The Current State of the US Auto Market

Mr_Shiftright

Well that's a database of 1

busiris

I passed by a burned out hull of a late model Ford Focus on I-26 between Columbia and Greenville, SC Sunday afternoon.

Maybe we should also avoid buying Fords, too.

Nah.... A sampling of one isn't much of a sampling.

andres3

When a company goes bankrupt because they make non-competitive products and their service is sub-par, their market share suffers and they fail.

It was only about 4-1/2 years ago the bailouts were still in full swing yet people here seem so forgetful.

I'm sure they failed due to excellent cars and service, and it was negative CR reviews that did them in.

I received a horrible car from Chrysler/Dodge, and lousy service to boot, but I'm sure everyone else received a great car and service, I must of been the sole cause of Chrsyler's two bailouts despite not having purchased until '94. :P

andres3

that I feel I can identify a potential dog of a car before the factory warranty expires, and I trade the problem child off before it starts digging too deep into my wallet.

I am glad you stated "on average" to qualify that line above, because I can categorically state that you cannot do that!

Some manufacturers, like Chrysler, specifically design for planned obsolescence after the 3 year 36 thousand mile warranty expires. So a car that was reasonable during warranty can quickly start falling apart.

'95 Neon first 36,000 miles I'd give a White circle/dot to if I was being nice. The next 29,000 miles would get a huge black dot, even if I was being nice. If I was being fair, a black dot wouldn't be enough, I'd have a picture of a big yellow :lemon:

nvbanker

Ford should dump that Microsoft system and try again, I agree. I own one, it finally works fine, but it's dreadfully complex and cumbersome to use, and who can remember all the voice commands anyway?

The problem with GM, and this has been their problem since they ceded the leadership role in the 80s, is they resolve their problems by staying with old technology as long as possible. Case in point - how long did they keep their old pushrod engines after everyone else had moved primarily to overhead cams and VVT? FOREVER! Other technology inside just never came, and is barely starting to show up now. Their Nav system was just impossible to figure out and didn't work well if you got a degree in its operation. Practically no innovation in design - the Tahoe/Suburban SUV line remains with a live axle and pull out and store 3rd seats. Ford went to IRS and folding flat 3rd seats in 02 in the Explorer and 03 in the Expedition line, and Nissan followed shortly in the Armada. Toyota is resisting, but I think has finally given in on that as well.

Finally, the greatest example is fuel injection. By 83, most Fords had throttle body fuel injection, and by 86, EVERY engine they made had FI, several of them with multi-port and coil on plug! GM was actually producing their 95 Cadillac Brougham with a 5.0L pushrod engine and a CARBURATOR on it! 10 years behind. :confuse: Most of their FI engines were still throttle body.

They made old technology work, mileage and HP was still good, so one may say, big deal? Lots of people don't care, and don't even know. And those "low information" buyers are the ones who keep GM alive, if barely alive.

circlew

I fully expected their products had to improve...our tax dollars hard at work, you know!

It's a good thing that GM is showing hard results. Now let's see if they continue and stay at the top end of the market....or slip into "good enough" targets as in the past.

Not surprised GMC improved as their sales have steadily increased since 2008. Their quality HAD to improved from bottom of the list. Nice to see Chevy improved as well.

andres3

True, but if that 335 coupe had been parked in a La Jolla mansion's garage with 2 Bentley's parked next to it it could have easily been a $5,000,000 dollar or more warranty claim for BMW :P

They should consider themselves lucky.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes cars can be diabolical.

As for BMW liability, they'd fight that kind of claim to the death especially if the owner skipped a maintenance.

busiris

Yes cars can be diabolical.

As for BMW liability, they'd fight that kind of claim to the death especially if the owner skipped a maintenance.

As would every other manufacturer. Example... Chrysler, in its recent refusal to recall for rear mounted gas tanks.

Every manufacturer has the occasional fire. In fact, I'm surprised we don't see many more car fires than we do, since a tankful (10-20 gallons or more) of gasoline is a fairly unstable liquid.

Even Rolls Royce vehicles experience the occasional fire hazard...

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/rolls-royce-recalls-phantoms-for-poss- ible-fire-hazard/?_r=0

uplanderguy

GM was actually producing their 95 Cadillac Brougham with a 5.0L pushrod engine and a CARBURATOR on it! 10 years behind.

Wrong again, and by several years. You also have the displacement wrong.

greg128

how long did they keep their old pushrod engines after everyone else had moved primarily to overhead cams and VVT?

GM has been making and refining the small block V-8 since 1955. This engine
has been and still is among the best ever manufactured. Because of its relative simplicity and robust nature it is used to this day in all sorts of racing and marine applications. The new Corvette still uses the same basic pushrod configuration, resulting in a car that can stay with the world's best and still get 30 mpg on the road.

I would take that proven engine over for example a DI turbo Audi engine that requires valve cleaning every 10,000 miles. One test showed a loss of 100 hp in a A-8 after that number of miles. It required a teardown of the top of the engine to clean it.

andres3

One test showed a loss of 100 hp in a A-8 after that number of miles. It required a teardown of the top of the engine to clean it.

Example of one?

I can top that 100 HP loss easily. How many blown engines do you think GM has produced that didn't even last 36K Miles? I'd bet it is in the hundreds every year, and a blown engine produces 0.00 HP.

Therefore, any GM car with over 100 HP and a blown engine does worse then that sample of 1 Audi A8.

andres3

How many maintenances could you possibly skip in a BMW at 9,500 miles?

That fact coming from the driver made me very concerned. With Audi, the first service is scheduled for 5K, second for 15K, so at most, 1 skipped maintenance (which she said she didn't skip by the way).

greg128

Example of one?

Here is an Audi forum with an extensive discussion about carbon build-up issues:

Audi carbon build-up

BMW has also had some serious engine failures in their turbo models. I remember driving behind a brand new Z-4 ( I think) driven in a very spirited way by an attractive young woman, and was surprised by the amount of blue smoke coming from the exhaust.

dieselone

Because of its relative simplicity and robust nature it is used to this day in all sorts of racing and marine applications.

Don't forget cheap. That's why they're used in marine environments. Though Mercury Racing now builds their own v8's for their top HP engines and they use DOHC configurations. I read an article that the CEO and head engineer stated they went the DOHC route due to the valve train in GM big blocks not being durable enough for high HP/high rpm use. But we're talking million dollar boats with these engines so cost isn't as much of an issue.

I've got a 300hp 350 in our boat and it is a good engine. It's not something I'd want in a luxury car or sports car (just not smooth enough), but it does have good power. Just doesn't sound or feel good for extended high rpm running. I don't have open exhaust so I get to hear the valve train thrash above 4k rpm.

dieselone

Here is an Audi forum with an extensive discussion about carbon build-up issues:

I thought the carbon build up issue was a problem on the early vw/Audi direct injected turbos and has since been corrected. Is that not the case?

dieselone

Well my wife finally got her new company car today to replace her 2011 Taurus. I must say I'm pleasantly surprised with the 2013 Taurus. While it's still not a car I'd buy with my own money, I will say Ford has made a few subtle improvements. The steering has a bit better feed back, it rides a little bit better, and the brake feel is improved as well. The seats are far more comfortable as well. Since my wife basically gets base models, I was afraid Ford would decontent the car for fleet use, but to my surprise it has a few more bells and whitles and the interior has been improved some too.

All told it drives much better than the '11 model.

Mr_Shiftright

Well she'd better be able to prove it. And if there is a non-factory filter of any kind on that car, she's really done for. Automakers take these engine fire reports *very* seriously---which means lots of scrutiny. They'll put expert forensic people on it.

RE: Carburetors. Last year I can recall for carbs was 1990 for GM and 1992 for Subaru.

berri

I agree that Ford has generally adopted new technology quicker than GM and C, BUT maybe too quick sometimes. If you look at the data reports, the Ford issues right now go beyond just MyFord/Synch. There are eco boost turbo and dual clutch tranny issues. Plus, many of these new tech cars aren't getting close to their EPA numbers. I think maybe Mulally is getting a bit complacent now that he has credit for reversing Ford course and gotten big $ reward for doing it. Think about it; Honda gets bad customer and media reviews on the Civic and has a greatly revised version out in less than two years. GM is responding on the current Malibu and will have a significantly revised '14 model in a bit over a year. Ford continues to get gripes about it's dash system and the best they can do is promise some changes down the road as models are revised. Now c'mon - putting in some user friendly knobs and buttons isn't exactly expensive rocket science. I'm not a Luddite, but tech just for the sake of tech, rather than user friendly, is dumb business. You can't keep sending customers flash drive updates to install that never really resolve all of the issues and expect buyer loyalty down the road. If Honda and GM can do much bigger model updates quickly, why can't Ford do some simple ergonomic changes quickly? Maybe it's arrogance that since their sales are strong now they don't have to worry about their complaining customers. But I guarantee you that it won't be that long before most buyers forget about the GM BK and Mulally's terrific company turnaround. In the end it always boils down to product and customer satisfaction. I also think that Mulally and the Ford family maybe need to seriously think it through as to whether Fields is really up to the NA job he is in. Their sales climb has come in a hugely up overall market and Ford quality ratings seem to keep declining. What's it going to look like under his course in another 3 or 4 years? The competition isn't exactly standing still and the last thing Ford needs to do right now is pull off a recent Toyota like screw up with product.

berri

I fully expected their products had to improve...our tax dollars hard at work, you know!

Honestly Circlew, take a look at GM's financials and you'll see that the bailout bucks are basically long gone. GM is operating on their own revenues and cash flow now. The gov loss is a result of gov "politically motivated" decisions from both Dems and Republicans in the timing of their stock sales, not current GM business practices. You really didn't expect Washington to use business prudence in these stock sales decisions did you?

scwmcan

And today you could be talking about Toyota instead of GM, old engines, still have 4 speed transmissions, old technology for the most part ... They do this to keep their reliability high, and people buy them because of it despite the low yech.

circlew

Honestly Circlew, take a look at GM's financials and you'll see that the bailout bucks are basically long gone.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter since GM=loss any way you look at it.

At the end of the day, we will see if they operate successfully or leverage themselves into trouble again. Competition is great, isn't it?

berri

Now you're not having one of those love - hate relationships with GM now are you - just kidding!

busiris

Considering the fire started behind the glove box, which is the termination location where the battery cable connects to the fuse panel, and seeing as how there was already a recall notice placed a few months ago by BMW for problems with the battery cable end at that very location (potential fire being one result of a bad cable end), I would say this is one of the "rare" cases that went ballistic.

I suspect BMW will be a bit more gracious than usual in this particular instance, but I also suspect BMW will give this car a real "going-over" before making any decisions.

andres3

The fact it wasn't an engine fire but a passenger cabin (by glove box) fire, makes it even worse in my opinion.

Either way, whether these isolated fires push down sales is irrelevant, it certainly lost them consideration from one potential customer.

busiris

Just curious... Would you avoid any make that has experienced a car fire, or just BMW?

andres3

I'd avoid any make that has a cabin compartment car fire on a car with under 10,000 miles and under a year old that is personally witnessed by me.

Mr_Shiftright

Aside from the "witnessed by you" part, that would be every car ever made unfortunately.

you're setting a tough bar for objects made by human beings. :P

(well okay, human beings and their robot pals).

suydam

My daughter had a '99 Camry with well over 100k. One day while driving the engine shut off and she gently coasted to a stop. Smoke began coming out from under the hood but no fire. Later I was told that Toyotas have a shut off mechanism to prevent an actual fire. Had to replace a lot of things that had melted but the car was still running well when we sold it later with over 200k.

nvbanker

Honestly, it doesn't really matter since GM=loss any way you look at it.

At the end of the day, we will see if they operate successfully or leverage themselves into trouble again.

Exactly - the Government bail out money is indeed gone - long gone, and will never be back. It paid for billions of debt, bad union contracts and legacy costs and wiped them out so they could try to move on. I supported saving the company - just thought, as usual, the government did it wrong. There was a better way to do it, better result, cheaper cost.

Nonetheless, they are here, at OUR expense, while Ford figured it out and struggled through their own pathetic decisions of the past themselves, and paid for their own mistakes. You may not think that matters now, but I do.

The question becomes, can Ford do what they've never actually done successfully before, and maintain an consistent path to prosperity, reputation and performance?

And, Can GM survive after their jump start?

My answer to both? No, they won't. But I'll admire Bill Ford for subordinating his Ego enough to hire a great turnaround guy, and fix his sins without help. And I will consider Ford products in the future. I will not consider GMs.

circlew

Well said. Agree with all of your points but I do not agree GM should be saved at all. The "Too Big to Fail" disease will continue on because we did not have the guts to do it the right way.

No problem to keep the jobs in the industry but to call it "General Motors" continues the plague...there is always alternate solutions that were too hard to fathom.

Yet every mistake involving the bailouts provides important insights about what the government can and can't do well during an economic emergency. With luck, we'll learn enough from these mistakes to do it better next time (and there will be a next time).

And when it does happen, I'm sure more mistakes will take place.

There has been a big cost to these bailouts, however. For one thing, they severely damaged confidence in the U.S. government and hardened the impression many people have of crony capitalists dominating decision-making in Washington, at the expense of ordinary people. The bailouts also institutionalized failure by rescuing many firms that should have gone belly up and by sparing investors who should have borne the pain of excessive risk-taking. Market discipline has been lost as a result.

If it happened again, there's a strong case that instead of the hybrid model, the government should either nationalize failed firms and treat them as government bureaucracies, or let them fail and focus on containing the damage. There are in fact new policies meant to prevent companies that are "too big to fail" from collapsing. There's also a good chance they won't work as expected. If they don't, the first principle of the next bailout should that a company that can't pay its own executives probably shouldn't exist.

imidazol97

>Toyotas have a shut off mechanism to prevent an actual fire.

I'd like to know more about this "magic" fire preventer from toyota. It sounds like a PR release.

My first guess would be something called a fusible link that burns and breaks the circuit when there's a short to ground in a major wire. That would explain the smoke the driver noticed.

Mr_Shiftright

some people say the term "too big NOT to fail" makes more sense. :P

Certainly the paring down of dealerships and workers these last 10 years or so lends credence to that remark.

berri

I think you're looking at the GM bailout from a micro-economic perspective of the auto industry. But the bailout decision was really based on a broader macro-economic basis of the entire messed up economy back then.

I don't really think Washington had a choice on GM, or Wall Street at that point in time, and unfortunately nothing is getting changed by Washington to prevent such actions in the future due to Wall Street's money and power and Congress' love of lobbyists and contributions.

As for the GM bailout, my problem was more the manner in which it was accomplished. I think it should have been on a debt basis where the government eventually got paid back like the first Chrysler bailout. If that wasn't feasible due to the nature of the big banks failing, I think they should have gotten long term GM bonds in exchange for the cash. If that was too big and would have significantly impaired the new GM balance sheet, then the government should have at least gotten dividend paying preferred stock with an agreement that once the dividend payouts and preferred stock value equaled the cash advance the government would pull out. The government could have deferred the first few years of interest or dividends until GM was back on its feet. I think an effective interest free resolution would have been much more palatable to American taxpayers than a loss on the bailout.

Now let's turn to GM - they messed up big too in all of this. After thanking Uncle Sam they began to quickly push for the gov to sell the stock at a loss so they could lose the Government Motors moniker. If the only way GM could continue as a going concern was by having the gov buy common stock, they should have explained that and made a commitment to eventually make the government whole (even if it would take a number of years to accomplish). They should have then used that opportunity to explain how they were going to change from their past and become a quality leader in the industry. They could have started by doubling current owner and new buyer warranties to show they were serious. After all, the big issue consumers have with GM really boils down to confidence in the long term reliability of their product. The ironic part is that had they done that they would probably be in an even stronger position now after Toyota had all of their quality issues with mid to late 00's and now Ford seems to have a number of quality issues.

But for me personally, it's over. My next vehicle purchase decision will be driven by overall value to me based on things like product desirability, cost of ownership and expected hassle free driving and ownership. It won't be driven by the past, nor affected by Detroit or transplants. And in the long term I think that will be true for many consumers.

circlew

But GM did not agree to payback any losses and double incentives to back up their product's long-term reliability.

For me, personally, it's only a matter of time....

berri

I've actually been looking at crossovers. I like the GM lambda's, but like the Explorer their extended warranties are substantially more expensive than what the Toyota dealer wants for the same time frame. Hmmm......

berri

But I'll admire Bill Ford for subordinating his Ego enough to hire a great turnaround guy, and fix his sins without help

But was the real motivation preserving Ford's super class shares where the family can control the company with a minority amount of stock and investment dollars???

circlew

Check out the Sorento if value and warranty are in your equation.

You save up front and no need to extend. After trading his (JGC-JunkBox) in, my 'Bro is quite happy with the 2013 and the 2014 is even better.

uplanderguy

Check out the Sorento if value and warranty are in your equation.

You save up front and no need to extend. After trading his (JGC-JunkBox) in, my 'Bro is quite happy with the 2013 and the 2014 is even better.

But circle...the '11 Sorento is 'much worse than average' in CR. It's on their 'avoid' list, as is the '11 Optima Turbo.

Balance, man!

greg128

But circle...the '11 Sorento is 'much worse than average' in CR. It's on their 'avoid' list, as is the '11 Optima Turbo.

Balance, man!

Unfortunately on this forum the GM bashing peanut gallery never left after "GM" was removed from the title. Of course my post will only precipitate a flurry of the usual anti GM drivel.

greg128

Unfortunately on this forum the GM bashing peanut gallery never left after "GM" was removed from the title. Of course my post will only precipitate a flurry of the usual anti GM drivel.

Yeah, we know GM failed, has lousy vehicles and everyone's inlaws had lousy GM vehicles. Of course Hondas, Hyundais, Kias Nissan's Mazda's VW's, Audis, Toyotas... etc. ad nauseum are much better cars than GM fare and anyone that buys a GM vehicle is a nitwit

circlew

Balance? Here's the current facts:

2013 Kia Optima SX - CR Recommended (Same care as the '11 :surprise: )

We ALL know how the'13 Malibu did!!! :lemon:

2013 Sorento - CR Recommended as well and scored higher the than Equinox/Terrain.

That's tipping the scales afaic! :P

circlew

You said it!

circlew

Here's even more unbalance, man!

2011 Malibu LTZ V-6 Loaded 28K miles KBB Private Party Vale = $18,040
2011 Optima SX - 28K miles KBB Private Party Value = $21,344

Which is REALLY on the AVOID LIST?? Keep those blinders focused!

tlong

Yeah, we know GM failed, has lousy vehicles...

Well, they HAD mostly lousy vehicles but are getting quite a bit better.

...Of course Hondas, Hyundais, Kias Nissan's Mazda's VW's, Audis, Toyotas... etc. ad nauseum are much better cars than GM fare

In general, their were many vehicles from those makes that were quite a bit better than GM vehicles. Of course GM has improved significantly and even has a chance of being a viable business.

...and anyone that buys a GM vehicle is a nitwit

Well that's a judgement call. There were and are a lot of reasons to buy GM. You want to support a US-based corporation (even if they were exceptionally mediocre to poor pre-BK). You needed a big truck or SUV where GM was stronger. Those were a couple of good reasons to buy GM, even pre-BK. But of course some buyers are so loyal to a given brand (not just GM), that their judgement is so clouded that pretty much they'd buy anything from their favored brand. I'm not one of those people for ANY brand.

As an aside, I just spent about 800 miles in a rented 2013 Chevy Impala (old model). It wasn't horrible, it was just exceptionally mediocre. Seemed pretty big on the outside for not that much more room on the inside. The upholstery was actually pretty nice, the engine was pretty refined. It made a weird growl noise on starting and I don't know if that's normal or this engine had a busted motor mount or something (it only had 10K miles on it). The steering wheel looked extremely cheap. The dash shiny plood was the tackiest cheapest looking part of the interior. The controls were relatively easy to use.

It was a basic, mediocre vehicle that did its job but I'd never buy one even if I were looking for that class of vehicle, as there are far nicer choices. I figure if I'm going to live 100-150K miles in an interior, life is too short to have it look like crap. I'm glad GM has come out with a newer Impala as this one didn't do the nameplate any favors.

greg128

Of course my post will only precipitate a flurry of the usual anti GM drivel.

I must be clarevoyant.

andre1969

Lemko and I both got a chance to drive a 2014 Impala yesterday, at the GM Nationals in Carlisle, PA. This was just a short circuit around the show field, so we didn't get a chance to do full-throttle or anything like that, but it was enough to get a feel for the car, see how roomy/comfy it is, etc.

I think the one we drove had an MSRP of around $38K. I know that sounds horribly pricey for a Chevy, but, to quote Eugene Levy, "This is a damn fine automobile". And I mean that seriously.

Usually I gripe about cars not having enough legroom. Yet, this was one of the few cars I've sat in where I DON'T have to put the seat all the way back! It also seemed very well put together, both inside and out, had high quality materials, was vey quiet and smooth, etc.

I think my heart is still set on a Charger, but this thing would come in as a strong contender on my list.

imidazol97

I sat in a red LTZ with black leather interior at a dealer-sponsored car show. Quiet. Felt like a Mercedes with the nice appearance and feel of things. Very, very nice.

I got out before I got hooked.

andre1969

I'd be curious to see how the 3.6 Impala compares to the 3.6 Charger. I think I've seen some tests that put the Impala in the 6 second range, whereas I think the Charger is more like low 7's? Fuel economy wise, the Impala 3.6 is 18/28, while the Charger, is 18/27 with the 5-speed, or 19/31 with the 8-speed.

The Impala felt a bit roomier inside, and definitely had a larger trunk than the last Charger I sat in. And, while the Charger interior is good enough IMO. I do think the Impala (or at least, this $38K Impala) did have a nicer interior.

As nice as this Impala is though, I wonder if it begs the question...why go for a LaCross or XTS? I wonder, back in 1972 for example, if very many people checked out a Caprice and decided that it wasn't worth the extra money for a Catalina, Bonneville, LeSabre, or Delta? In those days, I doubt too many would have cross shopped a Caprice with a 98/Electra/Deville, though.

berri

I know vehicle choice is a personal thing with no right or wrong answer, but I'm curious about what makes you choose a Charger over a Chrysler 300?