Oh.... and one more thing. In addition to the speed/power limitation, I think that the stereo volume limitation is genius!
As for the seat-belt chime nagging, I would prefer an interlock for 100% compliance, (again, for the novice-driver key). Everyone buckles-up or no-go. Yeah-yeah, I know.... what about the teen daughter, alone in the parking lot and a drug-crazed rapist is trying to break into the car with a tire iron. That happens all the time in my neighborhood too.
I'll bet you agree with Airbus philosophy vs. Boeing, too. The computers control everything! :P
Well, I've got a 2008 CR-V and the A/C is great at 28K. The Yukon compressor failed after the 36K warranty expired at 50K miles. So, it's a win for me with the Honda so far! :P
The BOF GM SUV's still pull a black bulls-eye in CR reliability....in 2009. What an improvement! :lemon:
I find that Consumer Reports is able to zero-in accurately on the problems I've experienced with the vehicles I've owned. Their accuracy is impeccable. They are like the world's greatest sniper when it comes to accuracy. Or like Joe Montana for the accuracy of a quarterback.
Consumer Reports, they tell it like it is.
Agree absolutely...I knew I took a chance with GM in 2003 with the black dot for reliability....that's EXACTLY why I added the Gold Full Coverage Extended Warranty at 35K just before the meager GM coverage expired. I'm WAYYYYYYYY ahead financially! Lemko might as well have smoked those same birds he would have before buying a Hyundai, which will pass GM in market share very soon! :P
In today's economy, GM remains the last consideration for me despite $1,888 on the GM card!!
The BOF GM SUV's still pull a black bulls-eye in CR reliability....in 2009. What an improvement!
Actually, they could still be much improved. If I recall correctly, that big black bullseye "much worse than average" cagetory ranges from something like 15% of all samples having a problem all the way to 100% having a problem.
I think the whole scale breaks down to something like: 0-3% have a problem: big red circle 3-5% = half-red circle 5-9% = clear circle (average) 9-15% = half-black circle 15%-100% = full black circle.
That's why I wish CR would actually publish the percentages, rather than just give the little colored circles. That way, we could see if there really is an improvement from year to year. For instance, a brand could go from having 100% failures in a given category to 15.1%, which anybody would agree is a huge improvement. But, it would still get the big black circle.
A 15.1% failure rate is still nothing to brag about though.
Interesting story on Consumer Reports - after Mulally took over Ford he got on his engineers big time about dismissing CU. In fact, he made them go out there and review all CU complaints and resolve them. Guess what - Ford now ranks much better than a few years ago and people seem more satisfied with their recent Ford purchases. Bottom line, if people are reporting an issue then the customer is unhappy - period. Mulally knew it was dumb to argue and more effective (and probably quicker) to fix matters CU brought up. As for the Europeans, let's be honest, they tend to lag the domestics in things like CU used car reliability (and wasn't Chrysler owned by the German's?).
A 15.1% failure rate is still nothing to brag about though.
Exactly why I like the black dot system. If you suck, or suck a lot, you still suck either way.
Also, if the percentages change because of improvements in the red circle crowd, then that is the way it should be. If you can't keep up, it's black dots for you. I think the system works and is marvelous.
And to the other person saying Chrysler was owned by the Germans. While Daimler was involved with Chrysler, Mercedes' reliability went into the toilet too. It wasn't in the toilet beforehand though.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
...and we'll have nothing but super-duper-ultra-reliable imports! The only problem is we won't get to drive any of them as our McJobs, unemployment compensation, welfare, or money we get for collecting cans will allow us to afford nothing better than a used bicycle. Well, our Asian and German masters will at least be motoring in splendor!
What? CR actually said something nice about my DTS, but I still wouldn't use them as a reliable source. I use my own experience as a guide. I don't let some aging, irrelevant, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie boomer CR editor who reeks of body odor and thousands of departed marijuana cigarettes tell me what to drive just because he still hates his now-deceased father who once drove a Cadillac DeVille.
I don't let some aging, irrelevant, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie boomer CR editor who reeks of body odor and thousands of departed marijuana cigarettes tell me what to drive just because he still hates his now-deceased father who once drove a Cadillac DeVille.
I think that sort of bias will show up when they test a car...they'll whine about the layout of the controls, the way it handles, and so forth. But I think the reliability ratings do have some merit. However, I think the problem is in the way we tend to interpret the ratings. Most people probably look at it like this...
Red circle: the holy grail, Honda...ohhhhhmmmmm...Honda, etc Half red circle: almost the holy grail clear circle: a mediocre car when it comes to reliability half-black circle: pretty crappy black circle: total crap, keep away at all costs
However, the reality end up being more like...
Red circle: almost nobody has a problem Half red circle: almost nobody has a problem clear circle: most people don't have a problem, but a few do half-black circle: most people don't have a problem, but a few more do black circle: most people probably don't have a problem, but since that range covers a 15% to a 100% failure rate, it can be risky.
>"Well, our Asian and German masters will at least be motoring in splendor! "
And that is a whole lot worse than your American masters motoring in splender?
Somewhat odd and pathetic how some actually believe that the fat cats at GM Chrysler and Ford actually care about the consumer. THEY DON'T ! They only care about how to get us to buy their product.
While it is true that all manufacturers have their problems from time to time, it seems the American public still prefer the few problems they have with the Asian products, to the multitude of problems they have with the D3 products.
Seems that Ford is actually trying, and with some success, to build a better product. GM through nifty commercials but "sucky" products, and Chrysler is likely a lost cause.
Times have changed. There are still plenty of opportunities, maybe more than ever, for those that want to work on an automobile or truck assembly line. The name on the building will likely be different, and the fat cat likely living in Asia. But the American worker still has opportunity.
Would you still be in love with GM products if GM moved their Corporate offices to Japan or Germany, but manufacturing stayed here? How about if they moved everything to Japan, put a bunch of american worker out of work, and built the same quality they are building now. Would you feel the same about them as you do now?
Face facts, you are reading this on a computer screen rather than a piece of paper that came through the mail. What about all those postal workers that are not working because of the computer. Chances are good we are all supporting foreign fat cats when we buy computers, cell phones, cameras, clothing, TVs, and the list goes on and on.
Companies learn to cope if they want to stay in business. For example: IBM stopped manufacturing a lot of product because competition could do it cheaper. They started servicing the "Foreign" products and are doing very well. The guy that use to deliver your mail might be doing something in the way of servicing your computer. Or, if he is bull headed, he might be sitting on his butt and staring at his mail box thinking of how it use to be.
Times have changed and are not going back to the way it was. We are no longer slaves to the whims of the D3. The consumer is beginning to realize that to reward bad behavior, such as problematic vehicles, does nothing but cost them heart ache and money.
>Hang in there dude, and maybe they will someday have something nice to say about your choices.
Actually my Buicks have done well in their evaluations. The Lucerne was recommended. I haven't checked on any comments on the new LaCrosse by MsReports.
You seem to be making this personal. I, however, have had great service from my GM automobiles. Of course I take care of them per the recommended services and checks.
I have trouble with their slants since Nader was onboard. I also have concerns about their passing off a convenience survey as an authentic representation. But they don't give any information about the number of _reported_ problems on a specific car model out of the total number of responses for that car. E.g., they had 128 returns on the Camry for 2005 and they marked it completely wonderful based on those. They had 2987 returns for the Ford Fusion and found it one mark below their best rating. Which one do they give full information on in their circles in the magazine to help the consumer know which one was actually better rated with a degree of certainty in a typical range of 5% and less +/-? Neither. Because they don't tell the reader that data.
Continuing, they insert their own opinions. I love reading the comparisons where they test 5 of similar models and then in the text rate one much better than the other. E.g., was one where they complained about rear vision blockage on the cars they don't _prefer_, while the foreign brand car in the picture had a much larger C-pillar for blockage. Didn't comment squat on the foreign brand which is was on their automatically preferred list.
They need to tell the reader how many responses to each car model they are basing the supposed reader opinion on.
Funny, there is a Ford product in my fleet and I much prefer the three GM cars. I never felt I was a slave to the D3. I always chose a D3 car; nobody forced me into one. Anybody who knows me would realize a burned-out bulb drives me bananas and I will obsess over it until it is replaced. I sure as heck am not going to tolerate frequent reliability problems. I have rewarded GM, time and again, for excellent quality.
Maybe I wouldn't worry so much about GM if my alternatives were Packard, Nash, Hudson, or Studebaker versus Toyota, Honda, Nissan, or Hyundai.
Heck, my wife's 2005 LaCrosse has been excellent. There have been NO issues in the last 5+ years. So much for that adage about not buying a new GM model in its first year!
Actually my Buicks have done well in their evaluations. The Lucerne was recommended. I haven't checked on any comments on the new LaCrosse by MsReports.
I'm just curious...how did CR tend to rate the 1997-2005 Park Ave? My guess is that it got fairly good reliability ratings, although I can imagine that they hated the car in general.
lemko, aside from you, many folks here have posted numerous problems with their Big 3 cars from the last 25 years...it is their EXPERIENCE that is pushing them to the imports, not Consumer Reports...to blindly BUY AMERICAN if their product is substandard is beyond foolish...I do not want to see the American auto industry disappear, but, EVEN MORE SO, many of us do not have $25K-plus to pay for a pirce of junk that is junk in $50K miles...your experience is apparently unique, and good for you...but to say we should buy Big 3 junk just to keep the local factory open, when one may find superior products elsewhere is silly thinking...
If the Big 3 cared, they would have seen the imports for what they are, legitimate competition, and improved their cars to be superior to Honda and Toyota, but they refused...to say they are now better, which may be true, if one has had a great experience with Honda or Toyota, to "gamble" (based on that buyer's past experience) with $25K or more that a Big 3 product "might be better" is also silly thinking, if they already have their proven product in a Honda or Toyota...
Rah-rah just won't cut it, lemko...saving our auto industry is only worth it if they make a quality product for the masses, not just for lemko and rocky...besides, we DO have a domestic auto industry, but those American workers are paid by Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Benz, Hyundai, etc...who, apparently, do make a quality product...
I read your excellent post yesterday but forgot to clink on the link you provided. Clicked on it today. Excellent, thank you!
The article was written in 2003 so the links within it are no longer available. Interesting that in 2003 they were begging forgiveness and making a turn around in quality and recently became Obama Motors.
What I saw is that even GM is apologizing for the crap they were building in the preceeding decades. And they are turning around to be more competitive. But as the article points out, they have done that before and nothing really changed except their advertising.
I'm posting the link here for those that might be sitting on the fence. Realizing that there are some that won't believe it, so they won't read it. They won't believe it when GM admits they were building junk but somehow believe it when GM says they have turned the corner and building better junk.
The article is entitled:General Motors Is Really, Really Sorry This time, they swear they're making better cars. Sound familiar?
How can GM NOW be trying to build a reliable product if, as you say their product was always reliable? Even GM admits they were building crap. To say they have seen the light is simply an echo from the past!
Sorry that my post seemed that way! I was just responding to your post to me, which appeared to contain a bit of sarcasm! :sick:
In the post, you were responding to, I wrote, "Consumers Report yearly evaluations over the years seemed to Zero in on the exact problems I experienced." I stand by that. (smile)
>"What cars do you drive? Your MySpace page doesn't list anything."
Right this minute mine and my wife's are a 09 Honda Ridgeline, 09 Toyota RAV4 that hasn't unintentionally accelerated, and a 78 Chevy Van. We originally set the Van up for towing medium size campers years ago. It probably towed a total of 2000+/- miles. Most trips were less than 50 miles. It has the extra engine and tranny cooling and 342 rear gear. Now it is generally used for trips to HD and Lowes because I can leave materials in it until I need them. It has been expensive to keep over the years. Working on the 3rd drive train, Engines, trannys and diffs. Towing is now done by the Ridgeline. ( utility trailer and boat)
One of my sons, 33 years old got rid of his Dakota Pickup and Mustang (both build in the 2000s} and drives an 07 Ridgeline. Another son (39) has a 99 Jeep Grand Cherokee. It has cost him to keep everything working. And consequently a lot of stuff doesn't work any longer. Don't know what he will get.
Like I've said, we aren't strangers to D3 cars. But in the 70s and 80s we didn't keep them long due to high upkeep. My 1st taste of a new Asian car was in 1973. I had been driving a 72 Chevy Cheyenne but is was troublesome. Sold it and bought a 73 Toyota Pick up. Hauled a bunch of motorcycles a lot of miles in the bed of that thing and worked out of it every day. I don't recall ever having it to a dealer for anything other than routine service. Got rid of that when finances got better and bought a Pontiac Catalina. Big trouble!
Really got into Japanese stuff when I traded my Chevy Astro for a Mazda MPV in the mid to late 80s. Same experience. Astro problematic Mazda no problems except for the torque converter going out at 50K, which Mazda fixed with a new tranny free of charge. My wife had an 87 Olds and it got to a point that the engine and tranny were shot at 75K and she had a glovebox full of receipts from the Olds dealer just to keep the thing on the road. Traded it for a new 95 Maxima and again only saw the dealer for routine service. If there were any recalls done, I don't remember them. Kept the Maxima until we traded it at 75K miles for a new 03 CR-V. Traded that for the 09 Rav4. I had a 96 and a 98 Ram Sport during those Maxima years and they both were troublesome. Traded the 98 for an 03 Pilot and traded that for the 09 Ridgeline cause I wanted a light duty P/U.
Ford being that high makes sense, considering CR has given them great ratings and recommends almost the entire Ford line-up and their reliability has been very good to excellent the last 3-4 years!
What I'm surprised about is that Audi is above BMW, Buick is ranked lower than Chevrolet, and Subaru is ranked pretty low? :confuse: There are others that look odd but those three rankings I just mention seem very very puzzling and wrong!
Toyota Motor Co.'s non-luxury Toyota brand, long a benchmark for quality, dropped from sixth place in last year's rankings to 21st this year.
J.D. Power and Associates surveyed new-car buyers after they'd owned their vehicles for 90 days and asked them about problems or complaints with their vehicles. Initial quality has proven to be a good predictor of long term dependability, according to J.D. Power.
Led by Ford, American carmakers out-perform Asian rivals in J.D. Power Initial Quality Survey for the first time.
Congratulations to Ford!
So Dave, are you saying that the best cars should win only when US nameplates? That argument did not seem persuasive when it was Honda or Subaru or Toyota. :confuse:
The industry average is based on number of manufacturers. Equal weighting to each name on the list.
If you derived the industry average by weighting each manufacturer by the volume of vehicles they sell, GM is better than the volume weighted industry average.
Besides, 109 vs 111 and you are separating and making a judgement? Remember the days when Chev had 260 and Toyota had 250? That was still a tiny difference.
The best car is the one I buy! Cadillac has been a five time winner for me! Buick has won four times! I don't buy cars based on advertisements. I could care less about whether or not they paid back those government loans or what inane slogan some ad agency concocts.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. automakers have surpassed foreign brands for the first time in a survey that measures the quality of new cars and trucks.
J.D. Power and Associates said Thursday that owners of vehicles made by Detroit automakers reported fewer problems on average during the first 90 days of ownership than those built by companies based overseas.
It was the first time that has happened in the 24 years the industry research group has conducted the annual quality study that is a closely watched measure of the durability and reliability of vehicles.
U.S. automakers have long lagged foreign brands, especially those from Asian manufacturers like Toyota, which many consumers believe produce higher quality cars and trucks than General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.
But J.D. Power said Ford Motor Co. showed some of the biggest gains in quality among individual brands, moving into the fifth spot. Porsche was the top scorer. Toyota Motor Corp., which has suffered through huge safety recalls earlier this year, saw its score drop.
"Domestic automakers have made impressive strides in steadily improving vehicle quality," said David Sargent, J.D. Power's vice president of global research.
The study ranks vehicles according to the number of problems reported per 100 vehicles. The overall average for the industry was 109 problems per 100 vehicles. That industry average has fallen steadily over the past decade.
U.S. manufacturers scored an average of 108 problems, while foreign companies posted 109 problems. That is a marked difference than just 10 years ago, when import brands had far fewer initial problems than those made by U.S. companies.
Luxury brands topped the list, with Acura and Mercedes-Benz holding the second and third spots. Daimler, which makes the Mercedes-Benz, had the best performing plant, an assembly facility in East London, South Africa.
Land Rover had the highest overall number of average problems with 170.
Ford was the best scorer among non-luxury brands, with 93 problems per 100 vehicles. J.D. Power said that Ford has shown steady improvement over the last nine years.
The rankings are closely watched by automakers, which frequently use them in advertising campaigns. Ford vice president of quality Bennie Fowler said in a statement that the survey shows Ford's "steady and meticulous attention to new model launches."
Toyota's ranking dropped to the 21st spot, down from the sixth ranking in 2009. The Japanese automaker has built a strong reputation for vehicle quality, but has seen its image suffer after wide reports of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles. The company has recalled 9 million vehicles worldwide since October over problems with gas pedals and brakes in some models.
"Overall, we're disappointed but probably not surprised," said Jim Lentz, Toyota's top U.S. sales executive. "If you look at when the survey was fielded, it was right during the height of the recall and the intense coverage of the recall."
He said vehicles not involved in recall saw their scores go up in the study. He also noted that Toyota had six segment award winners, more than any other manufacturer.
"We are paying close attention to what the customer is telling us through J.D. Power."
AP Auto Writer Dan Strumpf in New York contributed to this report.
GM is better than the volume weighted industry average.
It simply means that Porsche and some others near the top of the list sell a small fraction of the cars sold in N.A., when compared to GM. Yet they are weighted equally with brands like Chev when calculating the industry average score.
I also noticed that 2010 Chev is same rating as 2009 Acura.
So your saying then that due to Chevy's high volume they pull the weighted average downward and therefore help themselves to meet that lower average using your system of considering sales volume as relevant to quality.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
GM is better than the volume weighted industry average.
It simply means that Porsche and some others near the top of the list sell a small fraction of the cars sold in N.A., when compared to GM. Yet they are weighted equally with brands like Chev when calculating the industry average score.
Here is what I'm saying. It's a MANUFACTURER list, not a VOLUME list. GM is below average. And that is after the last many years of improvement. They've gone from crappy to almost decent -- if your vehicle is about 1 year old.
UAW complains about Toyota adding American jobs in MS while shutting down Fremont, CA. But ooops - the Fremont plant (NUMMI) shutdown was a GM decision...
early this morning, I heard a car go past the house that didn't sound too healthy. When he hit the dip in the road out there, I heard a clunk, and then sort of a buzzy sound that I tend to associate with a transmission failing. Sure enough, I look out the window, and about 100 feet down the road, a Honda Civic was pulled off to the side of the road.
So yes, Hondas do break down! Now, honestly, this doesn't prove anything, as the car was late 90's vintage, and looked pretty beat up. At that age and condition, it could happen to any car!
Oh, also, on the way to work, I saw a late 90's vintage Infiniti I30 being loaded onto a flatbed towtruck. Again, with a car that old, it's hard to fault the manufacturer when it breaks down. But, I just thought it was interesting that the only cars I saw broken down on the way to work were imports, for a change!
Heck, they don't even have to be old. I recall seeing a Lexus LS on the side of the PA Turnpike with a broken rear axle. These import fanboys act as if their cherished chariots never break.
I've seen two 2010 LaCrosse's on tow trucks already, and various 2008-2010 Malibu's , two of the new Equinox, and a few Cadillac products over the last two years up being towed to the dealerships!
And you act as if GM, Chrysler, and Ford never had quality and reliability problems and they most certainly did! Ford is the only one that has had incredible improvements! I have not seen the amount of new Ford products on tow trucks that I have seen GM and Chrysler products!
so what does your observations and mine mean? absolutely nothing! they cancel each other! :P
Initial quality means nothing about long-term reliability/dependability. I've had various GM products that did not have any problems the first 3 years I had them, and that almost like clock work, as soon as the warranty expired, at the 4 and 5 year old mark, they began falling apart with repair after repair!
So, if I commented to JD Power how I had no problems the first 90 days, yeah, that really told me how the car was going to fall apart at the 4 and 5 year mark!
That is why, except for customer service satisfaction, I don't put much stock in JD Power studies because they don't test the true measure, and what most people look for in a car, is long-term reliability at 4, 5, and 6+ years!
The last GM car I had to have towed was my '82 Cutlass Supreme, back in 1994. I had the transmission rebuilt, and about two weeks before the warranty was up, it loosened up and pulled away from the engine. Luckily it didn't fall out of the car!
Comments
As for the seat-belt chime nagging, I would prefer an interlock for 100% compliance, (again, for the novice-driver key). Everyone buckles-up or no-go. Yeah-yeah, I know.... what about the teen daughter, alone in the parking lot and a drug-crazed rapist is trying to break into the car with a tire iron. That happens all the time in my neighborhood too.
I'll bet you agree with Airbus philosophy vs. Boeing, too. The computers control everything! :P
The BOF GM SUV's still pull a black bulls-eye in CR reliability....in 2009. What an improvement! :lemon:
Regards,
OW
Consumer Reports, they tell it like it is.
Agree absolutely...I knew I took a chance with GM in 2003 with the black dot for reliability....that's EXACTLY why I added the Gold Full Coverage Extended Warranty at 35K just before the meager GM coverage expired. I'm WAYYYYYYYY ahead financially! Lemko might as well have smoked those same birds he would have before buying a Hyundai, which will pass GM in market share very soon! :P
In today's economy, GM remains the last consideration for me despite $1,888 on the GM card!!
Regards,
OW
Actually, they could still be much improved. If I recall correctly, that big black bullseye "much worse than average" cagetory ranges from something like 15% of all samples having a problem all the way to 100% having a problem.
I think the whole scale breaks down to something like:
0-3% have a problem: big red circle
3-5% = half-red circle
5-9% = clear circle (average)
9-15% = half-black circle
15%-100% = full black circle.
That's why I wish CR would actually publish the percentages, rather than just give the little colored circles. That way, we could see if there really is an improvement from year to year. For instance, a brand could go from having 100% failures in a given category to 15.1%, which anybody would agree is a huge improvement. But, it would still get the big black circle.
A 15.1% failure rate is still nothing to brag about though.
Exactly why I like the black dot system. If you suck, or suck a lot, you still suck either way.
Also, if the percentages change because of improvements in the red circle crowd, then that is the way it should be. If you can't keep up, it's black dots for you. I think the system works and is marvelous.
And to the other person saying Chrysler was owned by the Germans. While Daimler was involved with Chrysler, Mercedes' reliability went into the toilet too.
It wasn't in the toilet beforehand though.
Hang in there dude, and maybe they will someday have something nice to say about your choices.
Then you can say they changed their format and now they are accurate.
Until then, read it and weep.
Kip
I think that sort of bias will show up when they test a car...they'll whine about the layout of the controls, the way it handles, and so forth. But I think the reliability ratings do have some merit. However, I think the problem is in the way we tend to interpret the ratings. Most people probably look at it like this...
Red circle: the holy grail, Honda...ohhhhhmmmmm...Honda, etc
Half red circle: almost the holy grail
clear circle: a mediocre car when it comes to reliability
half-black circle: pretty crappy
black circle: total crap, keep away at all costs
However, the reality end up being more like...
Red circle: almost nobody has a problem
Half red circle: almost nobody has a problem
clear circle: most people don't have a problem, but a few do
half-black circle: most people don't have a problem, but a few more do
black circle: most people probably don't have a problem, but since that range covers a 15% to a 100% failure rate, it can be risky.
And that is a whole lot worse than your American masters motoring in splender?
Somewhat odd and pathetic how some actually believe that the fat cats at GM Chrysler and Ford actually care about the consumer. THEY DON'T !
They only care about how to get us to buy their product.
While it is true that all manufacturers have their problems from time to time, it seems the American public still prefer the few problems they have with the Asian products, to the multitude of problems they have with the D3 products.
Seems that Ford is actually trying, and with some success, to build a better product. GM through nifty commercials but "sucky" products, and Chrysler is likely a lost cause.
Times have changed. There are still plenty of opportunities, maybe more than ever, for those that want to work on an automobile or truck assembly line. The name on the building will likely be different, and the fat cat likely living in Asia. But the American worker still has opportunity.
Would you still be in love with GM products if GM moved their Corporate offices to Japan or Germany, but manufacturing stayed here? How about if they moved everything to Japan, put a bunch of american worker out of work, and built the same quality they are building now. Would you feel the same about them as you do now?
Face facts, you are reading this on a computer screen rather than a piece of paper that came through the mail. What about all those postal workers that are not working because of the computer. Chances are good we are all supporting foreign fat cats when we buy computers, cell phones, cameras, clothing, TVs, and the list goes on and on.
Companies learn to cope if they want to stay in business. For example: IBM stopped manufacturing a lot of product because competition could do it cheaper. They started servicing the "Foreign" products and are doing very well. The guy that use to deliver your mail might be doing something in the way of servicing your computer. Or, if he is bull headed, he might be sitting on his butt and staring at his mail box thinking of how it use to be.
Times have changed and are not going back to the way it was. We are no longer slaves to the whims of the D3. The consumer is beginning to realize that to reward bad behavior, such as problematic vehicles, does nothing but cost them heart ache and money.
Kip
Actually my Buicks have done well in their evaluations. The Lucerne was recommended. I haven't checked on any comments on the new LaCrosse by MsReports.
You seem to be making this personal. I, however, have had great service from my GM automobiles. Of course I take care of them per the recommended services and checks.
I have trouble with their slants since Nader was onboard. I also have concerns about their passing off a convenience survey as an authentic representation. But they don't give any information about the number of _reported_ problems on a specific car model out of the total number of responses for that car. E.g., they had 128 returns on the Camry for 2005 and they marked it completely wonderful based on those. They had 2987 returns for the Ford Fusion and found it one mark below their best rating. Which one do they give full information on in their circles in the magazine to help the consumer know which one was actually better rated with a degree of certainty in a typical range of 5% and less +/-? Neither. Because they don't tell the reader that data.
Continuing, they insert their own opinions. I love reading the comparisons where they test 5 of similar models and then in the text rate one much better than the other. E.g., was one where they complained about rear vision blockage on the cars they don't _prefer_, while the foreign brand car in the picture had a much larger C-pillar for blockage. Didn't comment squat on the foreign brand which
iswas on their automatically preferred list.They need to tell the reader how many responses to each car model they are basing the supposed reader opinion on.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Maybe I wouldn't worry so much about GM if my alternatives were Packard, Nash, Hudson, or Studebaker versus Toyota, Honda, Nissan, or Hyundai.
I'm just curious...how did CR tend to rate the 1997-2005 Park Ave? My guess is that it got fairly good reliability ratings, although I can imagine that they hated the car in general.
If the Big 3 cared, they would have seen the imports for what they are, legitimate competition, and improved their cars to be superior to Honda and Toyota, but they refused...to say they are now better, which may be true, if one has had a great experience with Honda or Toyota, to "gamble" (based on that buyer's past experience) with $25K or more that a Big 3 product "might be better" is also silly thinking, if they already have their proven product in a Honda or Toyota...
Rah-rah just won't cut it, lemko...saving our auto industry is only worth it if they make a quality product for the masses, not just for lemko and rocky...besides, we DO have a domestic auto industry, but those American workers are paid by Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Benz, Hyundai, etc...who, apparently, do make a quality product...
I read your excellent post yesterday but forgot to clink on the link you provided.
Clicked on it today. Excellent, thank you!
The article was written in 2003 so the links within it are no longer available.
Interesting that in 2003 they were begging forgiveness and making a turn around in quality and recently became Obama Motors.
What I saw is that even GM is apologizing for the crap they were building in the preceeding decades. And they are turning around to be more competitive. But as the article points out, they have done that before and nothing really changed except their advertising.
I'm posting the link here for those that might be sitting on the fence. Realizing that there are some that won't believe it, so they won't read it. They won't believe it when GM admits they were building junk but somehow believe it when GM says they have turned the corner and building better junk.
The article is entitled:General Motors Is Really, Really Sorry
This time, they swear they're making better cars. Sound familiar?
http://www.slate.com/id/2084377
To the GM believers:
How can GM NOW be trying to build a reliable product if, as you say their product was always reliable? Even GM admits they were building crap. To say they have seen the light is simply an echo from the past!
Kip
Sorry that my post seemed that way! I was just responding to your post to me, which appeared to contain a bit of sarcasm! :sick:
In the post, you were responding to, I wrote, "Consumers Report yearly evaluations over the years seemed to Zero in on the exact problems I experienced." I stand by that. (smile)
Kip
JD Powers also had had nice words about Buick through the years.
What cars do you drive? Your MySpace page doesn't list anything.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Right this minute mine and my wife's are a 09 Honda Ridgeline, 09 Toyota RAV4 that hasn't unintentionally accelerated, and a 78 Chevy Van. We originally set the Van up for towing medium size campers years ago. It probably towed a total of 2000+/- miles. Most trips were less than 50 miles. It has the extra engine and tranny cooling and 342 rear gear. Now it is generally used for trips to HD and Lowes because I can leave materials in it until I need them. It has been expensive to keep over the years. Working on the 3rd drive train, Engines, trannys and diffs. Towing is now done by the Ridgeline. ( utility trailer and boat)
One of my sons, 33 years old got rid of his Dakota Pickup and Mustang (both build in the 2000s} and drives an 07 Ridgeline. Another son (39) has a 99 Jeep Grand Cherokee. It has cost him to keep everything working. And consequently a lot of stuff doesn't work any longer. Don't know what he will get.
Like I've said, we aren't strangers to D3 cars. But in the 70s and 80s we didn't keep them long due to high upkeep. My 1st taste of a new Asian car was in 1973. I had been driving a 72 Chevy Cheyenne but is was troublesome. Sold it and bought a 73 Toyota Pick up. Hauled a bunch of motorcycles a lot of miles in the bed of that thing and worked out of it every day. I don't recall ever having it to a dealer for anything other than routine service. Got rid of that when finances got better and bought a Pontiac Catalina. Big trouble!
Really got into Japanese stuff when I traded my Chevy Astro for a Mazda MPV in the mid to late 80s. Same experience. Astro problematic Mazda no problems except for the torque converter going out at 50K, which Mazda fixed with a new tranny free of charge. My wife had an 87 Olds and it got to a point that the engine and tranny were shot at 75K and she had a glovebox full of receipts from the Olds dealer just to keep the thing on the road. Traded it for a new 95 Maxima and again only saw the dealer for routine service. If there were any recalls done, I don't remember them. Kept the Maxima until we traded it at 75K miles for a new 03 CR-V. Traded that for the 09 Rav4. I had a 96 and a 98 Ram Sport during those Maxima years and they both were troublesome. Traded the 98 for an 03 Pilot and traded that for the 09 Ridgeline cause I wanted a light duty P/U.
Been there and done that!
Kip
Well sure! Comparatively speaking. If we believe the commercials and discount CR.
I keep hearing:
1. "We've paid back all the money including interest!"
2."Let the best car win!"
The 1st one is a blatant lie based on deception. The 2nd one sounds fair to me!
LET THE BEST CAR WIN !
Kip
Kip
What I'm surprised about is that Audi is above BMW, Buick is ranked lower than Chevrolet, and Subaru is ranked pretty low? :confuse: There are others that look odd but those three rankings I just mention seem very very puzzling and wrong!
:shades:
J.D. Power and Associates surveyed new-car buyers after they'd owned their vehicles for 90 days and asked them about problems or complaints with their vehicles. Initial quality has proven to be a good predictor of long term dependability, according to J.D. Power.
Congratulations to Ford!
So Dave, are you saying that the best cars should win only when US nameplates? That argument did not seem persuasive when it was Honda or Subaru or Toyota. :confuse:
The industry average is based on number of manufacturers. Equal weighting to each name on the list.
If you derived the industry average by weighting each manufacturer by the volume of vehicles they sell, GM is better than the volume weighted industry average.
Besides, 109 vs 111 and you are separating and making a judgement? Remember the days when Chev had 260 and Toyota had 250? That was still a tiny difference.
:surprise: :confuse: :sick:
J.D. Power and Associates said Thursday that owners of vehicles made by Detroit automakers reported fewer problems on average during the first 90 days of ownership than those built by companies based overseas.
It was the first time that has happened in the 24 years the industry research group has conducted the annual quality study that is a closely watched measure of the durability and reliability of vehicles.
U.S. automakers have long lagged foreign brands, especially those from Asian manufacturers like Toyota, which many consumers believe produce higher quality cars and trucks than General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.
But J.D. Power said Ford Motor Co. showed some of the biggest gains in quality among individual brands, moving into the fifth spot. Porsche was the top scorer. Toyota Motor Corp., which has suffered through huge safety recalls earlier this year, saw its score drop.
"Domestic automakers have made impressive strides in steadily improving vehicle quality," said David Sargent, J.D. Power's vice president of global research.
The study ranks vehicles according to the number of problems reported per 100 vehicles. The overall average for the industry was 109 problems per 100 vehicles. That industry average has fallen steadily over the past decade.
U.S. manufacturers scored an average of 108 problems, while foreign companies posted 109 problems. That is a marked difference than just 10 years ago, when import brands had far fewer initial problems than those made by U.S. companies.
Luxury brands topped the list, with Acura and Mercedes-Benz holding the second and third spots. Daimler, which makes the Mercedes-Benz, had the best performing plant, an assembly facility in East London, South Africa.
Land Rover had the highest overall number of average problems with 170.
Ford was the best scorer among non-luxury brands, with 93 problems per 100 vehicles. J.D. Power said that Ford has shown steady improvement over the last nine years.
The rankings are closely watched by automakers, which frequently use them in advertising campaigns. Ford vice president of quality Bennie Fowler said in a statement that the survey shows Ford's "steady and meticulous attention to new model launches."
Toyota's ranking dropped to the 21st spot, down from the sixth ranking in 2009. The Japanese automaker has built a strong reputation for vehicle quality, but has seen its image suffer after wide reports of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles. The company has recalled 9 million vehicles worldwide since October over problems with gas pedals and brakes in some models.
"Overall, we're disappointed but probably not surprised," said Jim Lentz, Toyota's top U.S. sales executive. "If you look at when the survey was fielded, it was right during the height of the recall and the intense coverage of the recall."
He said vehicles not involved in recall saw their scores go up in the study. He also noted that Toyota had six segment award winners, more than any other manufacturer.
"We are paying close attention to what the customer is telling us through J.D. Power."
AP Auto Writer Dan Strumpf in New York contributed to this report.
No, he's saying the JDP report is useful unless it is not useful, in which case they make up crappy on volume!
Do you think lemko is really Wagoner in disguise? :surprise:
GM is better than the volume weighted industry average.
It simply means that Porsche and some others near the top of the list sell a small fraction of the cars sold in N.A., when compared to GM. Yet they are weighted equally with brands like Chev when calculating the industry average score.
I also noticed that 2010 Chev is same rating as 2009 Acura.
GM is better than the volume weighted industry average.
It simply means that Porsche and some others near the top of the list sell a small fraction of the cars sold in N.A., when compared to GM. Yet they are weighted equally with brands like Chev when calculating the industry average score.
Here is what I'm saying.
It's a MANUFACTURER list, not a VOLUME list. GM is below average. And that is after the last many years of improvement. They've gone from crappy to almost decent -- if your vehicle is about 1 year old.
UAW complains about Toyota adding American jobs in MS while shutting down Fremont, CA. But ooops - the Fremont plant (NUMMI) shutdown was a GM decision...
Bye bye union!
I saw the Toyota artice...I can only imagine the laughter in the MS plant when the UAW tries to unionize the plant...
Let's see...UAW plants???...lost hundreds of 1000s of jobs in the last decade
Nonunion import plants???...have mostly gained jobs in the last decade...
What do I choose???
I can only hope...bye bye UAW...
Don't forget...that UAW sub-standard mentality literally (genetically?) prevents them from "getting it"
So yes, Hondas do break down!
Oh, also, on the way to work, I saw a late 90's vintage Infiniti I30 being loaded onto a flatbed towtruck. Again, with a car that old, it's hard to fault the manufacturer when it breaks down. But, I just thought it was interesting that the only cars I saw broken down on the way to work were imports, for a change!
And you act as if GM, Chrysler, and Ford never had quality and reliability problems and they most certainly did! Ford is the only one that has had incredible improvements! I have not seen the amount of new Ford products on tow trucks that I have seen GM and Chrysler products!
so what does your observations and mine mean? absolutely nothing! they cancel each other! :P
Initial quality means nothing about long-term reliability/dependability. I've had various GM products that did not have any problems the first 3 years I had them, and that almost like clock work, as soon as the warranty expired, at the 4 and 5 year old mark, they began falling apart with repair after repair!
So, if I commented to JD Power how I had no problems the first 90 days, yeah, that really told me how the car was going to fall apart at the 4 and 5 year mark!
That is why, except for customer service satisfaction, I don't put much stock in JD Power studies because they don't test the true measure, and what most people look for in a car, is long-term reliability at 4, 5, and 6+ years!