As previously posted, in reality not "perception", a few billion can't change decades of decay in 4 years!
It actually takes making reliable products continuosly across all product lines. Hard to believe the US auto industry didn't totally grasp that simple concept.
Well I don't know if that's actually necessary, that you have to be BETTER than the competition, or even as good. The subject of Harley -Davidson is a good case in point.
This company was dying in the 70s and early 80s, and they hired a big consulting firm to help them. The consultants recommendation was something like this:
"You will NEVER make a motorcycle as good as the Japanese, so forget that...BUT...you can make a BETTER motorcycle than you do now...and you can capitalize on your heritage, which the Japanese have ZERO of...."
And that's about what they did.
So I don't think GM has to produce a BMW--that's crazy, and probably impossible for them given their "culture" (all corporations have a culture). GM should rely on its heritage....you know...."born in the USA"....."Chevy Tough"....lots of flag-waving, cowboys loading saddles, happy families in national parks.
As far as their products go, all they have to do is build somewhat better cars than they do now...they do not have to build a Lexus or a Mercedes or a Miata or a Prius.
"good enough" is good enough for GM, Ford or Chrysler at this point in time.
Of course, we did eventually wise up to the "Japanese invasion" of our auto industry in the 1980s, when Toyota, Datsun (aka Nissan) and Honda delivered staggering blows to our Big 3. We finally put some clamps on that.
Our "protection" through the voluntary quotas in the 1980's is what caused the Japanese to branch more rapidly into the higher-margin segments such as luxury cars. While they added a lot of manufacturing in the US, they also hastened the competition in many areas. We can't run the experiment to see what would have happened if policy had been different, but IMHO the D3 did it more to themselves than anything.
That's true, we cannot know the "alternate history" but if you look at, say, a chart showing market share year by year for the Big 3 back in the late 70s and 80s, you will see, just before our government's "interventions", a scary downward plunge spanning only 5-7 years or so.
At the rate that chart shows, it would be easy to calculate doomsday for the Big 3 of perhaps 1990 at best, had not the government put the brakes on the Japanese assault.
Not that the Japanese were always playing fairly. They were accused of "dumping" product on the market at artificially low prices, to gain market share, and while of course they denied it adamantly, they never exonerated themselves either.
At least one could never accuse the Germans of selling their stuff too cheap. :P
When the BMW 320i came out, it was so blatantly overpriced to fleece the new Yuppie class, that even the American auto magazines, who generally fawned over BMW, couldn't bear to watch this gouging.
Once the Japanese had taken all the hide they could get out of the Big 3, then they turned on the Europeans, taking aim first at the luxury end and the sports car end, with the brilliant LS400 and the Miata.
I think they have yet to conquer the entry-level luxury sport sedan market.
Well not just GM--any of the Big 2.5 is hobbled by its culture.
Not because there isn't the talent in America, not because our engineers aren't as good as the Germans---it's all about the corporate culture---the internal workings at the Big 2.5 would PROHIBIT it from making the best cars in the world.
It is, ironically (to me) the reverse of World War II---there, the Germans had the best troops, but we had the best SYSTEMS----and really, that's all that mattered.
I guess what i'm saying is that the Big 2.5 is WIRED for high level mediocrity---and although it is quite decent mediocrity---admirable in some cases, occasionally BRILLIANT in concept, and "better than some others companies" .......... ultimately, it is not, in my opinion consistent enough for "excellence", because of the corporate culture that drives it.
Maybe this is all changing. I'm not an "insider" and my two cents could be based only on the past and the immediate present. There could be things in the works I have no idea about.
As for what does "BEST" mean? It means what happens when the BMW 3-series is compared to other cars in car magazines.
IMO, the Japanese did partake in some dumping with the first LS - there's just no way that thing could have been offered so cheaply at a profit. I am not really complaining - as you mentioned, German pricing was going crazy, and this put a lid on the upward movement (which now seems to be happening again - but Lexus prices are now bloating too). They also forced the Germans into offering a better sales and service experience.
The 3er is a hard one to crack - even other Germans have a hard time getting the same following.
For the big 2.5 mediocrity, I blame too many levels of management, bean counter mentality, and cradle-to-grave white collar career paths that seem to have tenured public sector levels of accountability.
Well, we're back to Busiris's comment about what is best for you.
I just rearranged the sliding back seat in my minivan to give me more room to stick two walnut dining room chairs in the back (thanks, Sis... I think). Didn't even have to shift the mountain bikes around, and they still have their front wheels on.
Don't think a 3-Series would be best for me, and why get a Routan when I can go to the source?
Again, I agree with your logic. What bothers me the most is what you have outlined about the corporate culture and why other car manufacturers produce better products in every category except for P/U trucks.
Excellence should ALWAYSbe the goal, afaic. Anything less is a compromise to the American way.
I agree that the BMW 3 series is pretty much the top of it's class. But in all fairness, most of Detroit is focused on the masses, so it's high volume, low margin which is different than BMW, MB. etc. Detroit tends to have to build to a tight price point. not so much for companies with lower volume and higher margin cars like BMW. I think Detroit is best in trucks be it pick-ups or whatever. For that matter, the US is probably best at semi trucks (some of which I think are still built out your way).
Now as for engineers, Germany puts out some good ones. Maybe because I think they have to shop apprentice before earning their degree. However, sometimes I think they make things too complicated which can mean high maintenance down the road. The Asians are very good at refining products and at quality control. The Americans I think are amongst the best innovators, but also the most hamstrung by the bean counters. However I think they sometimes need to focus on reliability more. Long term reliability, particularly consumer perception thereof, still seems to be America's Achilles heel.
Even the pickup advantage is being lost--the Toyota Tacoma and Tundra sell at about 50% of the Chevy Silverado.
I don't think the American lead in pickups has to do particularly with form of conspicuous excellence, but is more like the Harley success in motorcycles---"good enough for people who want to buy American".
I don't think a "Toyota Tough" ad campaign with eagle decals on the hood of a Tacoma carrying a cow is really going to go over very well. :P
I don't think the American lead in pickups has to do particularly with form of conspicuous excellence, but is more like the Harley success in motorcycles---"good enough for people who want to buy American".
Absolutely. The full size market is a tough nut to crack, especially in the midwest section of the Country. The Tundra and especially the Titan made few inroads even being pretty competitive offerings when they were introduced. Not class leading, but competitive...
But the same can be said for the midsize arena. There the Toyota Tacoma, even being an 8 year old design still reigns supreme in the class with the Nissan Frontier running a distant second. Probably the major reason why it has soldiered on so long with minimal changes.
With the Ranger gone, the Dakota gone, and the Colorado/Canyon (mediocre options to begin with) also canned, the Tacoma has the segment wrapped up for now. It'll be interesting how long the thing will soldier on for until Toyota does a full re-do. My bet is on 10 years :surprise:
I can see the advantage in buying an American pickup---lots of dealers around (there's even one in my small town), cheaper parts and service, lots of parts in wrecking yards, etc.
IMO, the Tacoma is a Toyota Corolla in pickup form.
Not exciting, not the best in almost every aspect, but pretty good all-around.
For a "gentleman truck owner" that really doesn't haul much heavy stuff or tow 10,000 lb trailers, it does everything I need it to do and gets fairly decent mpg.
It wouldn't be my first choice for doing heavy-duty farm work or construction, though.
It's been awhile since I've sat in a Tacoma, but my biggest beef with them was the driving position. It felt offset to the left a bit, with respect to the steering wheel. I remember feeling crammed a bit against the door, and having to reach further with my right hand than my left to reach the steering wheel.
It's been awhile since I've sat in a Tacoma, but my biggest beef with them was the driving position. It felt offset to the left a bit, with respect to the steering wheel. I remember feeling crammed a bit against the door, and having to reach further with my right hand than my left to reach the steering wheel.
Mine is an 09 extended cab (2-door).
I've never noticed the things you commented on, but that doesn't mean they aren't there (however, I have noticed that very thing in my Z4, but I'm used to it now and no longer notice it). I have several other vehicles to use if I'm inclined to take a "spirited" drive.
It's very easy to service, with an easy to remove/install oil filter, and the 4-cylinder has lots of hand room around it in the engine compartment.
Nothing fancy about the truck at all, other than the backup camera that displays the image on the interior rear view mirror.
Really, the best description I can come up with is a Corolla pickup. The same adjectives describe both... Economical, reliable, dependable, etc.
If it was my only vehicle, I'd most likely want something else and a bit more optioned out, but as a part time ride that I use primarily when I need the functionality of a pickup, its just fine for me. I'm sure I'd be just as happy with a Nissan Frontier or a similar Ford/GM/Chrysler pickup if they made one in a comparable size and option level.
For me, when it comes to a pickup (the way I utilize one, anyway) I'm not very picky. As long as it isn't lemon yellow, lime green or p?!&y pink, I'm good...
I've never noticed the things you commented on, but that doesn't mean they aren't there (however, I have noticed that very thing in my Z4, but I'm used to it now and no longer notice it). I have several other vehicles to use if I'm inclined to take a "spirited" drive.
Funny you'd mention that, because I remember having the same experience in a BMW. I think it was a 6-series, but can't remember now.
For me, when it comes to a pickup (the way I utilize one, anyway) I'm not very picky. As long as it isn't lemon yellow, lime green or p?!&y pink, I'm good...
I'm actually the same way, although the fact that I bought a Ram probably ends up reinforcing my Mopar fan stereotype. Honestly, the main reason I bought it was because I had it in my mind that I wanted a full-sized pickup with an 8-foot bed, and it was cheap. In retrospect, I probably could have made do with something smaller. While I like something that passes the 4x8 test, they do make those metal flip-over bed extender things that can help out. And, even though midsized and smaller trucks (guess they're all midsized, now that the Ranger is gone) don't have 48" between the wheel wells, don't they have brackets and stuff so that you can put the 4x8 over the wheel wells?
Sometimes I wish I had gotten something a little smaller, because my Ram is a PITA to park, and maneuver in tight spaces. And, I don't drive it enough, and have too many other cars I cycle through, so I never really get used to it.
And it has all worked out. GM has exceeded its initial IPO stock price of 2011, and may one day soon once again appear on the S&P 500.
I suppose if you set the bar low enough, it's easy to reach your goals. The initial IPO stock price still loses taxpayers billions, not millions, but BILLIONS.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I tried taking a chance with GM when the IPO was launched. But I chickened out and sold after a couple months. I think I only lost like 5-10%. Bought Amazon.com with the proceeds. I forget now what I paid for it, maybe $175-185 per share? Anyway, it's up to around $267 now.
So, while I'm glad GM is finally breaking even, I'm also happy I sold when I did! Although, if I bought a bunch of GM back when it hit rock bottom, I'd be doing pretty good today, as well.
That's the problem with the stock market. It can definitely be a gamble.
lots of dealers around (there's even one in my small town), cheaper parts and service, lots of parts in wrecking yards, etc.
I think that loses the point of what a lot of American's truly want, which is a reliable vehicle.
The point is that you don't need to worry about lots of dealers, lots of cheap parts or services, or wrecking yards if you never need them in the first place.
A truly reliable vehicle (and hence its owner) will not need to worry about replacement parts, services, and the like. No car is perfect forever, but a reliable one needs a new part so infrequently that if it is expensive it is still cheap in the long run.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Taxpayer doesn't lose a penny until the gov'mint sells the stock.
And besides, you really must factor in the alternative of what it would cost us to support 266,000 people out of work, to say nothing of the employees of suppliers--most of them would be taken down as well.
If you add up UI and food stamps, that's billions right there.
If GM stock ever hit 53, it'd be a break even deal.
So it's really comparing this current $14 billion "potential" loss with the potential outlay to support maybe 300,000+ people immediately unemployed.
Then we also have a lot of car owners without a warranty.
And then there are the GM creditors that will be SOL.
So it's really comparing this current $14 billion "potential" loss with the potential outlay to support maybe 300,000+ people immediately unemployed.
Of course all we can do is speculate. But how much better would Ford be doing if they didn't have GM as a competitor? How many of the GM employees would be at Ford now? And what would the effect on the market be to be rid of GM's weaker vehicles, while the stronger ones might have been bought up by Ford or other investors? What other potential entrants, startups, innovation was lost as we subsidized (mostly) the status quo?
It's possible that it was the best choice. But it's also possible it was the best short-term choice, but not the best long-term one.
Of course this mostly isn't relevant to the automakers until they actually make profits. For large commodities like cars, I'm sure that the bulk of the savings in having some manufacturing in places like Mexico or Brazil is due to labor costs.
But for other lower-labor, higher value small items, that may not be the case -- even though some people are just totally convinced otherwise:
Would a Ferrari be the best vehicle for towing a trailer or offroad use? Would a 4x4 truck be the best vehicle for the twisties and hairpin turns? Would a Rolls-Royce Phantom be the best car for maximum fuel economy? Would a Prius be the best vehicle in which to pull up in front of the club?
I wonder also how content Americans would be if GM actually became more and more profitable, thereby paying the government in full, but did so only by shifting manufacturing to China?
That would be an interesting dilemma for the champions of nationalism.
I wonder how many jobs are lost and tax dollars actually not collected, all because the US corporate taxes are so onerous?
According to the quote from your link below, looks like ANY tax is too much tax to pay...
From the link...
Despite reporting net income of $30 billion over the four-year period 2009 to 2012, Apple Operations International paid no corporate income taxes to any national government during that period," the report found.
It's pretty obvious by now (to me at least) that many large corporations have no non-negotiable form of loyalty to either workers, to the state they operate in, or to their country. While individuals within a corporation might be the most admirable of human beings (and I'm sure we all know some of these), somehow when they operate collectively within the organization, the main priority becomes the preservation of the corporation, above all else, it seems.
Maybe if corporations were given a negative tax rate, everything would become golden, things would trickle down, jobs would be created, the rising tide would lift all yachts, etc. I mean, the previous 30 years of such experiments have worked well for the average person, right? Why not give the benefit of the doubt? If someone with no recent economic study or related credentials pines on about the greatness of tax havens, we must believe it,right? If some still claim that manufacturing losses are created by tax rates and not labor costs, we should believe it,right? Apple exploits the Chinese kleptocracy due to tax laws, right?
All people have agendas, and most people, especially those in power, focus on their best intersts. Yet, our imperfect world of relatively free markets, with regulations, a freely elected government, the rule of law, basic freedoms, property rights, respect for individual and human rights, tolerance, plus a relatively low level of corruption, works well.
One could argue that variations on our system, as practiced in other Western societies, for example, work even better, but ours works very well for many people. It's not perfect, it would be nice if there were more economic equality, for example, but our system works darn well for a large segment of our population.
One thing that America offers that most advanced societies don't is a second or third opportunity to succeed. It's easier, after failure, to try again here, than it is in most countries.
All this doesn't mean that we shouldn't always strive to be better.
I'll only say this.... Netting $30 billion and paying zero in tax, at least to me, kinda destroys the idea that corporations don't locate operations in the US due to its marginal tax rate structure.
When any tax becomes too much tax, that argument seems to fail the "smell test".
One has to love the "fairness" doctrine that is used, under which everyone should pay his/her fair share. It's discussed quite a lot, but as you can see, not actively implemented.... Unless, someone wants to make the argument their fair share of tax is $0.
The point is that you don't need to worry about lots of dealers, lots of cheap parts or services, or wrecking yards if you never need them in the first place.
I would respectfully cry, 'BS'.
I feel less this way today than four years ago, but Chevy had by far the largest dealer organization in the country. Virtually every small town had a Chevy dealer. Even when I locked my keys in my '02 Cavalier, when visiting my Mom in her nursing home in my small hometown, I was able to call the Chevy dealer on the phone, and my brother-in-law picked up my replacement key--total cost $6.00.
This was always great peace-of-mind when travelling in the country or in small towns, although I never ONCE needed emergency service in over thirty years of GM ownership.
Consider it like a free insurance policy. You may never need it, but it's great to be there.
I might add, stick your head in your Audi service department next time you're there. Or even your local Toyota dealer. Guess what? There'll be cars with mechanical problems being remedied there (probably more Audis than Toyotas, but you get the idea).
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
There's a lot to be said for having a dealership in every little berg, especially in days gone by.
On the flip side, cars have never been more reliable than they are today, so having such close proximity to a dealership isn't nearly as important nowadays, simply because one isn't likely to get stranded.
Still, I doubt I'd buy a BMW (or any other vehicle) if I lived in the middle of North Dakota and the nearest dealership was 400 miles away.
er....I think you are actually agreeing with me. Perhaps my statement was worded badly.
What I was saying is that the ADVANTAGE of owning an American car was that you didn't have to worry about finding a dealer, cheaper parts or salvaged parts.
I wonder also how content Americans would be if GM actually became more and more profitable, thereby paying the government in full, but did so only by shifting manufacturing to China?
That would be an interesting dilemma for the champions of nationalism.
I don't think the tax dodges work as well for heavy goods due to the transportation costs. And of course GM will increase sales in China over time due to their growing market, and those GMs are made in China, which is fine by me.
Yet GM still as far as I know, is the only manufacturer of any country of origin to import major Chinese-made assemblies (engines) into cars sold here.
>Of course all we can do is speculate. But how much better would Ford be doing if they didn't have GM as a competitor? How many of the GM employees would be at Ford now? And what would the effect on the market be to be rid of GM's weaker vehicles, while the stronger ones might have been bought up by Ford or other investors? What other potential entrants, startups, innovation was lost as we subsidized (mostly) the status quo?
There's the other side. Why assume GM is always the problem child and the one at fault? That was the theme in the previous GM discussion that closed.
For example, we can talk about what if toyota hadn't been given such a strong foothold here in the USA:
Of course all we can do is speculate. But how much better would Ford be doing if they didn't have TOYOTA as a competitor? How many of the TOYOTA employees would be at Ford now? And what would the effect on the market be to be rid of TOYOTA'S weaker vehicles, while the stronger ones might have been bought up by Ford or other investors?
Speaking of weaker Toyota vehicles - the new Avalon must be one. The previous Avalon was such a nice car, my wife and I liked it despite being a foreign nameplate. Today's Avalon is ferociously ugly and another poster commented on its rougher ride and smaller size - definite negatives in my book.
It all comes down as to whether people buy a certain car in large numbers or not---it can be a very mediocre car in most respects, but if it gets the job done for people, and is a good value, it doesn't have to be the 'best' in anything.
In fact, I'd say the best market position for most "bread and butter" cars would be "acceptable in most tasks, fails in none, excels at nothing".
I definitely agree on the ugly part, of the new Avalon. Suddenly the 1958-59 era seems rife with good taste in comparison!
I sat in one at the DC auto show, and while a bit smaller, it still felt comfy. I pulled up the specs at Fueleconomy.gov, and the previous Avalon had 107 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a smallish 14 cubic feet of trunk space. The 2013 model is 104 passenger volume, and 16 cubic feet of trunk space.
Interestingly, the hybrid version of the Avalon only sacrifices two cubic feet of trunk space. So, it seems they're getting better at designing these hybrid cars, so the hybrid mechanicals don't rob you of as much trunk space as they used to.
This is an old argument...I for one think GM should have gone through a normal BK, no Gov help.
Leaner and meaner. A GM factory or two might have closed? So what? Another company (doesn't have to be a car company) wouldn't buy that factory? Maybe they do make parts there like GM did. Or make something else not related to the auto industry.
Suppliers hurt? Don't think so.....instead of lets say 50% of what they make is for GM now its 25%.....the "lost volume"?
Just like Ford, Toyota or whoever you want to name would be selling more cars, guess what? They would need more interior parts etc for the cars they make, because demand for their cars picked up!
But we will never know because they were too big to fail.
For me the slightly smaller size would be a modest positive, while the deteriorated ride versus the previous generation would be a deal breaker. If the handling dynamics had been greatly improved in the process I'd accept it, but from what I've read neither the ride nor the handling of the new Avalon are very good. One or the other should be very good for me to consider it.
The BMW 5-Series seems to have gone in the other direction; handling and BMW's renowned steering feel have been sacrificed for ride improvement.
I'd like to see a comparison of the new Avalon and 5-Series, even though they're in a different price category, and one is FWD and the other is RWD. The comments regarding strengths and weaknesses would be interesting.
I don't think they would ever have come out of a normal BK and that would have been the end of GM, but who can say, really?
There are certainly legitimate points to be made against the bail-out, such as "denial of competition" to the other automakers, and not treating bondholders and UAW pension obligations as the "same class". (the argument being that GM needed workers more than it needed bondholders---well, eh.....)
Comments
It actually takes making reliable products continuosly across all product lines. Hard to believe the US auto industry didn't totally grasp that simple concept.
This company was dying in the 70s and early 80s, and they hired a big consulting firm to help them. The consultants recommendation was something like this:
"You will NEVER make a motorcycle as good as the Japanese, so forget that...BUT...you can make a BETTER motorcycle than you do now...and you can capitalize on your heritage, which the Japanese have ZERO of...."
And that's about what they did.
So I don't think GM has to produce a BMW--that's crazy, and probably impossible for them given their "culture" (all corporations have a culture). GM should rely on its heritage....you know...."born in the USA"....."Chevy Tough"....lots of flag-waving, cowboys loading saddles, happy families in national parks.
As far as their products go, all they have to do is build somewhat better cars than they do now...they do not have to build a Lexus or a Mercedes or a Miata or a Prius.
"good enough" is good enough for GM, Ford or Chrysler at this point in time.
Of course, we did eventually wise up to the "Japanese invasion" of our auto industry in the 1980s, when Toyota, Datsun (aka Nissan) and Honda delivered staggering blows to our Big 3. We finally put some clamps on that.
Our "protection" through the voluntary quotas in the 1980's is what caused the Japanese to branch more rapidly into the higher-margin segments such as luxury cars. While they added a lot of manufacturing in the US, they also hastened the competition in many areas. We can't run the experiment to see what would have happened if policy had been different, but IMHO the D3 did it more to themselves than anything.
At the rate that chart shows, it would be easy to calculate doomsday for the Big 3 of perhaps 1990 at best, had not the government put the brakes on the Japanese assault.
Not that the Japanese were always playing fairly. They were accused of "dumping" product on the market at artificially low prices, to gain market share, and while of course they denied it adamantly, they never exonerated themselves either.
At least one could never accuse the Germans of selling their stuff too cheap. :P
When the BMW 320i came out, it was so blatantly overpriced to fleece the new Yuppie class, that even the American auto magazines, who generally fawned over BMW, couldn't bear to watch this gouging.
Once the Japanese had taken all the hide they could get out of the Big 3, then they turned on the Europeans, taking aim first at the luxury end and the sports car end, with the brilliant LS400 and the Miata.
I think they have yet to conquer the entry-level luxury sport sedan market.
Totally agree!
What's best for you may be anything but that for me.
Sooo....How do you define "best"?
I would be hard-pressed to find any product or service that would be the "best" in every situation.
Not because there isn't the talent in America, not because our engineers aren't as good as the Germans---it's all about the corporate culture---the internal workings at the Big 2.5 would PROHIBIT it from making the best cars in the world.
It is, ironically (to me) the reverse of World War II---there, the Germans had the best troops, but we had the best SYSTEMS----and really, that's all that mattered.
I guess what i'm saying is that the Big 2.5 is WIRED for high level mediocrity---and although it is quite decent mediocrity---admirable in some cases, occasionally BRILLIANT in concept, and "better than some others companies" .......... ultimately, it is not, in my opinion consistent enough for "excellence", because of the corporate culture that drives it.
Maybe this is all changing. I'm not an "insider" and my two cents could be based only on the past and the immediate present. There could be things in the works I have no idea about.
As for what does "BEST" mean? It means what happens when the BMW 3-series is compared to other cars in car magazines.
The 3er is a hard one to crack - even other Germans have a hard time getting the same following.
For the big 2.5 mediocrity, I blame too many levels of management, bean counter mentality, and cradle-to-grave white collar career paths that seem to have tenured public sector levels of accountability.
I just rearranged the sliding back seat in my minivan to give me more room to stick two walnut dining room chairs in the back (thanks, Sis... I think). Didn't even have to shift the mountain bikes around, and they still have their front wheels on.
Don't think a 3-Series would be best for me, and why get a Routan when I can go to the source?
Excellence should ALWAYS be the goal, afaic. Anything less is a compromise to the American way.
No complaining, no explaining. Period.
It would be if you want the purest drive...only alone.
Otherwise, go minivan. of course!
Now as for engineers, Germany puts out some good ones. Maybe because I think they have to shop apprentice before earning their degree. However, sometimes I think they make things too complicated which can mean high maintenance down the road. The Asians are very good at refining products and at quality control. The Americans I think are amongst the best innovators, but also the most hamstrung by the bean counters. However I think they sometimes need to focus on reliability more. Long term reliability, particularly consumer perception thereof, still seems to be America's Achilles heel.
I don't think the American lead in pickups has to do particularly with form of conspicuous excellence, but is more like the Harley success in motorcycles---"good enough for people who want to buy American".
I don't think a "Toyota Tough" ad campaign with eagle decals on the hood of a Tacoma carrying a cow is really going to go over very well. :P
Absolutely. The full size market is a tough nut to crack, especially in the midwest section of the Country. The Tundra and especially the Titan made few inroads even being pretty competitive offerings when they were introduced. Not class leading, but competitive...
But the same can be said for the midsize arena. There the Toyota Tacoma, even being an 8 year old design still reigns supreme in the class with the Nissan Frontier running a distant second. Probably the major reason why it has soldiered on so long with minimal changes.
With the Ranger gone, the Dakota gone, and the Colorado/Canyon (mediocre options to begin with) also canned, the Tacoma has the segment wrapped up for now. It'll be interesting how long the thing will soldier on for until Toyota does a full re-do. My bet is on 10 years :surprise:
Not exciting, not the best in almost every aspect, but pretty good all-around.
For a "gentleman truck owner" that really doesn't haul much heavy stuff or tow 10,000 lb trailers, it does everything I need it to do and gets fairly decent mpg.
It wouldn't be my first choice for doing heavy-duty farm work or construction, though.
Mine is an 09 extended cab (2-door).
I've never noticed the things you commented on, but that doesn't mean they aren't there (however, I have noticed that very thing in my Z4, but I'm used to it now and no longer notice it). I have several other vehicles to use if I'm inclined to take a "spirited" drive.
It's very easy to service, with an easy to remove/install oil filter, and the 4-cylinder has lots of hand room around it in the engine compartment.
Nothing fancy about the truck at all, other than the backup camera that displays the image on the interior rear view mirror.
Really, the best description I can come up with is a Corolla pickup. The same adjectives describe both... Economical, reliable, dependable, etc.
If it was my only vehicle, I'd most likely want something else and a bit more optioned out, but as a part time ride that I use primarily when I need the functionality of a pickup, its just fine for me. I'm sure I'd be just as happy with a Nissan Frontier or a similar Ford/GM/Chrysler pickup if they made one in a comparable size and option level.
For me, when it comes to a pickup (the way I utilize one, anyway) I'm not very picky. As long as it isn't lemon yellow, lime green or p?!&y pink, I'm good...
Funny you'd mention that, because I remember having the same experience in a BMW. I think it was a 6-series, but can't remember now.
For me, when it comes to a pickup (the way I utilize one, anyway) I'm not very picky. As long as it isn't lemon yellow, lime green or p?!&y pink, I'm good...
I'm actually the same way, although the fact that I bought a Ram probably ends up reinforcing my Mopar fan stereotype. Honestly, the main reason I bought it was because I had it in my mind that I wanted a full-sized pickup with an 8-foot bed, and it was cheap. In retrospect, I probably could have made do with something smaller. While I like something that passes the 4x8 test, they do make those metal flip-over bed extender things that can help out. And, even though midsized and smaller trucks (guess they're all midsized, now that the Ranger is gone) don't have 48" between the wheel wells, don't they have brackets and stuff so that you can put the 4x8 over the wheel wells?
Sometimes I wish I had gotten something a little smaller, because my Ram is a PITA to park, and maneuver in tight spaces. And, I don't drive it enough, and have too many other cars I cycle through, so I never really get used to it.
I suppose if you set the bar low enough, it's easy to reach your goals. The initial IPO stock price still loses taxpayers billions, not millions, but BILLIONS.
So, while I'm glad GM is finally breaking even, I'm also happy I sold when I did! Although, if I bought a bunch of GM back when it hit rock bottom, I'd be doing pretty good today, as well.
That's the problem with the stock market. It can definitely be a gamble.
I think that loses the point of what a lot of American's truly want, which is a reliable vehicle.
The point is that you don't need to worry about lots of dealers, lots of cheap parts or services, or wrecking yards if you never need them in the first place.
A truly reliable vehicle (and hence its owner) will not need to worry about replacement parts, services, and the like. No car is perfect forever, but a reliable one needs a new part so infrequently that if it is expensive it is still cheap in the long run.
And besides, you really must factor in the alternative of what it would cost us to support 266,000 people out of work, to say nothing of the employees of suppliers--most of them would be taken down as well.
If you add up UI and food stamps, that's billions right there.
If GM stock ever hit 53, it'd be a break even deal.
So it's really comparing this current $14 billion "potential" loss with the potential outlay to support maybe 300,000+ people immediately unemployed.
Then we also have a lot of car owners without a warranty.
And then there are the GM creditors that will be SOL.
Of course all we can do is speculate. But how much better would Ford be doing if they didn't have GM as a competitor? How many of the GM employees would be at Ford now? And what would the effect on the market be to be rid of GM's weaker vehicles, while the stronger ones might have been bought up by Ford or other investors? What other potential entrants, startups, innovation was lost as we subsidized (mostly) the status quo?
It's possible that it was the best choice. But it's also possible it was the best short-term choice, but not the best long-term one.
But for other lower-labor, higher value small items, that may not be the case -- even though some people are just totally convinced otherwise:
Apple Avoided Taxes on Overseas Billions
I wonder how many jobs are lost and tax dollars actually not collected, all because the US corporate taxes are so onerous?
Would a 4x4 truck be the best vehicle for the twisties and hairpin turns?
Would a Rolls-Royce Phantom be the best car for maximum fuel economy?
Would a Prius be the best vehicle in which to pull up in front of the club?
That would be an interesting dilemma for the champions of nationalism.
According to the quote from your link below, looks like ANY tax is too much tax to pay...
From the link...
Despite reporting net income of $30 billion over the four-year period 2009 to 2012, Apple Operations International paid no corporate income taxes to any national government during that period," the report found.
I keep wondering how much better Ford would be doing if they didn't have toyota as a competitor.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The rigged system is failing.
One could argue that variations on our system, as practiced in other Western societies, for example, work even better, but ours works very well for many people. It's not perfect, it would be nice if there were more economic equality, for example, but our system works darn well for a large segment of our population.
One thing that America offers that most advanced societies don't is a second or third opportunity to succeed. It's easier, after failure, to try again here, than it is in most countries.
All this doesn't mean that we shouldn't always strive to be better.
When any tax becomes too much tax, that argument seems to fail the "smell test".
One has to love the "fairness" doctrine that is used, under which everyone should pay his/her fair share. It's discussed quite a lot, but as you can see, not actively implemented.... Unless, someone wants to make the argument their fair share of tax is $0.
I would respectfully cry, 'BS'.
I feel less this way today than four years ago, but Chevy had by far the largest dealer organization in the country. Virtually every small town had a Chevy dealer. Even when I locked my keys in my '02 Cavalier, when visiting my Mom in her nursing home in my small hometown, I was able to call the Chevy dealer on the phone, and my brother-in-law picked up my replacement key--total cost $6.00.
This was always great peace-of-mind when travelling in the country or in small towns, although I never ONCE needed emergency service in over thirty years of GM ownership.
Consider it like a free insurance policy. You may never need it, but it's great to be there.
I might add, stick your head in your Audi service department next time you're there. Or even your local Toyota dealer. Guess what? There'll be cars with mechanical problems being remedied there (probably more Audis than Toyotas, but you get the idea).
On the flip side, cars have never been more reliable than they are today, so having such close proximity to a dealership isn't nearly as important nowadays, simply because one isn't likely to get stranded.
Still, I doubt I'd buy a BMW (or any other vehicle) if I lived in the middle of North Dakota and the nearest dealership was 400 miles away.
What I was saying is that the ADVANTAGE of owning an American car was that you didn't have to worry about finding a dealer, cheaper parts or salvaged parts.
That would be an interesting dilemma for the champions of nationalism.
I don't think the tax dodges work as well for heavy goods due to the transportation costs. And of course GM will increase sales in China over time due to their growing market, and those GMs are made in China, which is fine by me.
Yet GM still as far as I know, is the only manufacturer of any country of origin to import major Chinese-made assemblies (engines) into cars sold here.
Incidentally, this was pre-bankruptcy and to my knowledge, anyway, is not being done now.
There's the other side. Why assume GM is always the problem child and the one at fault? That was the theme in the previous GM discussion that closed.
For example, we can talk about what if toyota hadn't been given such a strong foothold here in the USA:
Of course all we can do is speculate. But how much better would Ford be doing if they didn't have TOYOTA as a competitor? How many of the TOYOTA employees would be at Ford now? And what would the effect on the market be to be rid of TOYOTA'S weaker vehicles, while the stronger ones might have been bought up by Ford or other investors?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
In fact, I'd say the best market position for most "bread and butter" cars would be "acceptable in most tasks, fails in none, excels at nothing".
I sat in one at the DC auto show, and while a bit smaller, it still felt comfy. I pulled up the specs at Fueleconomy.gov, and the previous Avalon had 107 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a smallish 14 cubic feet of trunk space. The 2013 model is 104 passenger volume, and 16 cubic feet of trunk space.
Interestingly, the hybrid version of the Avalon only sacrifices two cubic feet of trunk space. So, it seems they're getting better at designing these hybrid cars, so the hybrid mechanicals don't rob you of as much trunk space as they used to.
Leaner and meaner. A GM factory or two might have closed? So what? Another company (doesn't have to be a car company) wouldn't buy that factory? Maybe they do make parts there like GM did. Or make something else not related to the auto industry.
Suppliers hurt? Don't think so.....instead of lets say 50% of what they make is for GM now its 25%.....the "lost volume"?
Just like Ford, Toyota or whoever you want to name would be selling more cars, guess what? They would need more interior parts etc for the cars they make, because demand for their cars picked up!
But we will never know because they were too big to fail.
THEY DID FAIL.
The BMW 5-Series seems to have gone in the other direction; handling and BMW's renowned steering feel have been sacrificed for ride improvement.
I'd like to see a comparison of the new Avalon and 5-Series, even though they're in a different price category, and one is FWD and the other is RWD. The comments regarding strengths and weaknesses would be interesting.
There are certainly legitimate points to be made against the bail-out, such as "denial of competition" to the other automakers, and not treating bondholders and UAW pension obligations as the "same class". (the argument being that GM needed workers more than it needed bondholders---well, eh.....)