By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Don't forget the other competition back in the day - Simca anyone?
Of course the real foreign competition in the mid/late 60s was VW. The Rabbit kind of ruined that in the 70's.
You're looking at it from a sales POV.
Economists, looking at the future costs down the road, started warning the big-3 about their unsustainable legacy costs way back then. We did a business case study on it when I was in a graduate finance class in the mid-70's.
Of course, ignoring the Asian threat only added to the downfall.
Google "1970 GM legacy cost" and you can find lots of articles describing its negative effects on the big-3.
Whatever, have you ever driven one? I thought so.
At least Toyota has the balls to actually run their trucks through the SAE J2807 tow standard. None of the Detroit trucks have conformed yet.
As for the frame, I haven't heard any issues about the current Gen Tundras having frame issues other than being a bit flimsy. Honestly, I've driven them enough, that it's not an issue and is usually only brought up by those who've never driven one and/or never plan on driving one.
In the real world, the gas mileage is inline with the other trucks. Toyota doesn't use an overly tall gear ratio like GM's 3.08 axle ratio to boost EPA ratings They gear all Tundras for max hauling/towing and the reality is in most situations, the mileage is similar to the D3 trucks. I've never seen a comparison test where the Tundra got significantly worse gas mileage overall. CR returned 15 mpg overall for the Ram, F150, and Tundra. The Silverado was 16. Big deal. That's not enough to choose one truck over another IMO. 15 overall is what I"ve been basically getting with my '14 Ram.
So there were people who saw the bankrupt future.
Oh, yes...living in Detroit from 1980-1990, the worst was the Detroit Auto Show...if you went there, by Day 4 or 5 (out of 7) all the Hondas and Toyotas had slashed interior upholstery, broken steering wheels (it takes some effort in an open arena to break a steering wheel), slashed tires, keyed paint, etc.
Rather than actually try and compete, that is another reason why I think it takes an infantile mind to belong to the UAW...their behavior was worse than 2 year olds on a temper tantrum...
Tlong, you really had to see it to believe it...it was disgraceful...and it was real...
Oh, yes...living in Detroit from 1980-1990, the worst was the Detroit Auto Show...if you went there, by Day 4 or 5 (out of 7) all the Hondas and Toyotas had slashed interior upholstery, broken steering wheels (it takes some effort in an open arena to break a steering wheel), slashed tires, keyed paint, etc.
I've never seen it personally, but I've heard it from enough places to believe it.
I don't see how that kind of mentality is useful to the US. We need competitors, not thugs.
Some see while others are blind. Even when history stares them in the face and punches them up 'side the head.
Circlew owned up and posted about the recent 350K Odyssey recall. I'm surprised that one hasn't prompted any (any) conversation here. Unintended serious braking? WTH?
BTW, Chevrolet had another recall. A sticker was peeling off of a sunvisor. Damn them.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
I don't recall articles predicting impending failure, but there certainly were articles about GM/UAW issues and that if not handled properly a scenario could arise to cause serious problems and there certainly were articles questioning GM's long term viability. Particularly after the 1970's strike.
I think another factor is that back in the 70's, by and large, the market favored midsized/fullsized cars and, to a smaller degree, trucks. And those were markets where GM did very well.
And if you notice, as GM downsized, it seemed like they had better luck with the bigger vehicles. For instance, when the full-sized cars were shrunken for 1977, they became about the size of the old midsizers, and did very well. They sold well, and were pretty much tops on the reliability charts at the time.
But in 1978, when the midsizers were shrunk, to about compact size, they weren't quite the success that the full-sized cars had been. And traditionally, compact cars were not GM's strong suit. Sales were still fairly strong, but not the big hit that the big cars had been. And reliability wasn't as good, either.
Then suddenly it was April of 1979, and the compact Citation and its siblings hit the market, as early 1980's. A replacement for the Nova, they were actually shorter and lighter than the subcompact Monza. Well, subcompacts is where GM (and Ford and Chrysler) tended to fail the worst.
And fail, the Citation did. It was a smash hit at first, selling around 811,000 units in that long introductory year, breaking a record previously held by the 1970 Maverick and the 1965 Mustang before that. But, it wasn't long before it knocked another record holder off its perch...displacing the Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare as the most recalled car in history!
People were used to bad-to-mediocre small cars from Detroit, as they were still viewed by many as cheap, throwaway items. But, the Citation was perceived by many as a small car that really could do it all, and be a primary family car, rather than a second car/daily commuter, etc. So, a lot of people bought them, had high hopes, and were subsequently burned.
And after that, it seemed like GM kept botching product launch after product launch. The 1982 Cavalier, Celebrity, and Camaro were all poorly built, unreliable cars. In 1985, GM introduced the N-body (Grand Am) and C-body (FWD Electra/98/DeVille), and they were pretty bad in the early years. Same with the 1986 LeSabre/Delta 88 and Eldorado/Toronado/Riviera. And the 1988 GM10/W-body (Cutlass Supreme, Grand Prix, Regal).
I don't know when it was that GM finally started getting their product launches more or less right in the first year. Maybe 1991 when the redesigned Park Avenue/Ninety Eight were launched? I don't know how "all new" they truly were, but IIRC they were fairly decent. The FWD DeVille was redone for 1989, mostly in response to a backlash because they were perceived as "too small", and they weren't too bad, but again, I don't know how "all new" they were. And to be fair, GM would tend to get a lot of the kinks worked out of most of these redesigns after a few years. For instance, even the Chevy Citation was rated "average" by Consumer Reports by 1983, if you got the 4-cyl.
I remember reading a comparison test, in Motortrend I think, where they pitted a 1981 Malibu Classic against a Datsun Maxima. I remember them calling the Malibu "A Survivor" and "A Warrior", or something like that, and said it was a decent car. But then they went on to say something along the lines of "GM just didn't see the punch coming, blinded by the Rising Sun!"
So, even though the domestics were still selling well for the most part, there were rumblings here and there that changes were coming.
FWIW, I doubt too many people would cross-shop a Malibu with a Maxima back then. One was a mainstream, affordably priced intermediate while the other was more of a premium (barely) compact. I'd actually pit the Maxima as more of a budget-BMW than a Malibu-fighter. But, if you were going to compare a Japanese car to a Malibu, in those days, a Maxima, or perhaps a Cressida, was about as big as it got. And I'm sure a Cressida was a LOT more expensive.
"Somewhere in the 60- to 65-day range is considered healthy, enabling automakers to balance inventory and profitability.
Early fourth-quarter data, covering October, is not yet available, but many automakers reported having higher inventories for the month than a year ago.
“Stability is probably a good word to describe it,” said Jessica Caldwell, analyst at Edmunds. “And it helps there haven’t been any (recent) big events that have taxed the industry.”
Automakers find balance in supply, demand (Detroit News)
Back then, if you could afford to own a Caddie, you could afford the gas, regardless of price. And since it was a relatively small town, there was little in the way of long-term shortages, although I do remember the odd/even tag # rationing scheme.
Personally, I find it difficult to believe anyone familiar with the US auto industry couldn't see the future of Detroit back in the 70's. There's plenty of old microfiche in the better maintained local libraries if anyone doubts it being discussed back then.
Well, I don't recall seeing any articles specifically stating the big-3 would go bust in exactly the year 2008, but again, we were doing financial studies on their future when I was still in college in the mid-70's. In the financial world, impending doom for the US auto industry was well predicted over 30 years ago.
IIRC, wasn't the problem back in those days not the price of gas so much, but the rationing of it? No matter how much money you have, if they only let you get five gallons or whatever it was, that would only get you so far in a Caddy.
I was only three when the first embargo hit, so I don't remember it. But, when they started rationing gas, could you go get your five gallons at one station, then go to another and get a few more, and so on? Or did they have some system in check to prevent that?
I guess in some rural areas where gas stations were few and far between, the rationing could have had a big effect. By 1973, my Mom was driving a 1968 Impala with a 327, and I don't think she had to drive too far to work. Dad was puttering around with a '64 GTO though, which must have been a guzzler. I don't think he had too far to drive, though. One of my Granddads was retired, and Grandmom only worked about two miles away, driving her '72 Impala 350. My other grandparents, on my Dad's side, had a '71 Tempest, also a 350 most likely. They carpooled into DC where Granddad would drop Grandmom off at her office, and then go off to the rail yards off New York Avenue. Again, not too far of a commute. I doubt any of their commutes was worse than 10 miles, one way.
I do remember Mom complaining though, when she got a new job that was about 18 miles away, and by that time was driving a '75 LeMans, 350-2bbl, which probably got worse mileage than the '68 Impala did. When the second fuel crisis hit, we had moved, 19 miles from work, but more traffic lights, so it took longer and her fuel economy was worse. When gas shot up over $1/gal, she decided it was time to ditch that LeMans for a 1980 Malibu coupe with a 229 V-6 that could get lower 20's on the highway...seemed like such a big deal at the time!
In our area, I never had any problem getting gas. I'm sure it was quite different in other, more populated areas of the country.
The odd/even tag # rationing was the only hassle I had to deal with, and that really wasn't any problem at all for anyone who could think 24 hours ahead.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
I agree it's pretty pointless, and here is my rationale. For routine issues, a recall can be better than no recall. Example - proactive manufacturers do a recall just in case their might be problems, while other manufacturers don't. I'd say the recalling manufacturer is BETTER in those cases.
Where it is important is only when a recall is for a problem that already exists and is significant in the field. And that's not most recalls.
Also, recalled quantities of vehicles are largely dependent upon how many of an affected model are sold. So more popular vehicles are more likely to have higher quantities. Again, pointless in terms of actual problems, unless they are really occurring in the field.
And if we're talking about actual problems in the field, then THAT's the important discussion, rather than the recalls themselves.
IMO, the recalls that really matter are for issues that HAVE caused accidents, not the ones that have the potential to cause them. And, add to that the number of accidents to number of vehicles being recalled ratio as a significant factor.
For instance, every automaker still makes lemons.
Has the percentage of lemon manufacturing gone down? Perhaps, but if you get a lemon, there's no doubt in my mind that my Dad's '82 Honda was superior in every way, and that's over 30 years ago.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
Note: Chrysler had already converted to an electronic ignition in 1972, whereas GM and Ford did not release it until 1975 (small exception: the 1974 Grand Prix did have the electronic ignition system that would be GM-wide in 1975)...
To use one example, my grandmother's 1985 LeSabre was fairly reliable until around 144,000 miles. I don't remember it needing anything really major up until that point, although it did start getting troublesome after that. My 2000 Buick Park Ave has been much more troublesome in the timeframe I've had it, 56000 to 94000 miles, than that LeSabre had been. Yet, I imagine the Consumer Reports average for the Park Ave is better than it was for the LeSabre.
Similarly, my Mom's 1986 Monte Carlo was fairly reliable for the 12 years and 192,000 miles it was on this earth. And my 1985 Silverado, purchased new by my Granddad, was fairly reliable for about the first 100,000 miles. If someone buys a brand-new Silverado and it promptly dumps its transmission or blows its engine, or seizes up an a/c compressor, then by default it's less reliable than that '85 had been. I'd say the chances of that happening are pretty remote on a modern vehicle, but not beyond the realm of possibility.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
And yet compared to the D3, the lowly VW Bug was fuel injected in 1975, and also in 1975, Honda was the only company that didn't need a catalytic converter, as they had invented CVCC, which was and advanced combustion technology that met all emissions standards without one.
AMC somehow managed to get a waiver from the gov't for a few years, on some of their cars at least, but I don't know the details of it. I had a friend back in college who had a '76 Hornet wagon that her parents had bought new, and it came without one. The first time it had to go through a local emissions test, they initially got in trouble for not having a catalytic converter, but were able to get documentation from AMC stating that it didn't require one.
I think by 1979 or 1980, the government started requiring all cars to have catalytic converters, even if they passed the standards without one. I'm guessing standards also got tighter in 1979, as some engines lost a bit of hp. For instance, the Chevy 305-2bbl dropped from 145 hp in 1978 to 130 in 1979. The Mopar 318 dropped from 145 to 135, etc.
I also remember reading that GM was carrying on about how its cars simply could not meet the emissions standards, and supposedly Honda got ahold of a 1977 or so Impala or Caprice, re-worked its V-8 engine with the CVCC technology, and got it to pass, without a converter. Apparently, GM was not amused.
In (faint) defense of the domestics, that technology did come at a price. That CVCC and all the other advantages is one reason why a 1976 Honda Accord started at $3995, while a Chevette started at $2899, a Vega at $2984, and a Pinto at $2895.
In the Chevy lineup, to get to a $3995 base price, you had to move up to a Chevrolet Nova Concours V-8 4-door sedan. The reigning champion that year, the 1976 Cutlass, started at $3999 for the base S coupe. Jump up to a Supreme coupe, with the more formal notchback roof, and it was $4291.
I imagine that in those days, the domestics were trying to walk a fine line between technology and affordability. For instance, a 1977 Impala sedan started at $5021, and that's with a 305 V-8. An automatic transmission was standard. Power steering and brakes were most likely standard, as well. So, even if it needed a catalytic converter to pass emissions and was a bit rough around the edges, that was still a lot of car for the money.
Now, if that car was built like a Honda Accord, and ended up base pricing at $6021 instead, would GM have been able to sell as many?
And, if it was built like an Accord of the time, would it have become a rustbucket in a few years, had weak, failure prone a/c, a troublesome carburetor, and and "automatic" transmission that you had to shift yourself? :P
Not aimed at you specifically, but only here is a recall of 350K vehicles for sudden stopping with no brake lights, met with "meh". And that's only because it's a Honda.
And, I say that for every make, and every recall on any "mass-produced" automobile made in the last 10 years.
At some point, luck becomes simple odds.
The last vehicle that we owned that almost caused us to crash was the 2003 Yukon Denali.
Actually had 2 part failures that almost caused a wreck: The MAP sensor caused the truck to shut down while at low speeds and the power steering pump blew up while in motion.
No recalls on either part. Just junk parts that simple odds favored to be in my GM junk-box.
No recalls on either part.
Wow, so I guess that means this vehicle was better because it didn't have recalls.
Again, only here are recalls considered 'good'.
LOL!
I find it interesting how many folks get so worked up by recalls, considering many more people are injured/killed yearly by bicycle accidents, lightning strikes, cigarette-induced home fires and TV sets falling on them than they do to specific recall issues on defective automobiles.
Yet, I can't think of a single person who is afraid (or really concerned in any way at all) about any of those happening to them.
We all may complain about ambulance-chasing lawyers and the like, but one of the main benefits the current system has produced in the auto markets has been extremely safe vehicles for us to ride in and drive.
I agree. For the most part I could care less about recalls unless it's something really serious or if they occur so often it becomes a PITA with having to visit the dealer frequently.
The last recall I had to deal with actually saved me money. It was on a wiring harness to the fuel pump on my '00 Suburban. The fuel pump was failing and the recall hadn't been done yet, the recall paid for the labor on the fuel pump replacement since they had to get to the pump to change the harness anyway. Saved me $150 bucks or so.
Often, recalls can make a vehicle more reliable for an extended period of time, at no cost to the owner, even though the part(s) being replaced may not fail for some time after warranty expiration, on the majority of vehicles (at which time it would be an owner expense to replace).
From a dealer standpoint, it gives the business another chance to stay in touch with the customer. Forward thinking dealerships often give free car cleanings as a side-item when performing recalls, which can also be a positive owner experience.
I actually had a dealer manager tell me one time that he liked the occasional recall, for the reasons stated above.
Sort of like the pious lady with whom I worked decades ago who had just bought a real Jaguar, when they were real Jaguars, and I told her there was a recall about something involving the brakes. The look she game me was likeI had just killed her husband. She had bought the car by phone in Detroit and bypassed the local Dayton/Cincy/Indianapolis dealers by driving to Detroit to get it. Maybe 1985?
However, after listening to all the taunting here about GM and other US brands and sometimes minor things, I think it's time to just list them all. Those other brands are part of the US market and fit the topic of this discussion. I believe that most of us are adult enough to discuss them fairly.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Even have a title in mind. "Today's Recalls". Or maybe "Recalls Happen" has a better ring to it.
Maybe call it Morning Joe with Recalls.
Recalls to Start Your Day.
Have You Really Met Your Dealer: Today's Recalls.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Around this time of year in 2000, I got a new drill and there was a recall on the batteries. I was psyched to get a pair of spare batteries, but when I called, my model wasn't covered. Was a bummer, but not such a big deal I suppose since I'm still using the original two.
Recalls to Start Your Day.
Have You Really Met Your Dealer: Today's Recalls.
How about "Recall-citrant Autos"?
The only way to eliminate GM would have been to let it be dissolved back in '09.
Other than that, GM remains the historical '800 Lb.Gorilla in the Forum'.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/driveon/2013/11/05/recall-chevrolet-camaro/3448497- /
I had sudden stopping in my Pontiac while going to work on the interstate one morning years ago. Was in left lane, of 3 lanes, and suddenly no power. Fortunately was able to quickly coast to left shoulder, then get towed. Turns out that the "plastic" teeth on the timing chain gear wore out and the chain slipped. This should not have happened for the mileage that was on the car at the time. GM and Pontiac DID NOT have any maintenance requirement to change the gear at certain mileage intervals. Another GM engineering fiasco.
And sometimes, things do even out over time. For example, my Mom and stepdad bought a new Nissan Altima back in 1999. Its transmission failed around the 35,000 mile mark and I have to admit that initially I was thinking, "what a turd". But, Nissan replaced the transmission with no hassles, and that car made it to around 340,000 or so miles with no major issues. They just sold it a couple months ago, and it was running well, but it was simply a car they didn't need any more.
So, a car that I initially thought would be a lemon turned out to be the longest lasting (mileage-wise) car that I can ever recall anybody in my family owning.
I had a 1968 Dodge Dart that I got rid of with about 338,000 miles on it, but that doesn't count, because it had 253,000 on it when I bought it. And it had a rebuilt 318 put in around 242,000 miles, along with a newer, but still used, transmission and rear end.
I guess the second longest record holder in my family would be my uncle's 2003 Corolla, which had around 240,000 or so miles when he traded it this past July, for a 2013 Camry. I also have a friend who had an '04 Crown Vic, bought with about 10,000 miles on it, and traded around 232,000 in the summer of 2012, for a used '09 Grand Marquis. Neither of those cars was too bad, given the mileage, but I think that '99 Altima was more reliable overall.
For me, none of those incidents mentioned above would have had any impact on my decision to purchase any of the vehicles in question, nor keep one if I already had one.
IMO, the missing brake pad issue wasn't noteworthy, other than the fact it came as the model was being introduced (certainly not the optimum time for bad press for any model), but more significantly, the explanation of why they were missing (fell out and were in the bottom of the box). An absurd explanation, for anyone who has seen an actual automobile assembly-line in operation.
The steering wheel is due, along with the oil-related fires fall squarely within the realm of you probably have a better chance of being involved in an accident in order to have the repair performed than from the necessity of the repair itself.
Frankly, I can't recall ever hearing anyone tell me they didn't buy (or keep) a vehicle because of any recall(s).
IMO, they're used more by some posters as some sort of never-ending measuring contest than they are to inform readers.