11:45 AM

Heh. Just heard on CNN that Ford will now 'listen to the customers instead of just filling factories'. U.S. carmakers should have been listening to customers all along.
True, but the American customers have been saying "Bigger and faster, gasoline be damned!" It's a wink-wink game between the manufacturers and the buying public. The manufacturers say "You need this car, you want it," and the public responds "Yes! yes we do," without thinking about the practicality or cost of operating a 10-15 mpg vehicle. The $3+/gallon gas price in the CONUS was a shocking wake-up, but we've since forgotten about it as prices slipped below $2.50/ gallon in most places.
No one wants to take the lead and start weaning us off of cheap gas and start marketing less oil-dependant vehicles as the standard, rather than as an exception or a niche product.

Vlad/Igor

Johnny L.A.

01-23-2006, 11:48 AM

No one wants to take the lead and start weaning us off of cheap gas and start marketing less oil-dependant vehicles as the standard, rather than as an exception or a niche product.
The Japanese do. ;)

ivylass

01-23-2006, 11:57 AM

Unions and tax rates that favor foreign countries. There's a reason it's Daimler-Chrysler and not Chyrsler-Daimler.

Vlad/Igor

01-23-2006, 12:11 PM

Sorry, that last post was sort of a mid-stream response. Let me backfill:

In addition to the unions, less-than-exciting offerings from the US auto manufacturers and their lingering reputation from the 70s and 80s, they also made oversized and under-efficient trucks and SUVs a significant contributer to their profits. As long as people didn't care about the operating costs of trucks and SUVs, there was no incentive to explore other classes of vehicles or oil-sparing technologies.

Now that we've had a look at how easily fuel costs can rise to significantly impact our income, we're starting to have second thoughts about buying trucks or SUVs (I hope, anyway, but I'm not optimistic about that). Last summer's gas price spike isn't an anomaly; we're still in the high part of the Atlantic Ocean cycle that has produced the large number of hurricanes in 2004 and 2005, and 2006 may well not be much different. All it takes is one strong storm in the Gulf and we could easily see $3+/gallon gas prices again.

So, without a wide variety of products, the auto manufacturers are losing money as people start to switch to smaller, more efficient vehicles, and the manufacturers haven't got much to offer except more, more, more of the same. There have been token attempts at producing alternative vehicles, but none of the manufacturers are willing to carry them long enough as part of their normal stock to get the public used to the technology. And unfortunately, the buying public isn't going to willingly consider alternative technologies until they start having to think twice about taking that last-minute week-end trip, or turn down the thermostat again to avoid another $600 heating bill for December.

Vlad/Igor

Johnny L.A.

01-23-2006, 12:16 PM

There have been token attempts at producing alternative vehicles, but none of the manufacturers are willing to carry them long enough as part of their normal stock to get the public used to the technology.
A case in point: the EV-1. I saw several when I lived in SoCal. Then they were gone. It turns out that they could only be leased, and GM cancelled the leases. I heard (i.e., hearsay) that there were people who liked the cars so much they tried to hide them rather than give them up. If people are willing to go to such means to keep a vehicle, then it sounds as if it would be a strong message to the manufacturer.

I have yet to see a Smart in the U.S., except when a couple were on display at a mall in Orange a few years ago.

Sam Stone

01-23-2006, 12:25 PM

I think there's a lot of unfair bagging on domestic auto makers going on. Some of that is historical, due to previous bad cars and long memories. Some of it is pure snobbery from the 'fast and furious' crowd.

If you look at current vehicles, the domestics actually have good reliability ratings. The newest generation of cars (C6 Vette, Ford Fusion, Chrysler 300, etc) are extremely well built, get good has mileage, and match the imports for fit and finish.

The good news for domestic auto manufacturers is that pretty much everyone agrees that the playing field is now pretty level in terms of quality, and therefore design is going to be increasingly important in differentiating cars. And the U.S. manufacturers are as good as anyone at design. The Fusion beats the hell out of those egg-shaped bland boxes like the Altima and the Camry. The 300 is very unique. And the new generation of cars coming down the pike should be really interesting.

There's still the problem of the high cost of all the health care liability and higher workforce costs in the unionized factories. Every GM car carries about $1500 in health care costs - that's $1500 that other manufacturers can put into better interiors, better engines, more features, or lower prices.

DanBlather

01-23-2006, 12:30 PM

I think that the fact that GM et al are based in Detroit is a problem. Folks in the mid-west just think differently from folks on the coasts. It's just not practical to drive a big junker in CA; gas is too expensive and parking is tough. The mid-west has a lot fewer imports; the designers and engineers are stuck in a time warp since all they ever see are American cars. When I talk to my brother in-law who works at GM, he's concerned with things like unibody vs ladderframe chassis. I just want a car that's small on the outside, has a large trunk, and is reasonably attractive (no faux wood trim, chrome, ugly Fischer radios, etc.)

The fact that the US auto industry is shrinking means you don't have enough new blood to shake things up. I'd like to see design centers in LA and/or SF. Sick Frog Design on them.

Merkwurdigliebe

01-23-2006, 01:38 PM

I think it is the entrenchment of the auto industry. After the backlash against imports, I think a lot of people bought American cars simply because they weren't foreign, not creating a lot of pressure to make them that good. If you ask people why they buy American cars, a lot of them will say that it is because they are American. Note, that Ford, for example has been making lots of nice cars in Europe for the past 5 years or so. Unfortunately we can't get them in the US. Take a look at these at ford.co.uk Most of them are small, and the fit and finish is great. I've driven one of these before. Almost on par with German cars of the early nineties. The American line is finally starting to catch up with things like the Ford 500 and the Fusion, but there are still a lot of problems. I remember one model of the Ford F150. The stereo was terrible with all of these bubbles everywhere. That's one reason why German cars are always kind of timeless. They are conservative, but modern and almost always pleasing. Cars aren't like the latest passing trend. You want something that isn't too crazy. Also note that they also offer fuel-saving diesel engines.

Neurotik

01-23-2006, 02:56 PM

The Fusion beats the hell out of those egg-shaped bland boxes like the Altima and the Camry.
What? I'm not down on the Fusion or anything, because I've heard good thing about it, but you can't seriously think that the Fusion looks much different than an Altima or something. It looks like an oversized Civic with a slightly more stylish front end.

Dorjän

01-23-2006, 03:23 PM

I have yet to see a Smart in the U.S., except when a couple were on display at a mall in Orange a few years ago.

Are Smarts even street-legal in the U.S.? I see them on the roads quite often in Canada.

light strand

01-23-2006, 03:42 PM

I love my Chevy, my husband loves his Chevy, and we plan to get another one next year.

My perception of the American auto industry is that they blew it in the 80s and for whatever reason, no one will every forgive them for it.

DMark

01-23-2006, 03:49 PM

Detroit is still living in the days when they were the only major players in the the US, as well as in most parts of the world. Whatever they built, we would buy. Simple as that. Detroit had us in their grubby palms, and consumers were left with a choice between a few models and a few colors.

This daddy complex/arrogance led them to believe they could do no wrong. It took Ralph Nader and hundreds of thousands of his followers before they would even think of doing anything regarding safety in cars. They fought tooth and nail against every safety feature on cars...against any anti-pollution standards...against anything remotely environmentally sound or consumer safe.

Then they found the SUV goldmine and if the oil prices hadn't stalled that huge money-maker, it was only a matter of time until there would have been an SUV large enough to park a Hummer in the glove compartment.

In the meantime, other countries looked towards overcrowded roads and cities and smog and price and came up with some pretty amazing automobiles that cost less, look better, run on less gas and last longer...all things that Detroit considered financial folly.

So - after decades of greed and indifference to the realities of the world, excuse me if I don't shed any tears on the results of their mis-management.

Lightray

01-23-2006, 03:52 PM

I don't think there's a real quality difference between domestic and foreign cars at this point in time, actually. I work for a company that makes petroleum additives (engine oil, transmission fluids, gas additives), so we work pretty closely with the major automakers, and what we see of their engines, at least, are all pretty comparable at equivalent price-points.

Right now, I think the US automakers are suffering for their short-sighted decision to place all their eggs in the SUV/minivan market. This was a market doomed to collapse from what the automakers well knew of oil and gas trends. However, the still opted for the quick buck, and so I'm less than sympathetic to how they're suffering from this now.

In the long term, the cost structure of the US automakers is simply wretched. Not only costs of union labor and healthcare, but in nearly every other fascet of their business. They're used to spending, not to controlling costs. And the union laborers are used to salaries that are far out of line with jobs of equivalent training and education in any other industry (or country).

I personally don't believe that GM would be financially viable if they hadn't had their GM Financing profits. If they can't make money at their own business, I'm not sure they should be in that business. Of course, I hope they do continue, because the loss of Ford, for example, would have a major impact on my own job.

The Great Sun Jester

01-23-2006, 05:31 PM

Who would have thought, for example, that SUVs would make such an impact.Did nobody else get this? Maybe it's just my job--seeing the impacts made by SUVs.

The decline of the American Car industry is infuriating. Personally I think it never lived down the horror of the planned obsolescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence) 'campaign' of the 1970s. Once you get it into your head that myriad problems are expected at 100,000 miles a cheap vehicle that is just getting broken in at that time (hello Toyota & Datsun) starts looking pretty damned good. And once a consumer switches brands of expensive items because of reliability issues, you're toast if you're the one they left.

And it's infuriating because it didn't have to happen. Saying it's "too expensive" for highly paid Americans to produce high quality goods at a profit completely ignores the ubiquity of BMWs, Hummers, Mercedes, Volvos, Lexuseseses, Infinitis, Porsches (yeah, they're doing so well here they've got an SUV now!).... Americans will buy expensive cars. If we know we don't have to do it very often. The American car makers banked on consumers being blindly short-term economists, and now they're suffering as a result. The irony of that is just too sweet, but now Americans (the laborers) are suffering.

smiling bandit

01-23-2006, 05:37 PM

A website I check out regularly is The Truth About Cars (http://thetruthaboutcars.com/). It's full of good info about cars and particularly GM. The UAW has got to go.

scr4

01-23-2006, 05:39 PM

There's still the problem of the high cost of all the health care liability and higher workforce costs in the unionized factories. Every GM car carries about $1500 in health care costs - that's $1500 that other manufacturers can put into better interiors, better engines, more features, or lower prices.
By "other manufacturers", do you mean manufacturers in countries with universal health care? Or is there a reason GM in particular has high health care costs?

Sam Stone

01-23-2006, 05:52 PM

By "other manufacturers", do you mean manufacturers in countries with universal health care? Or is there a reason GM in particular has high health care costs?

Yeah, because they cut sweetheart deals with the unions. The health care package that GM's workers get is way better than what you'll find in other industries. From this article (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-06-22-gm-healthcare-usat_x.htm):

How different are auto industry insurance plans from plans offered the typical U.S. worker?

Unionized autoworkers can choose plans for which they pay nothing toward monthly premiums. Nationally, workers pay an average of 16% of the premium toward single coverage and 28% of the premium for family policies, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey of employers shows. That's an average of $558 a year for single employees and $2,661 for families.
While union workers at the Big Three automakers do pay for doctor-office visits, their annual expenses for doctor visits, drug costs and other services is capped at $250 for single employees and $500 for families, according to a United Auto Workers Web site. Outside the industry, more than a third of workers have caps of $2,500 or more, the Kaiser survey says.
Autoworkers have no annual deductible. Nationally, the Kaiser survey shows the average annual deductible offered by large employers for similar insurance policies is $280 for singles and $861 for families.
Assembly plant workers can buy generic drugs for $5 per prescription and brand-name products for $10 each. Nationally, the average is $10 for generics, $21 for brand-name drugs that are on a preferred list set by employers and $33 for brand-name drugs not on a preferred list.
Retirees get the same medical benefits in the unionized industry. Nationally, only 36% of large firms offered retiree health benefits in 2004, down from 66% in 1988, the Kaiser survey shows. Outside the auto industry, retirees who do get insurance coverage pay an average of $187 a month toward it, says Brian Johnson, senior research analyst at Sanford Bernstein. Writing in a June 10 Bernstein Research Call report, he says GM alone could save $1.4 billion in cash annually if it began charging retirees $150 a month toward their health costs.

The UAW has been one of the most militant unions around. Despite getting way above average pay and benefits, they have in the past been willing to strike at the drop of a hat when their demands are not met. And benefits are always the easiest thing for a company to offer, because the bill doesn't have to be paid for a long time. But now that retirees outnumber active workers by 2-1, the cost of this largesse is hitting the American auto industry hard.

shelbo

01-23-2006, 06:08 PM

IMO, a huge problem with the American car companies is that their designs stink. They seem to be at a total loss, with no ideas at all. They either copy something that worked 40 years ago (see new Ford Mustang), or they build something like the gawdawful Chevy HHR (http://www.gmbuypower.com/vehicleHomePage.bp?null&model=HHR&modelId=097&make=Chevrolet&makeId=001&sellingSource=13). My god, who the hell greenlighted this one? Its like a PT Cruiser, but 6 years too late, and way uglier. Who are they trying to sell this to? Remember the Pontiac Aztec? How much did they blow on that disaster?

DVsickgirlDV

01-23-2006, 07:22 PM

I read that the health plans and pay for auto workers in Japan are equivalent to American auto workers. I haven't been able to find a site though, so is there any truth to this?

Omniscient

01-23-2006, 07:31 PM

In the January Playboy there's a very interesting article by Arthur Kretchmer titled Car Wars. Essentially he framed the story around the news that Toyota was fast approaching the #1 overall ranking as a automaker based on sales numbers. From there he visited with executives within the big three and interviewed a variety of regulat Joe's and "experts" in the industry and tried form an opinion on what was wrong with the US auto industry. I can't find it online to link to, but if you're interested in this topic I highly recommend it.

He echoed many of the themes alreayd mentioned here, here's a couple highlighs which I took away from it.

The gap between perception and reality by the public and media regarding reliability. Pretty much every quantitative measurement places US manufacturers equal to or exceeding Japanese automakers in satisfaction and reliability. However car owners tend to view breakdowns of Japanese cars as the exception to the rule, while an equal proportion of breakdown by US cars are considered typical.
Dismissing the female comsumer. US makers essentially neglected the woman in the process and are paying the price for it today. Decades ago they ignored the entry-level segment which was female dominated. As a result women have grown up familiar and comfortable with the Japanese badges. Also Americans marginalized the importance of the interior. Touch and feel elements being a top priority for women.
Legacy costs. While the cost of Union pensions and health care amounts to $5.6 billion annually for GM, $7 billion annually gets paid to white-collar retirees. Its not just a UAW issue, it's more a management issue. These legacy costs were predictable and they didn't account for them. It's a complex issue, but certainly not so simple as unions are bad.
Duplication. US cars waste money on duplication of both products and parts. An example given was that GM makes 100 different dip sticks, each car has it's own. Why not come up with one or two standard products for each of these trivial details?

Those are just one aspect and designs and market strategy are certainly factors, but I thought it was an elightening read. Basically the US makers have some underlying issues which cause problems and those problems tend to trickle down to the products that they put out

By most accounts the US makers are all on an upswing from both a design and quality standpoint. Analysts estimate that public perception takes 5-10 years to take hold so the US makers need to maintain the high standards of quality and appearance before the media and public opinion shift in their favor. Once that happens the playing field will level.

Omniscient

01-23-2006, 08:06 PM

Who are they trying to sell this to? Remember the Pontiac Aztec? How much did they blow on that disaster?

I hated the Aztek and I hate the HHR, Chevy has been the worst designed car IMHO over the last decade or so. Strangely I really liked the tail end of the Olds designs, I like current Pontiac designs and Buick is, while not great, much improved over the recent past.

Anyways, in the article I refered to above GM vice chairman Robert Lutz was quoted as saying...If the Aztek had been called the Honda Aztek or the Toyota Aztek it would have been greeted with "Oh my God, leave it to the Japanese to make this incredibly intelligent vehicle. Who are we to question Honda or Toyota?" Coming from Pontiac's low credibility base, it was hopeless.

While I think he overstates things a little bit, I'm inclined to agree to an extent. Looking at the Element and the xB and their success I'm inclined to think he has a point.

Similarly the Pontiac G6 is getting no love even though by most accounts it's a hell of a car. Apparently he took a Car and Driver writer to the track after reading an article where he compared the G6's performance unfavorably compared to the Maxima. Once on the track side by side the G6 kicked the crap out of the Maxima when driven by the C&D critic himself.

An couple examples of perception totally overshadowing reality.

Imasquare

01-23-2006, 08:31 PM

True, but the American customers have been saying "Bigger and faster, gasoline be damned!"Not all of them. Otherwise the market share of fuel efficient Japanese and Korean cars would have declined.

levdrakon

01-23-2006, 08:58 PM

By most accounts the US makers are all on an upswing from both a design and quality standpoint. Analysts estimate that public perception takes 5-10 years to take hold so the US makers need to maintain the high standards of quality and appearance before the media and public opinion shift in their favor. Once that happens the playing field will level.

I remember hearing at least ten years ago people started saying "you know, American cars aren't that bad anymore. In fact they're supposed to be just as good as Japanese."

So it's been ten years already and American car manufacturers are still in trouble. If part of that trouble is public perception then I'd say Americans have a much longer memory than five to ten years.

In my case, finding out about planned obsolescence really burned me. I can easily hold that grudge another twenty years.

It's not enough for American cars to be as good as foreign. They're going to have to be twice as good, and significantly less expensive than foreign in order to win me back, but I don't see that ever happening. If I'm going to spend $20-30K on something as important as a car, it's just too easy to not spend it at Ford or GM.

Omniscient

01-23-2006, 09:08 PM

I remember hearing at least ten years ago people started saying "you know, American cars aren't that bad anymore. In fact they're supposed to be just as good as Japanese."

So it's been ten years already and American car manufacturers are still in trouble. If part of that trouble is public perception then I'd say Americans have a much longer memory than five to ten years.

They've been saying that since the mid-90's but I think it's only over the last 5 years or so that JD Power, Consumer Reports and the various reliability statistics have actually backed it up. It's no longer just PR.

Philster

01-23-2006, 09:41 PM

I read that the health plans and pay for auto workers in Japan are equivalent to American auto workers. I haven't been able to find a site though, so is there any truth to this?

Except that Japanese cars are made in the U.S., and I do not believe they have the UAW staffing their plants.

Toyota set up shop in Texas, home of the pickup market, to make pickups for the always popular pickup-truck market (resistant to oil crunches). That is a pretty bold move.

You know, you don't even have to build quality cars to be successful. By far, the biggest bucket of bolts on the road are Mercedes, Volkswagen and BMWs. One might PERCEIVE quality, but the brands I just mentioned are in the pits with quality. They decided to compete in the market by being brands that offer driving/comfort, styling and performance respectively. But ask anyone about Mercedes and you'll get the impression that was formed 25 years ago: high quality/reliability. Bunk. They just are not like that anymore.

Actually, I've read reviews where the chumps at Car and Driver,. Motor Trend and others have said things like, "even though it is not a reliable car, if you really want the 'German e345', by all means go get it."

Unintentionally Blank

01-23-2006, 09:46 PM

The UAW has been touched on already.

As has the out of whack quality perception.

What hasn't been brought up yet is the eternal churn and burn. They want to get you into a new car every three years. They want you to buy up and get more for less money. 'I can get a new SUV every three years with Satnav and bun warmers for less than that econocar? Sign Me Up!'

Have that happen for a period of time and vehicles true costs get out of hand. Who cares that your dream car really costs $55k, the lease is only $600 a month! Then park a couple of planes into a couple of buildings. Consumer confidence falls, American manufacturers backpedal like mad trying to keep afloat, you can buy a brand new SUV for nearly the same amount of money as a two year old used one. The used car market as a whole stinks. Once they gave up the huge profit margin, they can't get it back.

The industry is paying for poor economic decisions from the past decade or so and are just now catching up with them. They're also suffering the effects of some NASTY economics.

I sure do like GM. Four of our last Five vehicles were GM. But Man do they produce some fugly stuff. The can make a killer motor, they can make a SUV ride smoooth. But they can also do some things that make you wonder if there's anybody at the helm.
We can't help them if they won't help themselves.

light strand

01-23-2006, 09:47 PM

It's not enough for American cars to be as good as foreign. They're going to have to be twice as good, and significantly less expensive than foreign in order to win me back, but I don't see that ever happening. If I'm going to spend $20-30K on something as important as a car, it's just too easy to not spend it at Ford or GM.Why? Did a UAW member kick your dog? Planned obsolescence is built into nearly everything you own, but I don't believe it in cars for a second. It seems to me that for you $20-$30K you'd want the best product out there, instead of pouting about what happened ten years ago. All the better if it's 90% made in America.

Sublight

01-23-2006, 11:22 PM

Yes, but if I'm going to spend $20-30K, do I trust people who've been putting out the highest quality since the beginning, or people who've just now jumped on the bandwagon?

scr4

01-23-2006, 11:44 PM

True, but the American customers have been saying "Bigger and faster, gasoline be damned!"
Not all of them. Otherwise the market share of fuel efficient Japanese and Korean cars would have declined.
But the Asian and European companies only sell their largest models in the US. Some are US-specific models that nobody in Asia/Europe would buy (e.g. Toyota Tundra).

Least Original User Name Ever

01-23-2006, 11:54 PM

yeah, we had a similar thread a couple weeks ago when we were looking at pictures of the detroit auto show. i'm from that particular city and my dad used to work in design. it doesn't exist any more. those jobs ALL got outsourced.

unions aren't necessarily the problem. the UAW gets wretched publicity EVERYWHERE and it's not because they're just a union. i believe in unionization. with that being said, yes, the UAW has had many sweetheart deals and gets good money. who says that blame can't rest on the auto makers that agreed to those deals?

crap...i should dig up the old thread...but i don't know exactly how to resurrect such a thing.

a thing about the old thread, is that a lot of people talked about how cool the new camaro looked and such. then they waxed poetic about their old, gas guzzlers back in the 60s and 70s. that'd be a fun counterpoint to this thread, i think.

longhair75

01-24-2006, 12:13 AM

jmesho

in 1979, i bought a new chevy malibu. there were three or four recalls, and half a dozen warranty repairs. not long after the warranty expired, there were some major mechanical failures. all in all, it spent quite a bit of time in the shop. after five years, i traded it in on a 1985 S-10 blazer. this vehicle was even more prone to breakdowns and also spent quite a bit of time in the shop. i ended up giving it to the kids to drive back and forth to school. i spent a lot of time keeping it running.

since the blazer, we have owned two toyota corollas and three toyota rav4s. never a day in the shop among the five aside from routine maintenance.

some guy turned left in front of my daughter one evening, and that was the end of my involvement with chevy. based on our experience, i bought my daughter a corolla.

now i realize that my experience with gm was twenty years ago, but what would lead me to trust them now? they burned me on two new vehicles in a row. we have had six toyotas (including my daughter's car) with no problems.

levdrakon

01-24-2006, 12:48 AM

Why? Did a UAW member kick your dog? Planned obsolescence is built into nearly everything you own, but I don't believe it in cars for a second. It seems to me that for you $20-$30K you'd want the best product out there, instead of pouting about what happened ten years ago. All the better if it's 90% made in America.

Well for one thing, buying a car isn't always an entirely rational unemotional decision. You say all the better if it's 90% made in America. That's trying to appeal to my feelings of patriotism, which I don't have when it comes to cars. I don't think anyone in this thread has said American cars are better than Japanese. They've just said maybe they're as good as Japanese. What am I going to spend $20K on if they're basically the same? The company that didn't burn me. You can call it pouting. I call it holding a grudge, which I freely admit to.

light strand

01-24-2006, 06:34 AM

You said It's not enough for American cars to be as good as foreign. They're going to have to be twice as good, and significantly less expensive than foreign in order to win me backI say this is dumb.You say all the better if it's 90% made in America. That's trying to appeal to my feelings of patriotism, which I don't have when it comes to carsI'm not appealing to your patrotism. Why the hell would I do that? Everyone laments outsourcing, so to to me if I can buy somthing made here, it would be better.

Unintentionally Blank

01-24-2006, 06:46 AM

You said I say this is dumb.I'm not appealing to your patrotism. Why the hell would I do that? Everyone laments outsourcing, so to to me if I can buy somthing made here, it would be better.

Nah, your foolin yourself. Nobody laments outsourcing. They lament the jobs lost, yes. But offer them a computer at $500 vs $1000, a 3-pack of T-shirts for $4 vs $9, a happy meal toy for free vs, $2.99 and they'll pick the cheap way out every time.

I think there MAY be a single US tire manufacturer, the rest have all gone overseas. Why do you think that is? Because labor over there is cheap. Cheap enough to overshadow not inconsequential shipping costs.

Jonathan Chance

01-24-2006, 07:11 AM

unions aren't necessarily the problem. the UAW gets wretched publicity EVERYWHERE and it's not because they're just a union. i believe in unionization. with that being said, yes, the UAW has had many sweetheart deals and gets good money. who says that blame can't rest on the auto makers that agreed to those deals?

This is an important point to make.

It's too easy for conservatives to blame the unions without looking at what I consider the overarching management errors here. Management made extravagant commitments that they couldn't keep because they assumed that good times were permanent. For God's sake, any first year MBA student should know better than that yet they didn't. It should have been an utter firing offense to sign those contracts.

Sam Stone

01-24-2006, 08:09 AM

This is an important point to make.

It's too easy for conservatives to blame the unions without looking at what I consider the overarching management errors here. Management made extravagant commitments that they couldn't keep because they assumed that good times were permanent. For God's sake, any first year MBA student should know better than that yet they didn't. It should have been an utter firing offense to sign those contracts.

Except that the unions kept striking and shutting down the domestic auto industry! The management of those companies was put between a real rock and a hard place by a very militant, very powerful union.

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

01-24-2006, 08:11 AM

A Related Thread

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=355598

eleanorigby

01-24-2006, 08:16 AM

Perhaps I shouldn't stick my nose in here--I don't know much about cars.

But I am a buyer of them (a process that I hate, btw).

I will never buy another American car--by that, I mean one that is manufactured by an American company--I don't care whose soil it's made on. There was a time when I thought that was important, but the lack of quality has cured me of that.

A few years back, we tried the whole mini-van thing. First, an Aerostar--it drove like a truck, handled like a truck; I hated driving it. We traded that in for a Honda wagon--loved that car. But with 2 car seats etc, we needed more room.

So, we bought (like most of America) the Dodge Grand Caravan. This was the straw that broke my back.

--to be told be the dealer that I am "imagining the back wiper going off intermittenly" was BS.
--to have to have the dashboard computer fixed, not once, not twice, but three times and then be told that they disconnected(?) the ground fault wire so that the damned thing would stop shorting (this was after they called Detroit--their term, not mine, to find out the cause of the problem). My dash would just suddenly go black--I would lose speedometer, tachometer, all gauges, lights and the radio etc.

Nice, safe car. Then one of the two sliding side doors died--it would no longer open from the inside. By now the car is 6-7 years old.

There were other things wrong with it, but I won't bore you. The lack of attention to detail and the shrug the shoulders approach to (I have to say this) a woman bringing in these problems did it for me.

I now drive a Volvo wagon and love the handling, the mileage, the low maintenance, the friendliness of the dealer.

I grew with a Chevy wagon, a Nova, several Rabbits and then a Datsun 200SX and a Honda Accord. I was also the child of the Energy crisis--and American car makers just don't get it in my book.

Caffeine.addict

01-24-2006, 08:30 AM

Snickers

01-24-2006, 09:10 AM

As others have said, finish is some of it - U.S. automakers have little idea how to finish the interior of a car. Inexpensive, entry level American models have interiors that look cheap compared to their foreign counterparts. Paying a little attention here will reap amazing benefits.

They refuse to innovate. We all saw a gas crunch coming - you can't tell me they didn't see how high gas prices would impact their sales. Yet they keep churning out SUVs like there's no tomorrow. And they ignore hybrid technology (except Ford - I've bought their hybrid and am happy with it. So at least Ford is innovating.), or refuse to attempt to develop any sort of other alternative. They give lip service to it, but they don't actually *do* anything. And it should be clear by now that hydrogen is not a good answer. But they do nothing.

That's the big problem - the refusal to innovate, to move forward. I'm halfway to believing that GM deserves to go bankrupt.

And if you want to support the American worker, buy a Honda - they're manufactured in Ohio. Where's that American car built again? Oh yeah, Mexico. Lots of support for the American worker there.

Jonathan Chance

01-24-2006, 09:21 AM

Except that the unions kept striking and shutting down the domestic auto industry! The management of those companies was put between a real rock and a hard place by a very militant, very powerful union.

That's crap, Sam, and you know it.

Any reasonable senior management should have said 'Those terms don't work long term for reasons X, Y, and Z.' and walked away from the table. If they were so damn anxious to make a deal that they'd make a BAD one then they deserve what they get.

For Christ's sake, anyone who's a serious negotiator should know enough that they're ready to walk away from a bad deal. The fact that they didn't implies one of two things:

1. They didn't think it was a bad deal and therefore were showing a lack of long-term thinking (or a firm sense that the good times would always be there).

2. They knew it was a bad deal but took it anyway which shows incompetence in management.

And really, given the way the auto industry management has fucked up other things over the past I'd say the smart money is on #1 above. I think they weren't bothered by the deals because they didn't have the ability to see that planning for the future requires using worst-case scenarios and not best-case.

Really, you sound like you believe the UAW (and the non-union white collar folks) smacked senior management over the head and wrote their names on the contracts while they were unconsciounce. Blame no one but management for what they signed.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-24-2006, 10:03 AM

Omniscient

01-24-2006, 11:25 AM

the cycle of bad business decisions when it comes to unions, the UAW's super sweet deals, strikes, buying out of fetid multimillion dollar executive salaries, and overall high auto prices feeds into each other.

i heard somewhere that you spend 5000 bucks per GM car to pay for pensions and old white collar buyouts. (no cite, word of mouf)

It's at about $3200 dollars. Though that's a PR number more than anything. The cost is proportional to revenue not flat across units. $3200 on a Cobalt is absurd, $3200 on a Cadillac XLR is much less so.

Also people keep killing the UAW here, and the union did get some good deals, but they weren't exactly extortion. The GM non-union labor force is getting paid $7 billion a year at a fraction of the head count in legacy costs while the union workers are getting 5.6 billion.

The UAW could use a cutback but to pretend they are the ones who put the GM management in this position is totally bogus.

Nah, your foolin yourself. Nobody laments outsourcing. They lament the jobs lost, yes. But offer them a computer at $500 vs $1000, a 3-pack of T-shirts for $4 vs $9, a happy meal toy for free vs, $2.99 and they'll pick the cheap way out every time.

I think there MAY be a single US tire manufacturer, the rest have all gone overseas. Why do you think that is? Because labor over there is cheap. Cheap enough to overshadow not inconsequential shipping costs.

It's not about patriotism. It's about the US economy. The auto industry makes up close to 5% of the national GDP. Outsourcing and foreign autosales does cut costs which is good, but it also lowers the value of the dollar. It's a balancing act. We need to decrease prices without decreasing incomes to the point that inflation outpaces those savings. One car certainly is not the tipping point but all things being equal I'll buy the American car in hopes that I'll strengthen my dollar.

They refuse to innovate. We all saw a gas crunch coming - you can't tell me they didn't see how high gas prices would impact their sales. Yet they keep churning out SUVs like there's no tomorrow. And they ignore hybrid technology (except Ford - I've bought their hybrid and am happy with it. So at least Ford is innovating.), or refuse to attempt to develop any sort of other alternative.

This just isn't true. American automakers followed the market. They made SUVs, Vans and Trucks because that was what was selling. Toyota made the Pruis and has never made money on it, they did this intentionally as a PR move. If a US automaker intentionally made a car that lost money year after year their stockholders would be killing them.

It wasn't stubbornness of collusion with oil companies, if you want to blame anyone for the products US makers churned out blame the US market for it.

Well for one thing, buying a car isn't always an entirely rational unemotional decision. You say all the better if it's 90% made in America. That's trying to appeal to my feelings of patriotism, which I don't have when it comes to cars. I don't think anyone in this thread has said American cars are better than Japanese. They've just said maybe they're as good as Japanese. What am I going to spend $20K on if they're basically the same? The company that didn't burn me. You can call it pouting. I call it holding a grudge, which I freely admit to.

I'm saying that technology and quality have normalized across all makers. Over the last 4 years Toyota has been the 7th ranked brand in terms of reliability. Buick, Cadillac, Ford, Chrysler are all better. The margins between all these rankings have narrowed to the point that year-to-year they all can change and no one would notice a difference. It reinforces the concept that perception overshadows reality.

I will flat out state that US cars are better than Japanese from a performance standpoint. US are designed and tuned to perform at the outer edge of the envelope (much like European cars) and Japanese cars are not. The only class of cars in which Japanese cars out perform US models is the small entry level largely to cater to the Tuner market, in every other segment US cars out perform Japanese.

I will offer my opinion that taken as a whole US cars are more attractive than Japanese cars. With a few exceptions, the Japanese cars are easily the most boring, bland and downright ugliest designs I've ever seen. Japanese sedans are non-descript cookie cutter styles. YMMV.

Lastly US cars are a better value than Japanese. All things being equal, Japanese cars cost 20% more than the comparable US models. So in the debate with yourself, you are making the choise that you'll pay a premium for the import in order to spite the US makers for something they did 20 years ago. That might be a fair choice if you think that the current high quality standard of US cars is the excpetion not the rule, but if that high standard holds up you're eventually going to have to admit you're paying more based on bias alone.

shelbo

01-24-2006, 11:35 AM

And they ignore hybrid technology (except Ford - I've bought their hybrid and am happy with it. So at least Ford is innovating.), or refuse to attempt to develop any sort of other alternative. They give lip service to it, but they don't actually *do* anything. And it should be clear by now that hydrogen is not a good answer. But they do nothing.

That's the big problem - the refusal to innovate, to move forward. I'm halfway to believing that GM deserves to go bankrupt.

Well, GM did make what was widely regarded as the best electric car ever. With legions of die-hard fans. Of course they did not market it, and they wouldn't sell it to anyone. And when the leases ran out they took them all back and crushed them. But hey, at least they're trying!

Unintentionally Blank

01-24-2006, 11:54 AM

Well, GM did make what was widely regarded as the best electric car ever. With legions of die-hard fans. Of course they did not market it, and they wouldn't sell it to anyone. And when the leases ran out they took them all back and crushed them. But hey, at least they're trying!

Reading between the lines there, it's pretty obvious that GM couldn't SELL the cars for the price they were offering and had no support structure for repairs and replacement of the batteries.

Sure, you get an ounce of good PR in making the bestest Electric Vehicle, then you get dose after dose of BAD PR when people find out the cars kill people in accidents (weight, battery acid), the batteries only last 60,000 miles, and cost half again the price of the car to replace.

The EV1 was always just a pilot project...it helped that it didn't need to be profitable at the same time.

FWIW, the hybrid cars being manufactured today also cost more than they're being sold for, but it's in Toyota/Honda's best interests to continue doing so. Most obviously because those companies take a longer term view of the world. I agree, american firms appear to be waay too short sighted.

light strand

01-24-2006, 12:06 PM

FWIW, the hybrid cars being manufactured today also cost more than they're being sold for, but it's in Toyota/Honda's best interests to continue doing so. Most obviously because those companies take a longer term view of the world. I agree, american firms appear to be waay too short sighted.Toyota and Honda can sell these cars because of the tax breaks they and the consumer get. GM decided to focus on fuel cells and alternate fuel instead of hybrids. Probably because they didn't want to return to the fiasco that was the EV1.

If you really think about it, hybrids really aren't terribly innovative. They are simply gas autos with back up batteries. I think that the problem is that American car companies were looking too far ahead, and wanted to get rid of gasoline as a fuel all together.

Green Bean

01-24-2006, 12:22 PM

It's not a matter of "punishing the U.S. automakers for something they did 20 years ago." It's the fact that what they did 20 years ago still colors our perceptions, whether we mean for it to or not.

Remember that consumer products companies expend huge amounts of money trying to woo kids and teenagers, even though they don't necessarily have the buying power. People form their tastes and impressions when they're young. If you make a teenager into a Coke drinker, then Pepsi has likely lost a customer for life.

Think about the people who were kids and teens in the '80s. I'm an example. I was born in 1971. The era when American cars were at their worst is exactly the time when I was at my most impressionable. I grew up hearing that American cars were junk. I observed that "poor" families were more likely to be driving American cars, and that families with greater means were likely to choose European, and then Japanese cars.

Now I'm 34. My peers and I have arrived at the stage where we have enough discretionary income to be more choosy about what we drive. And those perceptions formed 20 years ago are still in play. I just feel more confident in my Japanese car that I would in an American car. Even if the American cars are truly as good as some of you say, I still think of cars from GM, Chrysler, and Ford as "junk," "hit or miss," and "better than the others, but still not as good as Honda or Toyota" respectively.

Besides, it may well be true that new American cars are as reliable as their Japanese counterparts, but given a choice between something from Toyota, which has been producing reliable cars consistently for decades, and something from GM, which is only recently building supposedly reliable cars, I'd choose the one with the one with the long and consistent history.

eleanorigby

01-24-2006, 12:38 PM

See, I don't see it. It may well be true that across the board, American cars are on par, if not superior to, foreign makes.

But.

My inlaws-got a Park ave a few years ago. Car never ran. Always in the shop--they sold it and got a Ford convertible instead. Car was ok, except that the dinging alarm that warns that a seat belt is off or a door open NEVER turned off.

Dealer couldn't find the problem--after mulitple attempts. You drive a car that constantly dings and see if it doesn't drive you crazy. They got it to be quieter, but it never did shut up. Inlaws sold it to their BIL, who kept it for another 5 years--still dinging. They now have a PT Cruiser, which they are happy with. 1 in 3 odds are not good for car buying, IMO.

My husband's Chrysler LeBaron(?)--oh, never mind. We nicknamed it Christine because it seemed to have a life of its own or it was posessed. But his used SAAB ran like a champ, his Camry is on 280,000 miles and looks good.

Long story short: I have never had a worry free American car in my life. And since I won't gamble with 20+ grand, I won't give them another try.

IMO, Detroit doesn't care about fuel economy and keeps pushing the sexiness of cars--who cares? Not this upper middle class, white female. Gimme a car that is reliable and cost effective. And not in weird colors. That I'll buy-again and again.

I agree about the cheap interiors.

light strand

01-24-2006, 01:02 PM

That’s what’s funny, I’ve only owned five cars. A ‘71 Chevy Impala, the only car in the neighborhood which started at -20F, and which is probably still running somewhere. A ’76 Buick Skyhawk which crapped out at ~100,000 miles, an 81 Pontiac T1000, which I gave away when I went to college (I don’t know how many miles it had), a ‘95 Corsica, which has 120,000 miles and I just gave to my niece, and my new ’05 Chevy Malibu Maxx, which I love.

On the other hand, my sister had a Datsun which ran so badly she left it unlocked in a parking lot with the title on the front seat. My husband had a Chevy Truck which he gave away with 200,000mi on it, and I still see it tooling around town, but he bought a used Acura when he was stationed briefly in CA, and it only had 110,000 miles on it. It had to get a rebuilt engine after about a month. He sold that piece of shit to an Acura Lover for $2000 and it died shortly after. He told the guy it was a piece of crap but was told “It’s an Acura, it’ll get a minimum of 200,000”. That guy shoulda got a Chevy.

I think maybe the reason I’ve had good luck with cars is because I know what the hell I’m doing. I think Asian cars are good for people who don’t know the dip stick from the brake pedal, but if you know what the hell you’re doing, American cars are much easier to work on and far more reliable.

Can I ask eleanorigby why the hell no one simply pulled the fuse on your dinging car?

Least Original User Name Ever

01-24-2006, 01:09 PM

light strand

01-24-2006, 01:29 PM

all that would be fine and dandy, but how do you account for frequent breakdowns?What break downs? When I mean work on, I mean that I can change my own oil, I know how to check it, and make sure it's done regularly. I used to be able to check/fix the rest of the stuff (spark plugs, hoses, etc.) on the older cars, but now it's all computerized.

Omniscient

01-24-2006, 01:38 PM

all that would be fine and dandy, but how do you account for frequent breakdowns?

there have been lists compiled that shoe that american cars tend to need more trips to garages per year.

In this century this is patently false. As has been repeated over and over in this thread every study done shows that American cars do not require more maintence than other brands.

The overwhelming perceptions color people's judgements to a degree no one realizes. The article I quoted earlier illustrated the point by quoting a story by an Edmunds.com road test of a 2003 Honda Pilot. Editors contradicted themselves by praising it while also reporting constant mechanical problems, the most gratuitous of which was a broken timing belt which stranded the editor-in-chief and his family in Utah. Had this been a Chevy they'd have killed it.

People who have owned many dfferent brands often have rose colored memories of their favorites and the opposite of the others. Statistics could show that they had each vehicle in the shop an equal number of times and spent the same amount of money on upkeep but they'd swear up and down that their favorite was the more reliable.

It's true that many minds will never be changed, but the goal is to remove the reputation of poor reliablity to gain the trust of new buyers not old ones.

Least Original User Name Ever

01-24-2006, 01:39 PM

What break downs? When I mean work on, I mean that I can change my own oil, I know how to check it, and make sure it's done regularly. I used to be able to check/fix the rest of the stuff (spark plugs, hoses, etc.) on the older cars, but now it's all computerized.

well, i saw in the paper a while back about how a magazine (could be consumer reports, i don't recall) charted the average number of breakdowns a car has in a year. japanese cars ranked higher on the list with fewer breakdowns than american cars did.

light strand

01-24-2006, 01:45 PM

mack

01-24-2006, 01:53 PM

It's too easy for conservatives to blame the unions without looking at what I consider the overarching management errors here. Management made extravagant commitments that they couldn't keep because they assumed that good times were permanent. For God's sake, any first year MBA student should know better than that yet they didn't. It should have been an utter firing offense to sign those contracts.

Also, GM still pays out a $2 a share dividend. As long as they're looking to stem the hemorrhaging, why not put that on the table?

My general feeling can be summed up with my search for a small, relatively inexpensive AWD wagon. There's no such thing from Detroit, except maybe the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix (yuck, and it's not much of a wagon anyway). I suppose I could get a BIG AWD wagon, like a Chrysler Pacifica that gets shitty gas mileage or a Dodge Magnum with it's utterly ridiculous styling, but that's not what I want. I'd consider a Ford Focus if it had AWD, but it doesn't. I just want a little wagon with AWD. It's not like I'm asking for something unusual here. So how hard are you going to make that for me, Detroit? Impossible, I guess. So I bought a Subaru. If I want a certain type of car, given all the resources at hand, I'd think American makers collectively would have multiple options. They don't. Often they have no options.

This just isn't true. American automakers followed the market. They made SUVs, Vans and Trucks because that was what was selling.
<snip>
if you want to blame anyone for the products US makers churned out blame the US market for it.

Come on. Small cars didn't sell during this period? There's always a market in the US for small cars. It's not either/or.

light strand

01-24-2006, 01:57 PM

There's always a market for small cars, but GM was making a buttload on the SUVs and breaking even on the small cars. Capitalists would say: "focus on the SUVs, stupid!"

Omniscient

01-24-2006, 02:08 PM

Come on. Small cars didn't sell during this period? There's always a market in the US for small cars. It's not either/or.

It's not that they didn't exist its that SUVs and Trucks outsold small cars by a huge margin and have a much higher profit margin. Remember that over the last few years or so the Ford F-150 is the top selling vehilce in the country, at about a 50% higher pricetag than any small car. Before that it was the Taurus then the Explorer and before that it was the Caravan.

That's not to say it wasn't foolish to concede the small car market to the Japanese from a business standpoint, but to blame the US automakers for forcing SUVs on us is just stupid. We wanted them, we bought them, they provided them. People blaming gas consumption on domestic automakers are pretending that they prevented small foreign cars from being sold. There's no one to blame for the glut of gas guzzlers on but the car buying public.

Additionally, remember that the Toyota Prius wasn't that fuel efficient when it was rolled out. It turned in basically the same numbers as every other compact car, often worse due to it's weight. The car was designed to be a clean car, not a fuel economy superstar.

Omniscient

01-24-2006, 02:12 PM

well, i saw in the paper a while back about how a magazine (could be consumer reports, i don't recall) charted the average number of breakdowns a car has in a year. japanese cars ranked higher on the list with fewer breakdowns than american cars did.

Also keep in mind that Consumer Reports ranking are wholly based on consumer opinion polls, not real data. They do not measure repair costs or cost of ownership. They measure the opinion of people who fill out surveys and they do not require that those filling out the survey are actually owners of the cars they review.

Essentially they are a measure of the public opinion, not the reality of the situation. It's a cute little self-fulfilling system they have. People think one car is good, they take a survery on it, then publish it to people telling them what they should think.

Philster

01-24-2006, 02:12 PM

Omniscient

01-24-2006, 02:25 PM

Omniscient, IMHO, it is Detroit's responsibility to manage these issues.

If they are getting bad PR, they need to manage it.

If they are better and they can prove it, they need to demnonstrate it.

If they have higher quality, they should shove it down our throats.

I agree 100%. By no means am I absolving the Big Three of the blame. They got themselves in this position in every respect. The public perception is their fault at it's core.

Still, in the spirit of the SD, I think it's fair to point out incorrect information when people repeat it. Public perception isn't always correct so that should be clarified. Detroit should be working as hard as USA auto honks are to get word out.

If BORING BLAND COOKIE CUTTER CARS SELL, then don't tell us we don't want them....MAKE THEM.

I'm not so sure about that. Conformity and innovation are both smart design philosophies but they can be diametrically opposed. When you're not leading the pack, I'm not sure imitating the leaders is the best way to raise your stature. You need a inteligent dose of both in the right places.

IMHO, DRAGGING AMERICA THROUGH THE MUD at every chance given = American Industry suffers.

IMHO, Car and Driver, Motor Trend and Consumer Reports (they get subjective) are staffed by America bashers.

Alot of America bashing is warranted, and is a blessed thing in our free society, but IMHO, alot of America bashing (coporate America this, and corp America that) is flat out biased.

The auto industry needs to do more than make cars, they need to overcome the hate and prejudice many have --in this country-- against American corporations.

Also agreed. Though that's not to imply that all the bashing is unwarranted. People and the media need to learn to see all the facts and be more willing to think about things. Corporate America has done some horrible and stupid things, Detroit being no exception, but that doesn't mean you should start generalizing. Still in the free market it's these corporations job to repair that image through both PR and real positive change.

Hello Again

01-24-2006, 02:48 PM

I think it is quite interesting the Big Three might talk fom time to time about their credibility gap, but I don't see them stepping up to the plate on the subject of warranties.

Companies like Hyundai have tackled their reliability questions head on with huge warranties (10 yr/100,000 on the powertrain with 5/yr 60,000 mile bumper to bumper). The consumer is taking a risk that Hyundai quality is better than in the past but it is a risk that is cushioned by the warranty.

If Ford offered a comparable warranty on the Focus I think there might be more takers. These days a company that offers 3 yr/36,000 gives the appearance that it doesn't stand behind their product.

Necros

01-24-2006, 03:05 PM

I just want a little wagon with AWD. It's not like I'm asking for something unusual here. So how hard are you going to make that for me, Detroit? Impossible, I guess. So I bought a Subaru.

Of course, I hope you're not looking for reliability. I mean, at 58K miles our Subaru with the 2.5L engine blew both head gaskets. At 62K, it lost some automatic transmission hose. Now at 80K I just replaced the battery (no biggie), one LCD clock, the full set of gauge lights and the rear defroster button.

And, as we're continuing with anecdotal data, my friend just blew up the engine in her Camry at 60K miles. No abuse, the thing just died.

Conversely, my 1973 Cadillac Eldorado ran for 372K miles, lost half the cylinders and still ran. My 1988 Toyota Celica slipped the timing belt, was 180 degrees off time and still ran. Of course, with the Toyota, I won't mention that it required repairs in the amount of FIVE TIMES the purchase price of the car in the previous year before it did that.

Anecdotes are pretty much crap when it comes to cars, but eveyone seems to base their decisions on them. If you haven't checked out a decent American car lately, I suggest it. Try renting a Cadillac CTS or something.

I think it's hilarious that eleanorigby says that one car is unreliable because the door chime kees going off, but another is reliable because it got 280K miles on the engine. Did you ask the Camry owner if anything ELSE had ever gone wrong on his car, or is miles achieved the sole measure of Japanese reliability, whereas broken geegaws are the sole measure of American reliability?

Don't get me wrong. I love all cars. ATM, I have four Japanese and one American car, and they're all great, depite varying problems. I will say that of all the cars I've owned (of many nationalities) the only one that has ever stranded me on the side of the road was a Japanese one. ;)

Omniscient

01-24-2006, 03:17 PM

Rocketeer

01-24-2006, 03:19 PM

vibrotronica

01-24-2006, 03:28 PM

Since this is IMHO, I'll offer my HO. There are two big things wrong with the American auto industry.

1) They need to make better cars. If they really did that, all of their problems would be over. In light of this thread and the claims of increased quality (for which I see no cites, btw, only anecdotal evidence that does not jibe with my personal anecdotal evidence) I asked myself honestly if price were not an issue, were there any American cars I would buy. The only one that I could think of is the new Mustang, and that's because they kind of look like the old, golden-age Mustangs.

2) The health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry are literally eating all other industries in America. That's because it is thought to be business' job to provide health care to their employees rather than the government's job to deliver a healthy workforce to industry. I think many businesses used to be OK with that because of the increased power it gave them over their employees ("You don't like working double overtime for no pay? Fine, I'll see to it that your kids don't get to see a doctor.") but now the healthcare industries totally have the upper hand and are able to command any price they want, and that's taking a huge chunk out of the bottom line. Why aren't the captains of industry calling for socialized healthcare in the United States so they rid themselves of a big red mark on their balance sheets?

eleanorigby

01-24-2006, 03:32 PM

I think maybe the reason I’ve had good luck with cars is because I know what the hell I’m doing. I think Asian cars are good for people who don’t know the dip stick from the brake pedal, but if you know what the hell you’re doing, American cars are much easier to work on and far more reliable.

Can I ask eleanorigby why the hell no one simply pulled the fuse on your dinging car?

Sure you can ask. I asked my FIL and he said, "They could never find the appropriate fuse/circuit." I tend to look :dubious: at that, but he is the one (and he used to do all the repairs on his American cars) who took it to the dealer etc.

But here is one of my points: I shouldn't HAVE to know all about cars to be able to buy one and trust it to work reliably. I have NO desire to work on my own car. I fill tires and gas tank and take it for it's routine oil changes and maintenance checks. That's all that should be required of me (and knowing how to change a tire--I do).

I'm happy to give you laughs, Necros --but that Camry is in the driveway, still works, has had new brakes and new tires and that's about it, except for routine maintenance.

I can't help but go by anecdotes. And they are unreliable as anyone wants to make them. A constantly dinging chime is hardly a geegaw--it's enough for someone to dump the car.

The same thing with the shorted circuit computer thing in my dashboard of the Dodge: who is going to drive a car that the dashboard blacks out with no rhyme or reason?

Sometimes it would black out and then come right back on. It took forever for the dealer to take me seriously (the auto industry needs to find a way to cope with females) and when they finally did--it was under warranty(probably the only thing that was) and they were obviously pissed about having to take care of it. But they sure wanted my positive feedback on their cockamamie 5 star treatment surveys. :rolleyes: Re the back windshield wiper just wiping whenever the hell it felt like it--that was not considered a design issue and they refused to look into it. Just like the Ford dealer with the convertible--can't fix it easily, then you have to put up with it. This is NOT good customer service. I would say the same if it were a foreign make, but that hasn't happened with the "foreign" cars I've owned.

We have a friend, who started out as an engineer for Ford and then went to Toyota. He said something to us (while he was still at Ford) that really stuck with me. He said that "in the end, the consumer will adapt to the car."

That strikes me as the Big Three's attitude to their own industry. Yep, we DO adapt--which is why rental cars can be stressful for just that first day--but it comes across as callous and indifferent.

So, for me, it is not about the size of the engine, the "performance", the styling or the sexiness. It's a car: it conveys me from point A to point B. I want a quiet engine, good gas mileage, conservative styling and legroom. So far, Detroit isn't talking to me. I don't need a gas guzzler, a car that proves my penis is as big as my ego, a status symbol, or a man magnet (ha!). My market IS foreign makes.

It will take alot for American car makers to win me back.

VenusProbe

01-24-2006, 03:35 PM

I was burned by Ford. I owned a Ford Probe that was incredibly unreliable. Things were always going wrong. After that I decided to go Japanese.

My dad rented a Pontiac GrandAm when my folks came to visit and I drove it a bit. THe engine response was nice, but the interior felt cheap. I didn't like the touch and feel of the knobs and the radio, and the fabric of the seats felt a bit cheap. I think that this is the kind of thing that turns a lot of people off. Most people really don't know much about engine design, but everybody can tell what the interior looks like and if it feels cheap. That Probe was manufactured by Mazda and they were all crap. The only ford I'd buy now is the 2006 mustang GT and I wouldn't drive it much. I agree about the cheap look and feel of the interiors on american cars, the last 3 Dodge/Plymouth vans we've had were very reliable but kind of cheesy on the inside.

bordelond

01-24-2006, 03:38 PM

bordelond

01-24-2006, 03:40 PM

That’s what’s funny, I’ve only owned five cars. A ‘71 Chevy Impala, the only car in the neighborhood which started at -20F, and which is probably still running somewhere. A ’76 Buick Skyhawk which crapped out at ~100,000 miles, an 81 Pontiac T1000, which I gave away when I went to college (I don’t know how many miles it had), a ‘95 Corsica, which has 120,000 miles and I just gave to my niece, and my new ’05 Chevy Malibu Maxx, which I love.

On the other hand, my sister had a Datsun which ran so badly she left it unlocked in a parking lot with the title on the front seat. My husband had a Chevy Truck which he gave away with 200,000mi on it, and I still see it tooling around town, but he bought a used Acura when he was stationed briefly in CA, and it only had 110,000 miles on it. It had to get a rebuilt engine after about a month. He sold that piece of shit to an Acura Lover for $2000 and it died shortly after. He told the guy it was a piece of crap but was told “It’s an Acura, it’ll get a minimum of 200,000”. That guy shoulda got a Chevy.

I think maybe the reason I’ve had good luck with cars is because I know what the hell I’m doing. I think Asian cars are good for people who don’t know the dip stick from the brake pedal, but if you know what the hell you’re doing, American cars are much easier to work on and far more reliable.

My experiences are much in line with yours. However, I have seen many, many Japanese cars and trucks run forever. At the same time, I have seen many America cars do the same :shrug:

eleanorigby

01-24-2006, 03:43 PM

vibtronica--I agree with your post, but one caveat: it's the insurance industry, specifically health ins that is eating the rest of the industry alive.

Many. many health care decisions (what to cover, what not to) are made by insurers with no health care/medical background whatsoever.

Believe me, the docs and nurses don't like it either. We have FT people on staff whose job it is to make sure the i's are dotted and the t's crossed so that the hospital can get reimbursed.

Also, the unions wouldn't have to agitate for decent health care bennys, if we had socialized med in this country--but that's another thread.

light strand

01-24-2006, 03:51 PM

They need to make better cars. If they really did that, all of their problems would be over. In light of this thread and the claims of increased quality (for which I see no cites, btw, only anecdotal evidence that does not jibe with my personal anecdotal evidence) Here you go: JD Power (http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005089) Don't buy a MINI or a Kia

Neurotik

01-24-2006, 03:53 PM

One thing I'm seeing is that in the used car market, the major Japanese badges are 30-50% more expensive than comparable American cars of the same vintage, mileage and body style.

For the same money, I can get a 2004 Dodge Stratus with 25,000 miles ... or a 1996 Honda Accord/Toyota Camry with 120,000 miles. I'm not seeing the value in the Japanese brands here.
No, you wouldn't if you were buying a used car. If the case is that those cars are as reliable as the Japanese ones (and I'm not saying that they aren't), then the real value in the used car would be in the American cars.

However, the higher resale price is a big benefit to initial purchasers of the Japanese cars, since they will get more money when they are ready to trade in the car.

bordelond

01-24-2006, 03:55 PM

Here you go: JD Power (http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005089) Don't buy a MINI or a Kia
Glad you posted this. I'm in the market for a used car now, and the recent model Kias were tempting. They, too, are fairly expensive, though -- not on the order of the Toyota/Honda/Nissans, but more than the America makes.

bordelond

01-24-2006, 03:56 PM

However, the higher resale price is a big benefit to initial purchasers of the Japanese cars, since they will get more money when they are ready to trade in the car.
Seems to be cancelled out if you follow brand loyalty, and have to dump $25,000 into a new Camry.

Omniscient

01-24-2006, 04:03 PM

2) The health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry are literally eating all other industries in America. That's because it is thought to be business' job to provide health care to their employees rather than the government's job to deliver a healthy workforce to industry. I think many businesses used to be OK with that because of the increased power it gave them over their employees ("You don't like working double overtime for no pay? Fine, I'll see to it that your kids don't get to see a doctor.") but now the healthcare industries totally have the upper hand and are able to command any price they want, and that's taking a huge chunk out of the bottom line. Why aren't the captains of industry calling for socialized healthcare in the United States so they rid themselves of a big red mark on their balance sheets?
I agree with this basic premise and I could rant and rave about the evils of insurance and health care companies, however I'm not sure it applies to Detroit's problems.

Certainly they work at a competitive disadvantage to socialized economies, but many other US companies are profitable and competitive with foreign companies under the same system. Eliminating the burden of health care costs to the auto industry would be something like corporate welfare. Their numbers would look sunnier and they'd improve relations with the UAW but it wouldn't force them to improve their management. In a way the ugly health care situation forces them to become better managed, Darwinian in a way.

Neurotik

01-24-2006, 04:08 PM

Seems to be cancelled out if you follow brand loyalty, and have to dump $25,000 into a new Camry.
A basic Camry costs $19,000. Its counterpart at Ford is the Taurus, which costs $21,000. The counterpart at Chevy is the Impala, I believe. That starts at $21,000 as well. In fact, the most expensive model of Camry (XLE) only costs a bit over $22,000. So it seems that you get the lower initial price and the better resale price by buying the Japanese car.

bordelond

01-24-2006, 04:09 PM

A basic Camry costs $19,000.
Can't do that down here ... A/C is no considered an option.

Neurotik

01-24-2006, 04:14 PM

Can't do that down here ... A/C is no considered an option.
Good thing A/C is standard on all Camry models then.

bordelond

01-24-2006, 04:16 PM

Camry for MSRP $25,000 (http://www.nadaguides.com/vhp/features.aspx?LI=1-10-1-2018-0-0-0&Lnk=1&wSec=10&wPr=1&wPg=2042&sy=280688&type=New) ... admittedly not a basic model. I was going by pricing I saw in lots this past weekend.

In any case, I'm looking at my next car in a strictly utilitarian sense ... not as a financial investment.

Omniscient

01-24-2006, 04:36 PM

A basic Camry costs $19,000. Its counterpart at Ford is the Taurus, which costs $21,000. The counterpart at Chevy is the Impala, I believe. That starts at $21,000 as well. In fact, the most expensive model of Camry (XLE) only costs a bit over $22,000. So it seems that you get the lower initial price and the better resale price by buying the Japanese car.

This is terrible comparison. The Taurus for starters isn't even being made any more. The Fusion and Malibu are the direct competitors for the Toyota Camry and share almost identical proportions, engines and trim levels. The Impala and Ford 500 are the competion for the Toyota Avalon.

Go here and compare the 2006 Ford Fusion V6 SE and the 2006 Toyota Camry V6 SE.

Camry: $24,065
Fusion: $20,625

Now compare the 2006 Toyota Avalon XL, the 2006 Ford 500 SE FWD and the 2006 Chevy Impala 3LT.

Avalon: $26,625
500: $22,230
Impala: $23,730

There's simply no argument by which Toyotas or Hondas are comparable in price to Fords and Chevys.

Omniscient

01-24-2006, 04:37 PM

Sorry, forgot to copy in the hyperlink. The site I used was this:
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/comparison/select.html;_ylt=Ara3RRzVFGaExKBovLoHs4wEc78F

Sublight

01-24-2006, 06:02 PM

Toyota made the Pruis and has never made money on it, they did this intentionally as a PR move. If a US automaker intentionally made a car that lost money year after year their stockholders would be killing them.

If it's solely a money-losing PR move, then why is Toyota releasing even more hybrid models? They've already added it to the Estima minivan and Crown sedan, as well as to the Lexus RH and GS, and a new hybrid LS is being released late this year. The Prius was more than PR, it was a technological stepping stone. The current models are more powerful and more comfortable than the original, and are improving with each season. GM (and Nissan) simply missed the boat.

And Toyota is a publicly traded company, just like GM, and must answer to shareholders for its actions. Do you think concept of capitalism hasn't quite caught on yet in Japan?

Omniscient

01-24-2006, 06:17 PM

Green Bean

01-24-2006, 06:32 PM

I just want a little wagon with AWD. It's not like I'm asking for something unusual here. So how hard are you going to make that for me, Detroit? Impossible, I guess. So I bought a Subaru.
Of course, I hope you're not looking for reliability....[continues with anecdotes of Japanese cars with problems]
I understand that you're knowingly playing "dueling anecdotes" here, but you skipped over the point of this part of mack's post.

One reason U.S. automakers are losing sales is that they seem to be very adept at not giving customers what they want. Sure, they give some customers what they want, but they ignore whole segments of the auto buying market.

What year did the Subaru Outback debut? 1995? It was a huge hit from the get-go. Did the American automakers take the hint? No. (To be fair, Honda and Toyota missed the boat on this one, too) Truck-based SUVs and minivans were definitley "hotter" categories, but the car-based Outbacks were selling like hotcakes, and are still selling like hotcakes. You can't throw a stick in a parking lot around here without hitting a Subie.

Eventually, the U.S. automakers tried to come out with some cars to compete with the Outback, but they showed that the big 3 had somehow completely missed the point of why the Outbacks were so popular. Pontiac Aztek, anyone?

At this point, there are a few more Outback-like vehicles out there, but not many, and none of them are from U.S. makers. In the past two years, I've seen two people close to me looking for something like an Outback, and finding remarkably few choices. Both parties didn't care for Subaru's admittedly quirky handling, and one of them definitely wanted something more upscale. That person bought a Saab wagon.* The other bought a used Volvo Cross-country. Might they have bought something "American?" They didn't even have the option.

*Yeah, I know Saab is now owned by Ford.

Voyager

01-24-2006, 06:54 PM

Sublight, I never said it couldn't make money, just that it hasn't. It's not clear if the upcoming models will be sold at a loss or not and if they'll recoup development costs anytime soon. In either case my statement is nonetheless true.

I can't speak for the business environment in Japan, but considering the layoffs, union negotiations, missed revenue projections and bad PR Detroit has been getting purposely creating a loss-leader would have been corporate suicide. I don't know the specifics but I assume part of this is the cause of the demise of the EV-1, which everyone forgets predated the Prius. Equating the two just because Toyota is publicly held as well is misguided.
Was the EV-1 the beginning of a line, or was it an experiment? GM didn't seem to go back and try to do better.

The Prius was gettting Toyota up the learning curve for hybrids. You don't do that and make money at the same time. When the development costs get amortized over their entire line of cars, it is going to look a lot more reasonable. When there is a perception that you save money buying one (forget what the real story is) you do fine also. In California a Prius will get you into the carpool lane with one driver. That is worth a lot around here.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Saturn. I got one in '93, and another in '97 when my first gave its life to protect my wife. (Some clown ran a red light and hit her right in the driver side door - she spent a few hours in the emergency room, thanks to its construction.) They were both a lot better than the Datsun I used to have. But GM totally screwed it up, labor, styling, reliability, marketing. Damn shame.

Omniscient

01-24-2006, 08:17 PM

Was the EV-1 the beginning of a line, or was it an experiment? GM didn't seem to go back and try to do better.

No idea, but my guess is that it was a extended concept vehicle. I think they made an effort and found that the technology wasn't yet feasible to make profitably. It also showed demand wasn't yet there. I'm guessing they didn't go back to the well because the business climate had changed to where they couldn't justify the gamble.

The Prius was gettting Toyota up the learning curve for hybrids. You don't do that and make money at the same time. When the development costs get amortized over their entire line of cars, it is going to look a lot more reasonable.

True, GM certainty could have afforded to take the gamble on it, it would have been a difficult sell and it might have left them in an even worse situation than they are now.

slaphead

01-25-2006, 04:23 AM

I've said this before, but my perception (based purely on what cars make it over the Atlantic and what I read about them) is that US carmakers have not willingly made a single innovation that wasn't forced on them by regulations or competitors in the last half-century at least. Their attitude seems to be "sell the same thing as last year unless the bastards won't buy it. If they won't, throw in something (anything) different and call it a new feature".

Other carmakers seem to actually look at car buyers and make an attempt to deliver what they want - economy, safety, reliability, performance, warranties, whatever. Their attitude comes across more as "what can we add this year to make the customer like it more?".

Cars nowadays are not some super-special product category - they are just like toasters or TVs or any other generic appliance. If you don't pay close attention to making stuff that meets customer needs, you are utterly screwed. Whether Big3 cars are "Better value" or "more reliable" or "superior" or whatever is pretty much irrelevant - if they have unpleasant interiors or rude dealers or other flaws that matter to the consumer, they won't get bought because there are plenty of other alternatives out there to choose from. The Big3 obsession with keeping the production line running 24/7 and only making vehicles with a huge profit margin is a hangover from the prehistoric age of manufacturing - if you saw Samsung or Dell behaving like that you'd think they'd lost their minds.

And US cars tuned to the edge of the envelope? I'd like a cite for that, please. From what I've seen they are tuned to minimise the effects of sloppy tolerances - hence engines which are weak for their capacity, terrible handling and bad fuel economy

Unintentionally Blank

01-25-2006, 06:50 AM

And US cars tuned to the edge of the envelope? I'd like a cite for that, please. From what I've seen they are tuned to minimise the effects of sloppy tolerances - hence engines which are weak for their capacity, terrible handling and bad fuel economy

Man, I was with ya all the way up til your last statement. Yours is a blanket statement based on an emotional assessment there. Displacement on Demand from Dodge and Chevy make some pretty signifcant gains, Supercharging from Ford make for some pretty good performance numbers from smaller displacements, Chevy's Eco-tec 4 cylinder platform is a stellar performer, and the 505 hp 427 cu. in. LS7 can't be touched in ANY vehicle for twice the price. (without a gas guzzler tax. How does THAT happen?)

Hp per liter is an irrelevant metric, you might as well mention miles per lb. of tire pressure. HP production is a subject that pretty much ANYONE with enough money has solved.

As far as handling is concerned, that's a purely subjective assessment, and a nice strawman to debate. You can argue handling in a MINI is better than the handling in a Magnum, but the two vehicles are tuned to different audiences who have different handling desires. Does a Porshce outhandle a Corvette? That depends on the driver, surface, day and phase of the moon, I'd submit. And the differences are so far out on the edge of the envelope that only .01% of the world's population would be able to determine the difference.

Debate this on interior materials, management techniques, and economics, but I don't think you can make an arguement fly that American makes are less technologically accomplished.

Shirley Ujest

01-25-2006, 07:05 AM

Two reasons: cupholders and no place to put the purse.

mack

01-25-2006, 07:30 AM

One reason U.S. automakers are losing sales is that they seem to be very adept at not giving customers what they want. Sure, they give some customers what they want, but they ignore whole segments of the auto buying market.

Exactly.

It's not that I dislike American cars. I had a '93 Escort wagon before I bought the Subaru. My beef is that out of all the marques coming out of Detroit, the small car offerings are so limited. And then when the SUV market turns sour, people start buying smaller cars, and hard times fall on the corporations who do people blame? The unions. Give me a break. Granted they're not making things easier but unions or not, if US makers aren't offering it, I'm not buying it.

slaphead

01-25-2006, 07:54 AM

As far as handling is concerned, that's a purely subjective assessment, and a nice strawman to debate. You can argue handling in a MINI is better than the handling in a Magnum, but the two vehicles are tuned to different audiences who have different handling desires. Does a Porshce outhandle a Corvette? That depends on the driver, surface, day and phase of the moon, I'd submit. And the differences are so far out on the edge of the envelope that only .01% of the world's population would be able to determine the difference.

Debate this on interior materials, management techniques, and economics, but I don't think you can make an arguement fly that American makes are less technologically accomplished.
Bear in mind that I'm not a petrol head and I'm a European, so I'm not only uneducated but coming at this from an environment where a big V8 is going to cost an astronomical amount in fuel and would be expected to put out serious performance as a result - over here a 5.7 litre Chrysler engine that only puts out 340hp is just silly when Audi can get that out of a 4.2L and obtain similar fuel economy despite running 4WD. Similarly, cars are expected to deal with small roads and tight corners without wallowing like paddle-steamers, which is beyond the ability of most US imports.

Cars are obviously built with completely different trade-offs between price/engine capacity/interior volume/suspension stability because they will be operating in different environments, but overall US cars (as far as I have seen, which is not much) prioritise interior volume, low-speed cruising and bump handling much more than japanese or Euro cars - so I would expect the Mini to be much better at going round corners controllably than the Magnum but a lot lumpier, which to me means better handling (but less comfort). And I think a lot more than .01% of drivers can tell the difference between a Porsche and a Corvette when taking a twisty road at speed.

Technical inferiority doesn't come into it, it's just a question of what is proritised during the design and manufacturing process - from this side of the pond it seems that handling, efficiency and finish take a back seat to reduced manufacturing cost, ride comfort and 'portion size' for want of a better phrase.
Which may make sense for the US, but not for Europe/Japan. And given the current market situation, it looks like it's not that great for the US marketplace either.

Scissorjack

01-25-2006, 07:54 AM

It's not a matter of "punishing the U.S. automakers for something they did 20 years ago." It's the fact that what they did 20 years ago still colors our perceptions, whether we mean for it to or not.

<snip>

Think about the people who were kids and teens in the '80s. I'm an example. I was born in 1971. The era when American cars were at their worst is exactly the time when I was at my most impressionable. I grew up hearing that American cars were junk. I observed that "poor" families were more likely to be driving American cars, and that families with greater means were likely to choose European, and then Japanese cars.

Slightly off topic, but this is why there is no longer a British car industry in any real sense. You buy a mid-70's Mini as a poor student, and the distributor is placed right against the front grille: every time it rains, the car won't start. You blank out the grille with a metal shield, and the engine overheats. You pray someone will steal it, and eventually ditch it and buy a Mitsubishi Mirage, which runs like a clock.

Fast forward 15 years, when you have a wife, a kid and a job: are you going to buy a British car, which some people say might work as well as a Japanese car - although you're still pissed off that you had to spend your beer money during exams just to get to university on time - or are you going to buy a Mazda? People harbour grudges over cars, and I don't think a lot of car manufacturers have cottoned on yet as to how deep those grudges run, or how long they last.

Neurotik

01-25-2006, 08:50 AM

This is terrible comparison. The Taurus for starters isn't even being made any more. The Fusion and Malibu are the direct competitors for the Toyota Camry and share almost identical proportions, engines and trim levels. The Impala and Ford 500 are the competion for the Toyota Avalon.
Your own link has an '06 Taurus model as offer for a comparison, so you may be incorrect in saying the Taurus is not being made anymore. I was getting all of my numbers directly from the manufacturers.

light strand

01-25-2006, 09:14 AM

Your own link has an '06 Taurus model as offer for a comparison, so you may be incorrect in saying the Taurus is not being made anymore. I was getting all of my numbers directly from the manufacturers.They just closed the Taurus plant. It was announced Monday.

There is no way the Impala is competitor to a Camry. It has a bigger engine, larger body proportions, and is overall a much higher end car.

I have come to this conclusion from this thread:

People who love cars, love American. People who want to get from point A to point B, will take Foreign. I don't know what this means, but that's what I see.

levdrakon

01-25-2006, 09:18 AM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Saturn. I got one in '93, and another in '97 when my first gave its life to protect my wife. (Some clown ran a red light and hit her right in the driver side door - she spent a few hours in the emergency room, thanks to its construction.) They were both a lot better than the Datsun I used to have. But GM totally screwed it up, labor, styling, reliability, marketing. Damn shame.

I was thinking of them too. They seemed to herald in a new era for American auto manufacturers. I had two friends buy them within about a year of each other. The one friend leased hers and got screwed when she moved out of state and ended up having to buy it, but the car was very reliable for many years. She bought it around '92 or '93 and as far as I know, she still has it. It costs a lot to maintain now, and it's basically a clunker, but it still runs. My other friend got rid of his after about five to six years. I don't think it was because it broke down or anything, he was just sick of it.

I'd driven both those cars and in both cases, I thought they sucked. They seemed decently reliable but they also reeked of generic, generic, generic. I drove my female friend's Saturn about two years ago and after all these years is still bugs the crap out of me how small it is inside and how the electric widows work. The controls are in the center consol, and to me, they work backwards.

It was a good start though, for American car manufactures. Did they ever make anything of themselves? I don't hear about Saturns much these days.

Johnny L.A.

01-25-2006, 09:22 AM

Slightly off topic, but this is why there is no longer a British car industry in any real sense. You buy a mid-70's Mini as a poor student, and the distributor is placed right against the front grille: every time it rains, the car won't start. You blank out the grille with a metal shield, and the engine overheats. You pray someone will steal it, and eventually ditch it and buy a Mitsubishi Mirage, which runs like a clock.
I was under the impression that the British car industry was the victim of horrible mismanagement. But then, the histories I've read have been of BMC/BL.
People who love cars, love American. People who want to get from point A to point B, will take Foreign.
I disagree. Go back and look at the list of cars I've owned. The cars I've loved were British and German, and they were not mere conveyances. I put a premium on handling. If there's a lot of power, so much the better. The MGBs weren't very fast (a bit over 100 mph max) but they handled well. The 924 was a little faster and handled better. The 911 handled extremely well, and was also fast.

IMO American performance cars are designed to operate on wide, straight roads. European performance cars are designed to operate on narrower, twisty roads. Some 'people who love cars' just want to go fast. Others, like me, want to maneuver.

Frank

01-25-2006, 09:22 AM

It was a good start though, for American car manufactures. Did they ever make anything of themselves? I don't hear about Saturns much these days.
They've turned into just another generic GM label. I have a 2001 L300 which had many build and electrical issues. And it's not looking like it's going to last forever, either.

My understanding is that all the new Saturn models have those issues. I won't buy another.

Snickers

01-25-2006, 09:30 AM

"Following the market" you say - and that's exactly the problem. The big three are "following the market," while who's leading? Big hint: it's not them.

Now that consumers are demanding better gas mileage, Chevy's come out with a big campaign: "We offer X models of cars (I forget the exact number) that get 30 mpg or better." That's a good step, but it's three years too late - my Mazda sport wagon already gets 30 mpg or better, regularly, even in the cold, and it's a 2002. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of Toyota's or Honda's models get over 30 mpg, not just a small selection.

No, hybrid technology isn't the solution. But it's a step in the right direction. And maybe Toyota's losing money. But you know something? They sell like hotcakes. You can't go to a dealer without looking at a 6 - 9 month waiting period. I know - we went to Toyota, inquiring about their Highlander Hybrid, only to be told "we don't have one, and the waiting list is 6 months long." Went next door to Ford, who's using Toyota technology (with their own modifications) in their hybrids, inquired about the Hybrid Escape, and there was one sitting on the lot. We bought it the next day. It's only recently that I've seen Ford advertising this car. I've seen a grand total of one other Escape Hybrid driving around. You'd think that they'd look to Toyota and market it - perhaps they'd have similar sales (and waiting lists) to match. But nope. I like Ford, but I think they'll sit back and watch while Lexus commercials are playing on every network and Toyota sells hybrid after hybrid.

Does my husband's Ford get great gas mileage? No, not really - his best mileage only starts to approach my Mazda's average. Is it a solution? No, but it's a start. Yet it seems American manufacturers won't start down that road until they're forced to. Marketing is killing the American manufacturers, and they're going to let it happen.

Lots of what slaphead said is dead on, in my opinion.

Necros

01-25-2006, 10:18 AM

I understand that you're knowingly playing "dueling anecdotes" here, but you skipped over the point of this part of mack's post.

No, I got the point of mack's post. As you correctly surmised, I was using his post as a launching off point for my dueling anecdotes. :)

But you miss an even bigger point that perhaps even mack missed: If you are looking for a car available in the US with the capabilities of a Subaru Outback, you are pretty limited. In fact, your choices are limited to, well...Subaru. Otherwise, I guess you could buy a Pontiac Vibe (made in conjunction with the Toyota Matrix) or an Audi A4 wagon with Quattro or a Volvo V-series or Mercedes C-class or BMW 3-series (all for about $15K more than the Subie).

So, I wouldn't say that Subaru is a good example of Japanese companies giving people what they want. It's an example of ONE company in the world filling a niche market with AWD on every vehicle and an all-boxer-engine lineup.

Oh, and the Saab wagon you mentioned? Did he by any chance buy a Saab 9-2X wagon? Saab is not owned by Ford, but is owned by GM, and has been for a while. Of course the 9-2X isn't s Saab design, either. It's a rebadged...Subaru WRX. ;)

Fat Chance

01-25-2006, 10:43 AM

Go to Edmunds.com and do a comparison of Buick Century, Limited Edition (top version) vs. a VW Jetta with the 2.0T (not even the top version GLI).

Both compact sedans, within $1,000 of each other (Buick is a bit more).

The Jetta has more power, better mileage, and comes with a large range of standard features that aren't even an option [B]on the Buick. And these are pretty nice and important features including:
- Sunroof
- Heated Seats
- Fold down rear seats
- Heated mirrors
- Stability control
- Loads more airbags
- Anti theft alarm

The Buick has few things that the Jetta does not, and most of those are minor (more power seat memory settings, cargo nets, etc.)

Which would you buy? After enough similiar comparisons its not wonder domestic cars lose out.

Unintentionally Blank

01-25-2006, 10:49 AM

Bear in mind that I'm not a petrol head and I'm a European, so I'm not only uneducated but coming at this from an environment where a big V8 is going to cost an astronomical amount in fuel and would be expected to put out serious performance as a result - over here a 5.7 litre Chrysler engine that only puts out 340hp is just silly when Audi can get that out of a 4.2L and obtain similar fuel economy despite running 4WD. Similarly, cars are expected to deal with small roads and tight corners without wallowing like paddle-steamers, which is beyond the ability of most US imports.

But you're asking a mountain goat to be good at running on the savannah.

US spec cars in the US don't need to deal with displacement based taxation, 7 buck a gallon gas, roads that haven't been widened since they were created by the Romans, cities that max out at 50-100 miles apart, and small areas of Europe that, before traffic congestion, Had No Speed Limits.

US cars DO have SIGNIFICANT emissions requirements that put Europe a good 10-15 years behind the curve.

All of these things go into the design mix.

Now, if you're talking power production. The only thing that matters is how much air and fuel you burn to make that power. Do you make it at 2500 rpm with displacement, or do you wind the turbos higher and do it with rpm? Does your packaging permit a large motor or a transverse mounted 4 banger? Does your build budget allow for Turbos?

You can't say '5.7 litre Chrysler engine that only puts out 340hp vs. Audi 4.2L and 4WD.' without taking everything else into consideration.

I guarantee you, you don't want to be driving a Smart 'cross Australia...but a Holden Monaro (with big lumpy V8) would do rather well.

light strand

01-25-2006, 10:50 AM

Philster

01-25-2006, 10:50 AM

One one hand, I feel bad, because I think American companies suffer from Corporate America Bashing...

...on the other hand, I look at Saturn - a company that was developing its own (postive) identity - and then I don't feel so bad, because it needed to maintain its distance (even if perceived) from GM and yet it is just another GM division now.

IMHO, I'd abolish references to "GM". It is LONG OVERDUE. "General Motors" has image problems, rooted in its history. It sounds clunky, old and I think of crappy mills in Deroit cranking out big iron....and I am a car guy who knows better!

I think the easy part for GM and Forrd and Chryco (considering how cars are made now, flexible plants and platforms) will be to roll out very very specific well targeted products. The challenge is overcoming their image.

Think about SUVs: They are big old heaps, and where better to go for a big old hunk of iron than to Detroit?

IMHO Succces for Big Ol' Detroit = moving headquarters to a greener place, like Southern California, dumping references to "GM"...getting rid of that Old OLD OLD Ford badge, etc.

I think Tokyo...I think "High Tech"

I think Detroit...I think Smoke stacks and a second rate murder capital that shouldn't have the Superbowl.

Think Germany: Autobahn...performance...intense German engineers.

Don't tell us what our perceptions SHOULD BE, react to what our perceptions REALLY ARE!!!!!

light strand

01-25-2006, 10:51 AM

That could be because they aren't making the Buic Century anymore. Maybe?Remember how the "k" always fell off?

Fat Chance

01-25-2006, 10:57 AM

That could be because they aren't making the Buic Century anymore. Maybe?

Well, Edmunds pulled it when I searched for New midsize cars $15-25K to compare. Didn't notice it said 2005 (why the heck would Edmunds do that anyway...)

But either way, this makes it even worse. So this Buick cost more in 2005 than a brand new 2006 Jetta today, with way more features?

levdrakon

01-25-2006, 11:09 AM

People who love cars, love American. People who want to get from point A to point B, will take Foreign. I don't know what this means, but that's what I see.

I'm a gay man and you know what? Based on that alone I'd buy a VW or a BMW because both of those car companies have acknowledged my existence. Most American car commercials lead me to believe they're being driven by the kind of people who would take me out in the woods, beat the crap out of me and leave me for dead.

I want a great car. I don't want a truck/SUV that can rescue the loggers on the top of the mountain while dragging a space shuttle behind me.

mack

01-25-2006, 11:13 AM

Which would you buy?
The Century. I haven't read many good things about VW reliability and service.

Johnny L.A.

01-25-2006, 11:21 AM

I haven't read many good things about VW reliability and service.
I test-drove a Jetta back in the '80s. I liked it. (I kept the 924 I had at the time though.) One thing I noticed when I moved to L.A. was that the Jettas I saw seemed to become ratty at a quicker rate than other cars of the same vintage. Could just be that those are the ones I happened to see. More recently I read a zillion-post horror story about a guy's unbelievably poor service of his Golf at a VW dealer. I've heard that the VW New Beetle requires a special tool to change out a headlamp (or a $50 trip to the dealer). I like the Golf, but I've just heard too many bad things about newer VWs. VW's reputation, to me, is approaching that of the Detroit automakers.

Hello Again

01-25-2006, 11:23 AM

Another issue that I don't think Detroit has dealt well with over the years is designing cars for the woman driver. And I don't mean a lipstick mirror. I mean allowing the seat to move forward so that a 5'2" driver can reach the pedals comfortably, and without having to reach behind her to put the car in drive. This has never happened to me in a Japanese or Korean car, but it has happened in a Pontiac Sunfire, which is a tiny car you would think would be tailored to a smaller driver, and also in the Chevy Cavalier which was not all that big either. No amount of arguement about performance and reliability will convince me to buy a car in which I cannot reach the controls.

I know quite a few women who haul horses prefer the Toyota Tundra because the interior is more friendly to the smaller driver.

The Mazda Miata (aka sporty roadster) is another car Big 3 don't seem interested in making. What do they have that's even slightly similar? The Crossfire? (worst car name. EVAR)

Unintentionally Blank

01-25-2006, 11:26 AM

Well, Edmunds pulled it when I searched for New midsize cars $15-25K to compare. Didn't notice it said 2005 (why the heck would Edmunds do that anyway...)

But either way, this makes it even worse. So this Buick cost more in 2005 than a brand new 2006 Jetta today, with way more features?

Ignoring the fact that both cars appeal to different demographics, ALSO continue to ignore that the Jetta got a BIG redesign in 2006. Ignore any rebates or incentives, and lastly, ignore the Lucerne, which is Buick's new baby.

(I know nothing about it other than the name, I don't know how it stacks up against the Jetta, I just know the starting criteria for the experiment was stacked towards the Jetta.)

People want to be winners, they want to feel their decision is better than others., usually at someone else's espense. That naturally extends (by marketing) to what you drive.

Besides, of the big three, one is REALLY German, and the other two OWN most of the smaller European companies.

Japan was set to take over the world til it's stock market upended itself. The Japanese make incredible cars that make more power using spoilers (to add downforce to the non-driven tires) and stickers. I like the 'ru, Evo, and other Japanese cars, but will most likely never buy one.

The American Cars are built in Canada, Mexico and eventually China. The Foreign Cars are built in the US. (but that doen't count as the profits go overseas.)

GM's profit center isn't cars, it's financing.

So, everything you know and love, is wrong. The sooner you come to grips with that, the happier you'll be.

Drive whatever the hell ya want, just know that your car is best...unless it isn't. But don't lose a whole lotta sleep over it.

Fat Chance

01-25-2006, 11:31 AM

The Century. I haven't read many good things about VW reliability and service.

Fair enough, but I chose a VW when I was looking for a new car ('03 GTI), and have had not trouble at all. Niether have my parents (04-passat).

I agree, than VW's reliability rating have not been the greatest, but when I was looking into it at the time, VW's problems were much different than many other cars. They had a higher number of minor problems (switches, lights, heated seats, mirrors, etc.) but very few major issues (engine, transmission, cooling, computer, etc.). May be annoying, but wouldn't leave me on the side of the road.

I decided that more features, better interior, better handling, power, mileage, and not to mention availability of a 6 speed, outweighed potential minor problems.

Unintentionally Blank

01-25-2006, 11:34 AM

The Mazda Miata (aka sporty roadster) is another car Big 3 don't seem interested in making. What do they have that's even slightly similar? The Crossfire? (worst car name. EVAR)

pssst. Saturn Sky (http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/futurevehicles/sky_hi/index.jsp) and the Pontiac Solstice (http://www.pontiac.com/solstice/index.jsp)

(Better Late than never...course it's not like tons of MR2's (http://www.mr2.com/) got sold. Altho, Lotus (http://www.lotuscars.com/) is seeing good sales figures. I'd need one for each foot tho.

Hello Again

01-25-2006, 11:43 AM

pssst. Saturn Sky (http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/futurevehicles/sky_hi/index.jsp) and the Pontiac Solstice (http://www.pontiac.com/solstice/index.jsp)

(Better Late than never...course it's not like tons of MR2's (http://www.mr2.com/) got sold. Altho, Lotus (http://www.lotuscars.com/) is seeing good sales figures. I'd need one for each foot tho.

I did forget about the Solstice, its pretty cute. Wasn't it new in 05 (I seem to recall its debut at the Detroit Auto Show Jan 04)? So it only took, what, 15-20 years for an American car company to offer something comparable?

And the MR2 was stone cold ugly. I think the Nissan Z (which is not stone cold ugly) is doing alright for that niche market.

light strand

01-25-2006, 12:48 PM

I'm a gay man and you know what? Based on that alone I'd buy a VW or a BMW because both of those car companies have acknowledged my existence. Most American car commercials lead me to believe they're being driven by the kind of people who would take me out in the woods, beat the crap out of me and leave me for dead.Wow that's weird. Ford (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/ford-gays.htm) is so gay friendly that they actually became a target for a boycott by the American Family Association.

levdrakon

01-25-2006, 12:48 PM

Why? Did a UAW member kick your dog? Planned obsolescence is built into nearly everything you own,

I don't believe that. Sure, a lot of companies try that shit, but they don't last. I bought my first TV in 1989. I was in the military, in Germany, and it was a small multi-system (worked in every country in the world) color thing.

I've moved it all around the world, and all across the States, many times. It's still my most reliable TV. Beautiful, crisp picture and color, even to this day. It's a Sony.

I bought all my stereo equipment from Sony two years later when I got back to the States and I still have and use it today and it all still works exactly as advertised.

I'm brand loyal to Sony. Maybe they suck now, I don't know. But when I go to buy my next thing, and there's a Sony available, I'm probably going Sony until they piss me off. If they do piss me off, I'm gone. It's my money, I'll spend it where I feel good about it.

light strand

01-25-2006, 12:50 PM

light strand

01-25-2006, 01:12 PM

levdrakon, I think we are talking about two different things. You’re saying that planned obsolesces means that the engine was designed to die at a certain time, and I say planned obsolesces means that something was designed to be obsolete in a planned amount of time. Take for example iPod. The iPod is designed to be old even when it's brand new. In other words, Apple has better iPods in the pipeline, even while it’s releasing its old model.

Having worked in the drug industry I can assure you that nearly every drug on the market currently, has a better version already made. This is the planned obsolesces drug companies use so that when their patent runs out they can renew it, with a "New and Improved!" version.

Why do you have the idea that American auto companies have your version of planned obsolesces?

levdrakon

01-25-2006, 01:15 PM

Wow that's weird. Ford (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/ford-gays.htm) is so gay friendly that they actually became a target for a boycott by the American Family Association.

That info has never trickled down to my awareness. Nor, I think, has it trickled down to most of the buyers' awareness. Thanks for sharing it.

levdrakon

01-25-2006, 01:28 PM

Take for example iPod. The iPod is designed to be old even when it's brand new. In other words, Apple has better iPods in the pipeline, even while it’s releasing its old model.

No. iPods aren't designed to break after a year, forcing you to buy a new one. They just keep coming out with models that make you want to buy a new one. My perception of the American car industry is that they did design their cars to break down after four to five years.

There's always a new, better model of something that's designed to make you want to buy the new model.

Why do you have the idea that American auto companies have your version of planned obsolesces?

Because they all started falling apart after four or five years, and we got pissed off when we found out that's what they intended?

light strand

01-25-2006, 01:51 PM

But you see, what you’re talking about is “functional obsolescence” not “planned obsolescence”. Why do you think that the American auto companies employed this method. And when? There was a definite problem with cars in the late 70s early 80s but that was because poor engineering not functional obsolescence.

Voyager

01-25-2006, 02:55 PM

I was thinking of them too. They seemed to herald in a new era for American auto manufacturers. I had two friends buy them within about a year of each other. The one friend leased hers and got screwed when she moved out of state and ended up having to buy it, but the car was very reliable for many years. She bought it around '92 or '93 and as far as I know, she still has it. It costs a lot to maintain now, and it's basically a clunker, but it still runs. My other friend got rid of his after about five to six years. I don't think it was because it broke down or anything, he was just sick of it.

92 was the first model year, and they did have a lot of bugs to be worked out. My first one was a '93, and it was much better.

I'd driven both those cars and in both cases, I thought they sucked. They seemed decently reliable but they also reeked of generic, generic, generic. I drove my female friend's Saturn about two years ago and after all these years is still bugs the crap out of me how small it is inside and how the electric widows work. The controls are in the center consol, and to me, they work backwards.

They changed the interior around '96 or '97, so the one I have now has a lot more head room, and is a lot roomier. The styling on the first models was nice - the teenage kid next door even thought my car was cool. The later ones have very generic styling, I agree. Looks like every other car of the era.

Saturn made an effort to do things a reasonable way, not the GM way. GM at the time had two keys - one for the door and one for the ignition. Saturn had one. They put the radio over the climate control because you use the radio more often. I like the window controls in the middle myself - I have an easier time working them with my right hand, and the passenger can play with them also. They work the natural way for me.

It was a good start though, for American car manufactures. Did they ever make anything of themselves? I don't hear about Saturns much these days.
They never made a lot of money (if ever) and became just a GM division. In '93 the dealer seemed to be really into the Saturn Way, by '97 they seemed to be going through the motions. (Different dealer, though.) While I'm not bored with my car at all after 9 years, I'd go test drive new Saturn when I need a new car, but I doubt I'd buy one.

zenith

01-25-2006, 06:30 PM

The cars that made Japan's image were all JUNK. It's just that America-haters at
Consumer Reports and shameless payola whores at the commercial car mags kept repeating the mantra of" Japanese worker is industrious and hard-working.
American worker is sloppy, lazy, and spoiled and deserves to fail." until a significant number of car buyers began to believe it.

A couple of years ago, I had two 1987-model cars--one a "piece-of-GM-crap" Pontiac 6000, the other a "virtuous" Nissan Sentra. I was given the Nissan Sentra by a co-worker who couldn't sell it for as little as $500.

The Nissan looked outwardly nicer-- the paint was in better shape, no VISIBLE rust--but unlike the 6000, which had bubbles of surface rust on the doors, but no rust-throughs--the Nissan had no useable trunk due to wheelwell and trunk-floor rustouts.

The Pontiac had fuel injection. The Nissan had an ugly carburetor with several vacuum do-dads attached.

The carb had no choke. The starting method was "pump and pray" followed by "floor it (to clear the flooding) and curse". If you pumped once too many, you flooded. Once too little produced start, stumble, die. Pump once more after start, stumble, die and you were flooded again.

The diaphragms of the vacuum do-dads started deteriorating and I found that they weren't sold separately; you had to buy an entire new carb.

The starting method on the Pontiac; turn the key and it started.

Don't tell me how crummy GM is supposed to be. Turn the damn computer off every now and then, get out in the real world and stop basing your decisions on Internet propaganda pumped out by the shills of Japan, Inc.

Anne Neville

01-25-2006, 08:01 PM

But you're asking a mountain goat to be good at running on the savannah.

But there are those of us in America whose car requirements are a lot closer to what Europeans look for than what the American car industry caters to.

I live near a major city and use my car almost exclusively for commuting. I don't do intercity driving- if I want to go to a city more than 100 miles away or so, I fly there instead of driving if possible. I don't have kids or carpool. I very rarely use my car to haul large quantities of stuff (the last time I did was in 2003, when I moved, and for that I rented a minivan).

I want a small car (easy to park in small spaces, and I don't need the interior room for lots of passengers or cargo). It needs to be powerful enough to do 80 on the freeway, but it doesn't need to be able to tow anything or haul a lot of cargo, and I don't need a high-powered car for some psychological need to prove something. It must not have random stuff go wrong with it very often- I need it to get to work, and I'm not mechanically inclined, so I can't fix it myself, and repairs can be expensive. I want good gas mileage- even if gas is cheap, why should I pay more than I have to for it?

The Big Three just don't seem to be trying very hard to sell cars to people like me.

eleanorigby

01-25-2006, 09:44 PM

Hear, hear, Anne Neville. I want the same as you do, but I have kids to boot.

Leviosaurus

01-25-2006, 10:37 PM

In 1984, Bruce Catton's book Michigan: A History (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393301753/qid=1138247506/sr=8-21/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i21_xgl14/102-3237742-7691341?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) was published. The author had died several years earlier. Catton (http://www.nationalbook.org/dirletter_bcatton.html) was a Pulitzer Prize winner who had emerged from an unlikely small rural town in the lower peninsula to become the most recognized Civil War historian of his time. Yet throughout his life, his home state and its enigmatic history held a deep fascination for him.

In Michigan: A History Catton describes the timeline of the stae as a series of economic waves: Huge and tremendous success followed by abject failure. Even before the economic crash of the 1980's, Catton seemed to hint that the auto industry's boom was destined to come plunging down.

A quick synopsis: The first Europeans to populate the state came for the fur trade. To a trapper's eyes, Michigan was a paradise where the supply of animals and high quality furs seemed endless. Yet end it did - the high prices commanded by fur traders led a rush of frontiersmen to the territory. Soon overtrapping and poor land management depleted the environment. Those remaining found themselves in poverty.

Within a few years the lumber industry took over the territory. The quality of wood grown in the peninsulas was superior to that found most anywhere. Michigan lumber was shipped all the way to the East coast, and from there to Europe. Most buildings constructed in the United States in the first half of the 1800's were built from Michigan lumber. There is little exaggeration in the statement that the entire state was cleat cut from one end to the other. It is very hard to find an old growth tree anywhere in the state (even the trees in the 'wilderness areas' are actually second growth.) This is the land of Paul Bunyan and the tall tales of lumber men. Yet the lumber industry in Michigan crashed and the state was reduced to abject poverty again.

That changed when Copper was found in the upper peninsula. The copper boom crashed and was replaced by the iron boom. The iron ran out and farming became the big industry in the state. Settlement of the West ruined Michigan's dominance in farming. Then the auto industry took over.

With it's iron production and auto industry, Michigan was known as the "Arsenal of Democracy". It transformed itself into a war machine in both World War I and II, churning out enough arms and vehicles to supply the armies of half the world. This was the brightest time in the State's history. But to Catton observed this as being simply another of the series of waves the state had undergone.

Each economic wave, from the first trappers all the way through to the iron and farm industries had made the same assumption: that their industry was permanent. The supply endless. The economy inexhaustible. While the state has always been blessed with good luck, shortsightedness has always been its downfall and its curse. To quote Catton: "The idea that abundance was inexhaustible--that fatal Michigan word--dominated thinking about the state from its earliest days."

One of my best friends teaches at Michigan State University. He and I discovered Catton a few years back. Ever since, we've watched the economy of Michigan through this lens and found it disturbingly illuminating. When an announcement such as Ford's layoffs becomes public we will look at each other and nod. We say one word. I've sent him emails consisting of only this word, and he's left messages on my machine which consist of this one word.

"Inexhaustible"

Sorry for the long post. It seemed relevant. Well, it did to me, anyway.

Imasquare

01-25-2006, 10:55 PM

...Went next door to Ford, who's using Toyota technology (with their own modifications)...I think that is a sad indication of the current state of US car manufacturers. Rather than being the innovators and market leaders they are now quite happy to lease technology from their competitors.

That's basically the same thing that the US consumer electronics industry (eg TV set makers) experienced 20 years ago. Are there any US companies that are still selling their own TV sets? I think Zenith and Magnavox are now owned by Philips.

habs

01-25-2006, 11:36 PM

My general feeling can be summed up with my search for a small, relatively inexpensive AWD wagon. There's no such thing from Detroit, except maybe the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix (yuck, and it's not much of a wagon anyway). I suppose I could get a BIG AWD wagon, like a Chrysler Pacifica that gets shitty gas mileage or a Dodge Magnum with it's utterly ridiculous styling, but that's not what I want. I'd consider a Ford Focus if it had AWD, but it doesn't. I just want a little wagon with AWD. It's not like I'm asking for something unusual here. So how hard are you going to make that for me, Detroit?
I'm sure that you have probably already looked into it, but have you considered the Ford Freestyle (http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/freestyle/)? I know it's not exactly a small vehicle (it offers seating for 7), and the mileage on the AWD is not great (19/24), but it seems to be a very versatile car with excellent safety ratings (I believe it was co-designed with Volvo). For these reasons, I myself am considering purchasing a Freestyle later this year...

Sam Stone

01-26-2006, 01:33 AM

Planned Obsolescence: EVERY engineered product is designed with a lifespan in mind. This is nothing peculiar to the American auto industry, or for that matter the auto industry at all.

When I pick a switch out of a catalog, I'll find one that has a mean time between failures that matches the product it's going in to. ANYTHING can be made to last longer, if you're willing to spend more money, add weight, or have other tradeoffs. We could increase the lifespan of every computer by simply putting more powerful cooling systems in them. But this would make them heavier, more expensive, and perhaps noisier. Somewhere during the design of your computer, an engineer had to look at the cooling issue and decide how much was 'enough'.

So 'planned obsolescence' is not a negative term, and nothing that should be criticised, UNLESS the engineers made poor choices and picked components that fail earlier than they should. That's not an issue of planned obsolescence, it's just bad engineering.

One of the areas where domestic automakers screwed up was in perceived quality, as opposed to actual quality. For cost reasons, they built their tooling in such a way as to haave bigger panel gaps, and they chose switches and interior materials that, while functional, have a 'cheap' feel to them. This hurt the perception of quality for the vehicle, even if its actual reliability was as good as the competition.

But they've learned their lesson. The new generation of domestic cars have tight tolerances, excellent-feeling switchgear, and better tactile sensations in the cabin. The panel gaps are tighter, the bodies more rigid (eliminating squeaks and rattles, among other things), etc.

Not only that, but the modern auto-industry is so inter-related that it's not even all that accurate to talk about 'domestic' vs foreign cars. The Ford Fusion is built on a Mazda 6 chassis, and uses the same engine as the Mazda 6. We have a Saab 92x, which is a car from a Swedish auto company, which is owned by GM, but which is actually a car built on a Japanese assembly line (it's a Subaru WRX). Our other 'domestic' car is a Ford Escape, which is built on the same assembly line as the Mazda Tribute, and is virtually identical to it.

You can look at almost any new car out of Detroit and see the same thing. There's a new 6-speed automatic transmission that is a joint effort between several domestic auto makers, BMW, and others. The same tranny will be used in numerous cars from numerous countries. The Pontiac Vibe is the same car as the Toyota Matrix. Some domestic cars are unique, but share 'global' powertrains.

IMO, the smartest thing for a car buyer to do now is to buy domestic, but only when these insane rebate and pricing deals come along. You're buying a world-class car at a huge discount because the domestics are trying to build back market share. Take our 92-X, for example. I have no love for Saab, but we wanted a WRX. In Canada, the WRX is $35,495. The 92x is upgraded somewhat to make it a 'Saab'. It has a moonroof, automatic climate controls, aluminum suspension bits, upgraded soundproofing and interior materials, etc. As a result, it listed for about $40,000 in Canada. But with GM's incentives and rebates at the end of last year, we saved almost $9,000 off of retail, and got a superior car to a WRX for $4,000 less than the Subaru model. It was a great deal.

Another irony of 'Domestic' cars which tends to be lost on the 'buy American' crowd is that domestic does not necessarily mean American-made. A Ford Fusion is built in Mexico, while a 'foreign' Honda Accord is built in the U.S. You simply can't tell where a car is made any more simply by looking at the home country of the company selling it.

Forget foreign/domestic. Just buy the best vehicle for your usage, for the best price you can find.

slaphead

01-26-2006, 07:04 AM

But you're asking a mountain goat to be good at running on the savannah.
At the risk of hijacking the thread, we may be caught in a terminology difference. I have always heard 'handling' used in the 'mountain goat' sense, as in "Ferrari handles better than Rolls-Royce" or whatever. I wasn't aware that it was a relative thing.

Now, if you're talking power production. The only thing that matters is how much air and fuel you burn to make that power. Do you make it at 2500 rpm with displacement, or do you wind the turbos higher and do it with rpm? Does your packaging permit a large motor or a transverse mounted 4 banger? Does your build budget allow for Turbos?

You can't say '5.7 litre Chrysler engine that only puts out 340hp vs. Audi 4.2L and 4WD.' without taking everything else into consideration.

But since a bigger engine weighs more and needs more power to accelerate it, and needs a bigger heavier body to fit it into which also needs more power, surely there is more than fuel and air to consider? Ceteris paribus, I would have thought that generally it would be more efficient to get a given amount of power from the smallest lightest engine available? Anyhow, this is probably another bit of confusion caused by the fact that over here 'tuning' is generally meant to mean 'sqeezing as much performance as possible out of something' which mean I had a bit of dissonance about Omniscient's comment - to me something tuned to the outer edge of the envelope means a car like this (http://www.algonet.se/~cossie/RS500-.HTM) rather than anything US-built (when I was kid we all wanted one of these - 224bhp 2.0 liter from the factory, 350bhp when modified, 500+bhp in race trim).

Back on topic
But there are those of us in America whose car requirements are a lot closer to what Europeans look for than what the American car industry caters to.
It wouldn't surprise me if GM and Ford build several cars that exactly match your requirements but only sell them in Europe, which seems a tad foolish given that all their competitors sell 'global' cars in the US as well as US-specific models.

Zenith - since we are in anecdote-exchanging territory, an American colleague of mine always used to regale us with the story of his mother's Chevrolet which broke down and had to be towed. The garage told her 'if it was a Toyota we could fix it by tomorrow since we have all the parts, but we'll have to get the Chevvy part in from Detroit - it'll take 3 days". This was in Maryland IIRC - his family were strictly US-only up to that point but haven't bought another 'American' car since. Jaguars, Mercedes, and the odd yacht, mainly. Whether it was the product, the dealerships, the marketing or just mismanagement is debatable, but Detroit screwed the pooch big-time, and fantasizing that it was all the fault of foreign-paid agitators in the media won't change that.

light strand

01-26-2006, 08:45 AM

Another irony of 'Domestic' cars which tends to be lost on the 'buy American' crowd is that domestic does not necessarily mean American-made. A Ford Fusion is built in Mexico, while a 'foreign' Honda Accord is built in the U.S. You simply can't tell where a car is made any more simply by looking at the home country of the company selling it."Assmebled" does not mean "made"Just as an FYI, it is require by law that cars sold in the US have a sticker on them showing the content of the car is American/Canadian. My Chevy is 90%, while my friend's American assembled Toyota is 60%, and the Mexican assembled PT Cruise is 70%.
Zenith - since we are in anecdote-exchanging territory, an American colleague of mine always used to regale us with the story of his mother's Chevrolet which broke down and had to be towed. The garage told her 'if it was a Toyota we could fix it by tomorrow since we have all the parts, but we'll have to get the Chevvy part in from Detroit - it'll take 3 days". This was in Maryland IIRC - his family were strictly US-only up to that point but haven't bought another 'American' car since. Jaguars, Mercedes, and the odd yacht, mainly. Whether it was the product, the dealerships, the marketing or just mismanagement is debatable, but Detroit screwed the pooch big-time, and fantasizing that it was all the fault of foreign-paid agitators in the media won't change that.I don't get why this would cause them not to buy an 'American' (extremely stupid quote marks) car. So the garage stocked Toyota parts, and not GM. It's not like she went to the dealership. Most garages which cater to Toyota owners carry the parts because it would be dumb not to. But your friend's parents aren't very bright anyway if they bought a POS Jag (a Ford BTW).

welby

01-26-2006, 09:30 AM

Criminy, I wish I'd seen this thread earlier, now I think my nice long post will probably not attract any attention, but here goes:

I just bought a new car, a 2006 Chevy Impala, after dumping my Isuzu Rodeo, which I despised. The Rodeo was a compromise vehicle, I initially bought a Trooper, but it had major alignment problems, engine trouble, and a variety of issue that made me go back to the dealer and ask for soemthing else. At the time, what I could afford was the Rodeo, so that's what I got.

I test drove a LOT of cars. For the most part, excepting Kia and Saturn (My wife owned a Kia and we'll never own another, I had a Saturn and thought it was junk), if there is a car on the market in the $25,000 or less range, I test drove it.

While driving I took notes on the parts of the car that I cared about, my main concern being room for my legs. I'm 6'2", but have very long legs. I always feel cramped in a car, because my knees seem to be in my chest. Add to that arthritis in the knees, and driving can be very uncomfortable. Here's the gist:

Anerican cars, in general, felt less "finished" than thier foreign counterparts. I think a lot of American manufacturers have done a decent job with exterior styling, but if you sit in a $25,000 U.S. car versus an $18,000 foreign car, you'll feel like the foreign car is much more finsihed and rugged inside. At least I did.

The foreign makers, however, have a long way to go as far as interior room is concerned. For example, the "smaller" Pontiac Grand prix had more leg, elbow, shoulder, and hip room than the Mazda6, the Camry, and a host of other competitors.

American cars ingeneral had a smoother, more comfortable ride, with the exception of the Chrysler 300, which sounded like a chainsaw starting every time I accelerated. On the flip side, most of the Japanese makers has much quieter rides.

But the largest difference between the two (aside form gas mileage) came down to pricing and options. Foreign cars manufacturers have got this down to a science. Aside from Mazda, I found that all of the foreign dealers were able to offer me just about any combination of options that I wanted - - whether they were listed in the brochure or not. Many admitted that the car might have to be ordered "my way", but were willing to do it.

On the other hand, American manufacturers are in love with "packages" and not one of them was willing to break a package or make any modifications to it. In fact, Dodge lost a sale over this, sending me to the Chevy guys instead (the "package" they wanted me to buy versus the one feature I wanted was a difference of nearly $7000, which made no sense to me at all).

I think that this is telling, and that the Japanese manufacturers have probably captured the marketing idea that choice sells. Chevy is picking up on this (the Impala and other models have as many as 6 different trim levels), but the other guys are not. So in general, if a consumer wants what they want and nothing else, they're better off with Toyota, Mazda, etc. If they're willing to compromise on features, and perhaps pay for some they don't want, then they can go with a U.S. car. In the end, I chose the Impala because it was almost as roomy as the Dodge Charger, but thousands less than the package Dodge wanted me to pay for.

I'd be happy to post my notes on any of the cars I drove. I still have them.

On a side note, if I'd had my checkbook the day I drove the Pontiac Grand Prix I'd own one. It wasn't roomy enough for me, but that's a FUN car to drive.

Unintentionally Blank

01-26-2006, 09:32 AM

[QUOTE=slaphead]But since a bigger engine weighs more and needs more power to accelerate it, and needs a bigger heavier body to fit it into which also needs more power, surely there is more than fuel and air to consider? Ceteris paribus, I would have thought that generally it would be more efficient to get a given amount of power from the smallest lightest engine available? Anyhow, this is probably another bit of confusion caused by the fact that over here 'tuning' is generally meant to mean 'sqeezing as much performance as possible out of something' which mean I had a bit of dissonance about Omniscient's comment - to me something tuned to the outer edge of the envelope means a car like this (http://www.algonet.se/~cossie/RS500-.HTM) rather than anything US-built (when I was kid we all wanted one of these - 224bhp 2.0 liter from the factory, 350bhp when modified, 500+bhp in race trim).[quote]

You're wandering off into anecdotal territory and some of your base assumptions are off. A competitive car does three things: accelerate, corner and brake. All of these require a certain power to weight ratio. You can make a given car perform better by changing either side of that ratio.

A bigger engine does not automatically imply a heavier engine. An Iron block, iron head inline six (say, in a Nissan 280z as that's the specific motor I know about at the moment) is only about 75 lbs lighter than an Aluminum Block, Aluminum Head LS7. The V8 makes a third to twice the hp, gets a third better gas mileage for that 75 lb increase in weight, and can perform under much harsher conditions for longer.

The Cosworth mentioned in your URL has limitations pressed upon it by the shell wrapped around the motor. You CAN'T physically put a Ford Modular V8 in the space presented. You CAN put a 5 liter pushrod ford motor in there. When you do so, you must also change springs, brakes, and tires to make an all around better racecar. And when you make a small, peaky, motor make 500 hp, you RUIN it for the street. (Note that drivability in traffic hasn't entered our conversation yet.)

It also very much depends on the kind of racing you're doing. I can pick a course that'll have a WRX beating the pants of Chevy's C6R, and I can pick another course that'll have the C6R blowing the WRX into the weeds.

Philster

01-26-2006, 09:55 AM

Yes, quoting peak horsepower number are meaningless. One must display the horsepower and torque along with the power curve for both, along with engine speeds.

For example, the over exhaulted Honda S2000 flaunted it's 230 HP rating from a tiny 2.0 litre engine. Oooh....ahhhh! Over 100 HP per litre!!! It drove like an anemic sewing machine, and if you had a full tank of gas/petrol you might as well just stick the tachometer at 7,000 rpms because that is the revs needed to get the power up.

230hp in a 2-seat convertible: Then why did it take 5.5 to 6 seconds to get this baby to 60mph? Because 230 was the peak horsepower, made up near 9,000 rpms. Well, zippity frigging doo dah, a tiny car with 230 HP should be hitting something closer to sub 5 runs.

It was 230 horsepower, with a shallow power band and no usable torque.

mack

01-26-2006, 11:11 AM

I'm sure that you have probably already looked into it, but have you considered the Ford Freestyle (http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/freestyle/)? I know it's not exactly a small vehicle (it offers seating for 7), and the mileage on the AWD is not great (19/24), but it seems to be a very versatile car with excellent safety ratings (I believe it was co-designed with Volvo). For these reasons, I myself am considering purchasing a Freestyle later this year...
I considered it, but like the Five Hundred, it was the first model year and I didn't feel like being a guinea pig. It was also expensive and too SUV-like. I might have to get another car in the near future and I'd probably get a Five Hundred before a Freestyle. I also looked at the Escape, but it's capacity wasn't any greater than the Subaru and it was taller and heavier. I just wanted something like my old Escort but with AWD.

Anne Neville

01-26-2006, 12:12 PM

It wouldn't surprise me if GM and Ford build several cars that exactly match your requirements but only sell them in Europe, which seems a tad foolish given that all their competitors sell 'global' cars in the US as well as US-specific models.

ISTR seeing familiar names on some cars in Europe that looked very different from anything that American car manufacturers sell here. I wish they'd sell those cars here in the States.

slaphead

01-26-2006, 12:28 PM

ISTR seeing familiar names on some cars in Europe that looked very different from anything that American car manufacturers sell here. I wish they'd sell those cars here in the States.
Wow. I just compared Ford UK (http://www.ford.co.uk:80/opera/all_cars/-/-/-/-/-/-) and Ford US (http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/) - I hadn't realised just how different the product lineups were. Although the Ka might be just a bit weeny for US roads.

LonesomePolecat

01-26-2006, 01:50 PM

I'm a gay man and you know what? Based on that alone I'd buy a VW or a BMW because both of those car companies have acknowledged my existence. Most American car commercials lead me to believe they're being driven by the kind of people who would take me out in the woods, beat the crap out of me and leave me for dead.

And as we all know, all debates, all controversies every issue are all ultimately about homophobia and the oppression of gays .... I mean, we all know that people who drive big American cars are all just itching to beat gays to death. :rolleyes: Somehow I don't think that Detroit's failure to focus on gays is in any way relevant to this discussion.

Anne Neville

01-26-2006, 02:22 PM

Hear, hear, Anne Neville. I want the same as you do, but I have kids to boot.

And I don't think my requirements will change too much when I do have kids. I think current plans are to have two kids, and I know very well that two kids can fit very well in the back seat of a normal (non-minivan, non-SUV) car- my parents always had regular cars, and my sister and I were just fine. We fought over "you're on my side" sometimes, but show me siblings who have never done that, and I'll show you parents who are lying or in denial.

If there were as many :rolleyes: as there are electrons in the universe, there still wouldn't be enough to express my opinion of people who buy SUV's to "keep their kids safer"- figuring that if they're in an accident, they want the people in the other vehicle to be injured or killed instead of them (Whatever happened to hoping that nobody would be injured or killed?).

Unintentionally Blank

01-26-2006, 02:50 PM

And I don't think my requirements will change too much when I do have kids. I think current plans are to have two kids, and I know very well that two kids can fit very well in the back seat of a normal (non-minivan, non-SUV) car- my parents always had regular cars, and my sister and I were just fine. We fought over "you're on my side" sometimes, but show me siblings who have never done that, and I'll show you parents who are lying or in denial.

Our PT cruiser worked really well for us as a single couple, our other car was a four door saturn. The minute we had twins, those two cars really weren't the best. The Cruiser's plusses require that the back seats are available to flip, fold or be removed. Nail them down with car seats and the car gets quite a bit less convenient.

The Saturn got replaced by an Avalanche (Yet another SDMB posterchild for whipping). It's been GREAT. Say what you will about SUV's, they're handy. People _like_ handy. It had nothing to do with 'safety <sob> for the <sob> Children!' It's big enough the kids can't kick the seats, it's great for bringing home beds (and groceries, and that time we rented the travel trailer, and the time we got 28 inches of snow) It's had a recall or two, the door panel had to be replaced, and the 4x4 transfer case control unit had to be replaced under warrantee...but it's been a great vehicle. We luuurve it. It works well for our needs (and desires...let be real here, you buy the vehicle you WANT, not the one you NEED)

light strand

01-26-2006, 02:53 PM

levdrakon

01-26-2006, 02:56 PM

And as we all know, all debates, all controversies every issue are all ultimately about homophobia and the oppression of gays .... I mean, we all know that people who drive big American cars are all just itching to beat gays to death. :rolleyes: Somehow I don't think that Detroit's failure to focus on gays is in any way relevant to this discussion.

Gays don't have money to spend on cars? Of course it's relevent. Just as relevent as marketing towards women. Straight men get hot fast sports cars marketed directly at them. You think minivans aren't marketed towards families? Give me a break. :rolleyes:

light strand

01-26-2006, 02:59 PM

I'd be happy to post my notes on any of the cars I drove. I still have them.I would actually be interested in seeing your notes. Let's face it; very few people test drive both domestics and foreign cars, so it should make for interesting comparisons.

Voyager

01-26-2006, 03:04 PM

light strand

01-26-2006, 03:12 PM

Gays don't have money to spend on cars? Of course it's relevent. Just as relevent as marketing towards women. Straight men get hot fast sports cars marketed directly at them. You think minivans aren't marketed towards families? Since this was brought up, and I already had heard of the boycott, I decided to look into it because I didn't know what became of it. You should be pleased. At first Ford said they stop support gay groups and their activities like sponsoring gay pride parades, and advertising in gay magazines. But apparently they've reneged and told the AFA to shove it. In December, Ford reaffirmed the company's four-year-old advertising efforts in gay publications as well as sponsorship of gay and lesbian organizations and events after it was perceived to have capitulated to AFA demands. Ford said it will advertise all eight of its brands in gay media for the first time. http://www.commercialcloset.org/cgi-bin/iowa/index.html

Hello Again

01-26-2006, 09:36 PM

Off the top of my head there are three domestic cars which fit your needa Anne. The Dodge Neon (http://www.dodge.com/neon/), the Chevy Aveo (http://www.chevrolet.com/aveo/), and the Ford Focus (http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/focus/). I’m sure you will hate all of them, but don’t say they don’t exist.

I think about the Neon a lot (no, really I do, I worked in Marketing in the Detroit area for years). Around the time I graduated college (97) it was a very popular starter/low-end car. It was cute, cheap, good mileage, people liked it.

Then after a few years Dodge just let the brand languish and ignored it completely. I hardly see any on the road anymore. WTF!? I am not personally a fan of the car (because it has poor visibility to short drivers) BUT clearly lots of people were at one time. Honda will never, ever stop flogging the Civic, but It seems like when Dodge builds some brand equity on a small car they have no idea what to do with it after the initial push. With the right branding Neon could be alot more popular than it is. Dodge, j'accuse!

Necros

01-27-2006, 09:31 AM

With the right branding Neon could be alot more popular than it is.
They're replacing the NEON for 06 or 07, I believe. From what I have seen of spy shots and such, you probably won't be happy with the result, but who knows: Despite the bad rap that hatches get in the US, I love 'em and I suspect I am not alone.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Enthusiasts/Spy_Shots/Spy_Shots_06_Dodge_Neon_Replacement.S178.A8054.html

Hello Again

01-27-2006, 10:32 AM

I'm not anti-hatchback and the coupe version looks kind of cute. I don't have any particular arguement with the redesign.

But it all goes to show Detroit doesn't understand branding. On the one had they take a perfectly reasonable brand, like Neon and just chuck the baby with the bathwater when the image gets a bit stale. I really don't get why they don't continue to use the "Neon" name for a small, sporty, low-end starter car. Does it have some loathesome brand image that I'm not aware of?

Back to Civic. Honda will call practically anything a Civic -- wasn't the Del Sol badged as a Civic? And why? Because people like "Civic" -- it carries a positive reputation with it that people dig on. They could probably split the Civic line into two to three brands if they wanted to, with different names for stripped down basic model, median average build and luxury option packages. But they don't, because people get warm fuzzies from the "Civic" name, and that's what we call branding, folks.

If they don't support the brand, the ins and outs of comparative mechanical merit don't mean much. Let's say you bought a Neon right out of school in 1997 and really loved it. Now, its 10 years later and you'd like to buy another one, well, too bad, so sad, we discontinued it. How can you build loyalty when a brand only stays on the market less than 2 financing cycles (ie 5 year loan periods)!?

Meanwhile 70s-era behemoth brands that were the subject of open ridicule the last anyone heard of them (like the Malibu and Impala) get a second chance!? What's the world coming to!?

It makes me meshugge thinking about it.

Sam Stone

01-27-2006, 12:32 PM

If you're looking for a neon-ish car, check out the Chevy Cobalt. It's supposed to be a very good car.

Necros

01-27-2006, 01:09 PM

If you're looking for a neon-ish car, check out the Chevy Cobalt. It's supposed to be a very good car.
From my experience with the Cobalt, it has many of the same characteristics of recently released American cars: Excellent engine and powertrain, decent handling, and a sub-par interior. If I were in the market for a small, economical car, I'm not sure the Cobalt would make my top 5 list. And I LIKE American cars (six Cadillacs in a row).
However, it is definitely a step up from the Crapalier.

Hello Again

01-27-2006, 01:53 PM

If you're looking for a neon-ish car, check out the Chevy Cobalt. It's supposed to be a very good car.

I'm not looking for a Neonish car, are we even in the same discussion, Sam?

The Case of the Dodge Neon is the perfect example of how American car companies don't know how to
a) sell
b) build brand support for
c) consider Opal's needs in

a perfectly adequate small car.

I'm not sure what the issue is, or why they so consisently drop the ball.

levdrakon

01-27-2006, 04:48 PM

Necros

01-27-2006, 05:32 PM

BMW's available with night vision starting in March. (http://gadgets.autoblog.com/2006/01/25/bmw-night-vision-to-become-available-in-march/)

How come American car manufacturers never seem to have the latest, coolest stuff?

I really do hope you're making some joke here. You are, right?
http://www.autotrader.com/research/shared/article.jsp?article_id=2293&refpage=safetyinfo&restype=used
Originally developed to enable the armed forces to fight at night, Night Vision will make the transition from military to consumer hardware next year. It will debut in the fall of 1999 as an option on the next-generation Cadillac Deville, the nation's best-selling luxury sedan.
(bolding mine)

The general consensus with these systems is: "Oo! Neat! I can see in the dark! Coooool!"
"Wait. The screen isn't in the normal driver field of vision. I have to look down at this screen. Hey. This thing has no depth-perception. Wow. I spent how much for this useless option?"

levdrakon

01-27-2006, 06:13 PM

I really do hope you're making some joke here. You are, right?
http://www.autotrader.com/research/shared/article.jsp?article_id=2293&refpage=safetyinfo&restype=used

(bolding mine)

The general consensus with these systems is: "Oo! Neat! I can see in the dark! Coooool!"
"Wait. The screen isn't in the normal driver field of vision. I have to look down at this screen. Hey. This thing has no depth-perception. Wow. I spent how much for this useless option?"

Yes, it was kind of a joke.

habs

01-28-2006, 01:02 AM

I considered it, but like the Five Hundred, it was the first model year and I didn't feel like being a guinea pig. It was also expensive and too SUV-like. I might have to get another car in the near future and I'd probably get a Five Hundred before a Freestyle. I also looked at the Escape, but it's capacity wasn't any greater than the Subaru and it was taller and heavier. I just wanted something like my old Escort but with AWD.
Interestingly, I, too, will be replacing my 1996 Ford Escort wagon. It's been a great car for me -- very reliable, so you could say that Ford has earned my trust. I did want something a little bit bigger than the Escort, since I play ice hockey and I could always use the extra hauling capacity for all of my gear that sits in a very large bag. The good thing about the AWD Freestyle is that it only switches to AWD mode when it needs it -- for regular city and highway cruising, it stays in FWD mode to conserve gas.

It is true that it's a first model year, and there's always a risk with going with a brand-new model car, but it's been out for a year and a half, and after carefully perusing numerous Freestyle message boards and websites, I've yet to hear of anything systematically negative in terms of reliability or functionality. The CVT, supposedly, is the hardest thing to get used to (I can't say for sure, since I have yet to test drive one). The most difficult thing for me will be deciding on the color. ;)

Sam Stone

01-28-2006, 05:23 PM

Interestingly, I, too, will be replacing my 1996 Ford Escort wagon. It's been a great car for me -- very reliable, so you could say that Ford has earned my trust. I did want something a little bit bigger than the Escort, since I play ice hockey and I could always use the extra hauling capacity for all of my gear that sits in a very large bag. The good thing about the AWD Freestyle is that it only switches to AWD mode when it needs it -- for regular city and highway cruising, it stays in FWD mode to conserve gas.

It is true that it's a first model year, and there's always a risk with going with a brand-new model car, but it's been out for a year and a half, and after carefully perusing numerous Freestyle message boards and websites, I've yet to hear of anything systematically negative in terms of reliability or functionality. The CVT, supposedly, is the hardest thing to get used to (I can't say for sure, since I have yet to test drive one). The most difficult thing for me will be deciding on the color. ;)

Have a look at the Ford Escape. I find it to be a perfect compromise. It gets reasonably good mileage, it's comfortable and reasonably powerful, and it handles great. It's strangely fun to drive. I've got a 2003, and so far it has been flawless, with nothing but regularly scheduled maintenance required. It doesn't even have a squeak or a rattle in it. It looks, feels, and drives like a brand new vehicle. I'll probably drive it for another 8 years.

kunilou

01-28-2006, 08:29 PM

I was thinking about this thread this afternoon as I walked around the St. Louis Auto Show.

St. Louis is one of the "A list" auto show stops. Pretty much every manufacturer, from Kia and Hyundai to BMW and Mercedes. Durting the time I was there, thousands of people were wandering around.

Besides the concept cars (of course) what were they looking at? SUV's. Didn't matter whether it was Ford or Toyota or BMW. If it was an SUV there were people - young, old, families, obviously well-off, obviously not well-off - standing around them looking at features, obviously interested.

Meanwhile, the sedans and coupes were ignored. Only families dragging around multiple kids even glanced at the sensible minivans. The hot little sports cars attracted a few hot young men and women, and a few rich, old guys. But everyone was looking at SUV's.

Mind you, this is a city where Ford is closing an assembly plant that makes SUV's.

Maybe the people who attend auto shows aren't typical. Maybe St. Louis is a "big iron" town.

Or maybe, just maybe, a lot of consumers like SUV's.