Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?

marine2

Why do you think Japan companies build plants in China and other Pacific Rim countries? They do it because they can't compete with those countries with their higher wages and benefits. They must build them there or they can't sell their products. Domestic products can be made and sold cheaper.

Japan use to offer life time jobs to Japanese workers. That practice is slowly going by the way side. They're getting away from that because they have had to close down Japanese plants and moved them to other countries in order to compete. It also means they have to keep excess people on the payroll even when business is down, eating up profit. Much like American companies face.

rockylee

marine2,

Pal, your speaking to the Choir. I guess we shouldn't be suprised at all the advantages a foreign country has over domestic ones in this country. Some in our government are a bunch of sell-outs. No loyalty to country, and are lookin' for that next buck. Just look at "Port-Gate" and the UAE seeking control. I work for the Dept. of Energy and the thaught of a foreign country doing our buisness is scary. Yeah their are a bunch of safeguards in place to prevent that from happening. However Dubya has the rule book in hand, and has shown he can rewrite to rules when it's going to benefit him in the form of "secret" compensation plans. I guess my psycho step grandmother said it best: "It's better to be greedy, than needy" :sick:

Rocky

kdhspyder

I didn't misread it because Toyota doesn't put it on their window sticker like Honda and Chrysler does. I had to go into the showroom and have the salesman look it up. This is what he told me,60%.

Well you did miss something.

It's a Federal law that every vehicle has to have the Domestic content of parts on a label on every unsold auto on the lot. On Camry's it's always on the driver's side rear window. Now if it was a Used Car lot then no it's not required.

As I said I work at a Chevy-Toyota store. It is on every single vehicle. Check again, you'll find it. It's 80%

socala4

The cars they import from Korea or Japan are from plants GM has part ownership in and are sub compacts. Cars they can not build here because of the high cost and low profit.

If you are concerned about employing Americans or reducing the trade deficit, as you claim to be, then this is irrelevant.

-A Chevy built in Korea and imported to the US increases the trade deficit

-A Honda Civic built in the US and sold abroad reduces the trade deficit

And of course, there are other differences, too:

-The Korean Chevy is built with Korean labor, putting wages into the pockets of Korean workers; the Civic is built with American labor, putting wages into the pockets of American workers. Which one is better?

-The Korean Chevy generates profits that are not taxable in the US; the Civic does. Which one is better?

-The Korean Chevy uses parts sources from Asia; the Civic uses parts mostly sourced from the US. Which one is better?

socala4

Well you did miss something.

It's a Federal law that every vehicle has to have the Domestic content of parts on a label on every unsold auto on the lot. On Camry's it's always on the driver's side rear window. Now if it was a Used Car lot then no it's not required.

That's absolutely correct. This has been a matter of law for over a decade. And a Camry built in Kentucky has 80% US/Canadian content.

bmk32

Interesting read............

Buy American Mention of the Week 2-11-06


Is It Unpatriotic to Not Buy American Cars?

As I sat in an Orlando studio on January 24th waiting to be interviewed on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes for the first time, that seemed to be the question I was going to be asked to answer if the introductory comments were any indication. In the studio in New York was Malcolm Bricklin, founder and CEO of Visionary Vehicles, who plans on importing cars from China by 2007. Ford had just announced plans to lay off 30,000 workers, and since even Mr. Bricklin (to his credit) says he doesn’t want to see so many Americans join the ranks of the unemployed, it was a good question to ask. But the show started with asking Mr. Bricklin a different question and by the time the cameras pointed to me, I was given a different question as well, so I never really got to answer it.

But as I continue to think about it since that interview, the answer I would have given to Sean Hannity is the same as my answer today: If it’s unpatriotic to destroy the American middle class, then it’s unpatriotic to not buy American cars. As a country, we’re drowning in a sea of red ink, and as consumers (those who really should know better, anyway) we’re drowning is a sea of “what’s in it for me.”

Since President Bush has all but ruled out any government help for either Ford or GM saying they have to make a product that is “relevant” (did you know Mr. Bush himself owns a Ford pickup truck?) it’s up to the American consumer to realize that a bankruptcy for Ford or GM or both is definitely not in the national interest. Not only would hundreds of thousands of workers lose their jobs, but about 450,000 retirees would be de-funded. These retirees on fixed incomes would see smaller pensions and reduced medical benefits. The workers that remained would see massive cuts in benefits as well.

Big deal, you say? At least American companies still offer their workers pensions. According to a recent article in The Tennessean, Nissan North America new hires won’t be able to count on a company pension when they retire. And if you work for Nissan and didn’t happen to reach the age of 65 by the end of last year, you won’t be participating in the company-sponsored medical plan either.

If American companies can’t remain successful and shoulder the burden of health care for their workers, the rest of us will likely pick up the tab in the form of higher taxes through expanded entitlement programs, which are already growing at a rate of 8% a year.

84% of all federal spending of our tax dollars already goes towards the “big three” untouchables: interest on the national debt, national defense (including homeland security) and entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. So much for conservatives who wish for smaller government. Generally speaking, few of us want to invite more government intrusion into our lives. But a significantly smaller government these days would result in benefit cuts that would ultimately affect all of us. The days of those who want tax cuts because it means more money in their pockets and means benefit cuts only for someone else are over.

So what’s your reason for not buying American cars and trucks? I’ve heard (and disproved) them all but I’ll list a few of the more popular ones here.

1. Quality. According to the latest J.D. Power & Associates Long-term Dependability Survey, Lincoln, Buick and Cadillac all made the top five for 2005. Lexus was number one and number two was mysteriously not reported by the CNN story highlighting the survey. What’s even better (if you are a fan of American automakers) is that the average dependability of all GM and Ford models combined was greater than the average dependability for all the Japanese models combined.

2. Too much emphasis on “gas guzzlers.” The hypocrisy in this statement is rampant since most people who make it are ardent supporters of the “free market.” The trouble for these hypocrites is that a major free market principle is the law of supply and demand. According to Seattle Times columnist Shaunti Feldhahn, consumer demand for big, bad SUVs has doubled in the last 15 years. So much for the argument that American car companies aren’t building what consumers want to buy. Just like American companies have been scrambling to satisfy the one percent of car buyers who want hybrids, Japanese car makers have been scrambling to catch up to Ford and GM by offering bigger and badder behemoths (at even worse gas mileage ratings than American SUVs). GM has more models with over 30 mpg. highway (2006 EPA estimates) than any other auto maker. Last month I revealed that my 1996 Lincoln Town Car now has over 160,000 miles with no signs of letting up. What I didn’t mention is that my car has averaged 24 mpg since September 2001, which is a result of combined mostly highway driving during the week and mostly city driving on weekends. Not bad for a big luxury car.

3. Foreign car companies will pick up the slack. This argument implies that the hiring of American workers by foreign companies would never take place if there weren’t layoffs by American companies first. Even if you view foreign investment as a good thing – which it isn’t - foreign companies will still invest in America even if we support American companies so they can actually retain our own workers. This argument is almost as bad as the one that implies we need to destroy American manufacturing jobs in general so we can move American workers into high-tech jobs. Why not let the college graduates strapped with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans and other debts take these jobs, and protect American workers in the jobs they choose to have now?

4. American companies can do better. Better at what? What will it take for more American people to root for the home team again? Do you only root for your hometown sports team when they are winning, or do you root for them even when they are down – no matter what? Let’s see. American companies GM and Ford have won numerous quality awards, they have more domestic plants, employ more American workers, support more retirees along with their dependants and families, pay better wages than the non-union foreign-owned plants, have a higher percentage of domestic parts in their automobiles, pay more taxes to the U.S. Treasury, give more to charities for the benefit of this country, and donate more in the wake of disasters like 9-11. Need I go on?

5. GM and Ford need to make cars Americans want to buy. I saved this one for last since it the most ridiculous statement of all. General Motors has the highest market share of any automobile company. To say the company that currently sells more cars and trucks to more people than any other company in the industry – even if that market share is falling – is truly ridiculous. Yes, I know Toyota is gaining on

bmk32

5. GM and Ford need to make cars Americans want to buy. I saved this one for last since it the most ridiculous statement of all. General Motors has the highest market share of any automobile company. To say the company that currently sells more cars and trucks to more people than any other company in the industry – even if that market share is falling – is truly ridiculous. Yes, I know Toyota is gaining on GM and may overtake them this year (in worldwide market share - not U.S. market share - where GM has roughly twice the market share of Toyota) and GM used to command around 50% of the domestic market. But let’s be reasonable, shall we? What company in any industry in today’s super-competitive economy can command 50% of their market? Not even Coke or Pepsi can do that. Which reminds me – Pepsi recently passed Coke to take the top spot in the beverage wars. Is Coke number two now because they aren’t making beverages Americans want to drink? I haven’t heard that one yet. Only in America and only in the automobile industry could number two be declared a loser brand. And only if it’s GM, not Toyota.

The struggle for GM and Ford to regain much needed and much deserved traction has increasingly become a media war. And it’s not just a media war as I reported in my September 2005 article titled Media Bias Against American Automakers. The bias towards foreign automakers has extended from journalists and other newsmakers to everyday Americans with vendettas against their home-team companies in the form of letters to the editor and blogs on the Internet. The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story titled “Are Rumours Hurting Sales” reporting on a Los Angeles resident who started a Web log called “GM Can Do Better.” It’s not that this individual has not heard the reports of numerous quality awards bestowed upon American automakers. It’s that he’s skeptical the reports are true.

So there you have it. Foreign car lovers will believe it if Toyota wins an award. But if General Motors’ Chevy Impala is documented to have fewer customer complaints than the Toyota Camry, foreign car lovers will grasp at different false reasons to justify their foreign purchases. But the facts are in and their arguments no longer hold water. I’d almost be willing to bet these American car bashers haven’t test-driven an American car in years. Right now it doesn’t matter that GM has 82 major plants in America and Ford has 35. What matters is that Toyota, Honda and Nissan have eight plants each. It doesn’t matter that Toyota and Honda average 65% to 75% domestic parts in their U.S. built cars while GM and Ford average 80% to 85%. If these percentages ever reverse, then it will matter to foreign car lovers. Facts simply don’t matter to them when they don’t happen to be in their favor. To them, as Business Week reported December 12, 2005, “the economy is unstoppable as the…Indianapolis Colts” and foreign purchases have no national negative effect. If you watched the Super Bowl last Sunday you probably noticed that the Indianapolis Colts weren’t playing.

I’m sure that this article will not sit well with those who automatically receive it as part of their free “Buy American Mention of the Week” subscription and advocate the demise of GM and Ford. And I’m also sure I’ll receive many “unsubscribe” requests as a result. But I don’t really care. I don’t like writing for people I don’t like any more than I like giving speeches to groups I don’t like. These articles are not designed to make anyone feel less of an American for their past foreign purchases, but rather they aim to persuade American consumers to make the right purchases in the future.

Those who do agree with the facts and the opinions I have presented, I urge you to forward or distribute my auto industry articles to fellow Americans that need to see them. Simply visit www.overthehillcarpeople.com to see the auto industry articles I’ve written since May 2005. I’m not sure how much time GM and Ford have left to turn things around given the obstacles they must overcome that have been put there for bogus and unpatriotic reasons. And remember, the next time someone accuses you of questioning their patriotism because of their foreign car, tell them that if it’s not unpatriotic to destroy the American middle class, then it’s not unpatriotic to buy foreign cars!


Roger Simmermaker, Author
How Americans Can Buy American
www.howtobuyamerican.com

socala4

A lot of the customary excusemaking and accusations of "media bias". (If anything, I would think that it takes courage to criticize the products of GM, one of the largest spenders of advertising dollars in the US.) A lot of these bits have been covered, so I'll comment on this one point:

I’d almost be willing to bet these American car bashers haven’t test-driven an American car in years.

As a guy who has traveled on business, I can tell you that it is my experience in rental cars that continues to put me off to the Big 2.5, and to GM in particular.

The GM cars I have driven are simply one disappointment after the other. I recently had a Pontiac compact, and I've not experienced such a poor combination of sloppy handling, tired performance, mediocre fuel economy, nasty styling and third-rate fit-and-finish. The ergonomics are poor, the seats uncomfortable, and the engine note painful to endure. The only thing that I liked about it was the air conditioner, one of the few areas in which GM has often excelled in compared to its competition.

As boring as I may find them, I would have preferred a Camry for a rental. Unfortunately, eight out of ten rental cars is a Big 2.5 car, so I guess I'll be stuck behind the wheel of these no-joy Detroit sedans for many years to come.

sensai

As a guy who has traveled on business, I can tell you that it is my experience in rental cars that continues to put me off to the Big 2.5, and to GM in particular.

Well I have also traveled a lot and have driven a few base level rental Camry's. Guess what, they are full of cheap plastic, slow, handle poorly, and are not comfortable. I still cannot figure out why the Camry is the best selling car. The new 2007 may have some class leading features, but the current one certainly does not.

socala4

Well I have also traveled a lot and have driven a few base level rental Camry's. Guess what, they are full of cheap plastic, slow, handle poorly, and are not comfortable.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion (and for what it's worth, I find the Toyota plastics to be superior to those of the GM products, but not to a level that I would like to own for myself), but the country clearly doesn't agree with you.

Toyota is doing something better than GM is, otherwise GM wouldn't be losing market share while Toyota is gaining it. This is a free enterprise economy, in which we believe in pleasing the customer. If the customer isn't pleased, and votes with his dollars elsewhere, that should be enough of a wakeup call for the losing companies to adapt or die.

2zmax

Great Post!
"But as I continue to think about it since that interview, the answer I would have given to Sean Hannity is the same as my answer today: If it’s unpatriotic to destroy the American middle class, then it’s unpatriotic to not buy American cars. As a country, we’re drowning in a sea of red ink, and as consumers (those who really should know better, anyway) we’re drowning is a sea of “what’s in it for me.”
So true!
Couldn't have said better myself.

However.
I do believe that Ford is in a much better position than GM. At Least Ford understands that interior is just as important if not more as the exterior.
The interior of all NEW GM vehicles, beside the new Chevy Tahoe, Saturn VUE and the Cadillacs is simply repulsive.
If you compare Ford F-150 to Chevy Silverado 1500 inside and out, the F-150 is a much better looking truck.
I mean the interior in the Silverado is 10 years old for Christ’s Sake. Even the new G6, that everyone is raving about - it is sub par and is way behind such offerings as the new Fusion or the Hontoys.
I do believe that Ford will be my next purchase.
But unless I win the lottery and have enough cash to drop on the new Escalade or the Tahoe , there is no way in Hell I am going to spend $$$ on a POS Impala.
Hyundai Azera is much better inside and out than the Impala LTZ.
All that said, I am not rooting for GM to fail by any means. What I am rooting for is for them to DUMP UAW and get rid of the upper old school management that has no clue.
Maybe they could borrow Carlos Ghosn for a year to get their product line in order.
I would much rather buy an America designed/built vehicle, but so far GM has disappointed me.

imidazol97

I agree that it's a great post. It irritates the GM haters greatly. They come out with the rental car comparisons and the cheap plastics. One Note Sambas, those haters.

I looked inside a new Civic at the public library Saturday--guess what, cheap plastics!!! Hah, ha,haaaaa. Strange dash, strange car, BTW.

lemko

There is NO difference between Toyota and the domestics either in fit and finish or driving dynamics. I bet if I built two Toyota Camries and kept the Toyota badges on one and put Chevy logos on the other, you'd swear the Chevy Camry was a total POS while the Toyo badged one was the paragon of quality and excellence. I driven both Chevrolet Impalas and Toyota Camries as rentals and I can't see what the big deal is about the Camry. It reminds me of an old Chevrolet Lumina.

socala4

There is NO difference between Toyota and the domestics either in fit and finish or driving dynamics.

JD Power IQS data would tell us otherwise. But lest I forget, I suppose that JD Power is part of the Grand Media Conspiracy...

2zmax

Here is my problem with GM vehicles.
Overall they are good cars and trucks, but there are a few shortcomings that are just too important to overlook.
For instance:
The interior in most of the cars and trucks is dated and crappy. There are exclusions, but what bothers me is that if I like the exterior (G6, Trailblazer) the interior is a POS.
Same goes for features: Take for example the Pontiac GP GT.
Great performance – Yes! Fun to Drive – Yes!, Price – Not too bad!
Interior – extremely BAD. Exterior – so-so. Interior Room: - DOES NOT EXIST
NO LEG Room in the back. Spotty reliability.
So while it is s great car to drive and it handles nicely, I will never buy it , because there are many more cars that have the features that I have listed and excel in nearly all categories.
Every recent mainstream GM vehicle I have driven suffered the same problem:
Good, but not nearly as good as the others.
Which makes them below AVERAGE.

xrunner2

Who is Roger Simmermaker?

...it’s up to the American consumer to realize that a bankruptcy for Ford or GM or both is definitely not in the national interest.

It’s up to Ford and GM “management” to make that realization. Should US citizen deciding on Lexus entry over Lucerne after test driving both then “redecide” to buy a Lucerne to save GM? Should potential Civic buyers opt for Cobalt to help save GM?

Not only would hundreds of thousands of workers lose their jobs, but about 450,000 retirees would be de-funded. These retirees on fixed incomes would see smaller pensions and reduced medical benefits. The workers that remained would see massive cuts in benefits as well.

Hello! This has happened to many workers and retirees already. Think about steel, telecom, airlines, etc. US consumers did not step forward to save their benefits or help with pensions. Why should they?

lemko

...last time I went car shopping I took the time to look at a Lexus LS430. The car was solidly-built, had good fit and finish, and a nice interior. I liked that the power tilt and telescope motor was marginally quieter than the one in the Cadillac. However, nothing justified the car's $5K premium over the Caddy. Driving it reminded me strongly of a Buick Park Avenue I test drove earlier that day. I was kind of disappointed. I believed all the hype about Lexus and thought the car would handle like a F-1 racer.

2zmax

first:
You obviously forgot what happened to the economy after the Telecom went down.
Second:
Don't compare pathetic airlines and telecom companies to a giant like GM.
If GM goes down - the whole country will go down with it.

lemko

J.D. Powers also has great things to say about Cadillac and Buick - cars I consistently buy. I believe they have them both pegged above Toyota. Heck, even old-fashioned Lincoln does well by J.D. Powers.

ubbermotor

2 things;

1) Nearly 60% of Caravans last year were built in St. Louis as apposed to Canada.

2)Is it safe to presume by your definition, that the Opel Vectra is an American car built in Germany?

socala4

You see, 2zmax, I don't think you understand the problem.

The problem isn't with the interior, the reliability or anything else, but with us.

We're simply bad Americans because we want value for our money. (Oh, and don't forget, we've been brainwashed, too.)

We should be willing and happy to eat whatever slop that GM tosses into the trough, and be grateful for getting it. Obviously, we need to change our requirements to match those of General Motors, not the other way around. (And if so happens that the "American" car was built in Mexico or Korea and increased the trade deficit while not giving jobs to people in the US, so much the better...)

lemko

He really forgets what happened when Big Steel collapsed. King Coal collapsed in NE Pennsylvania about 50 years ago and the region still hasn't really recovered.

xrunner2

However, nothing justified the car's $5K premium over the Caddy.

How about something called "retained value"? If one trades in/trades up, get beaten up pretty badly on Caddy. Lexus holds retained value better than Caddy.

socala4

J.D. Powers also has great things to say about Cadillac and Buick - cars I consistently buy. I believe they have them both pegged above Toyota. Heck, even old-fashioned Lincoln does well by J.D. Powers.

And you are correct that those particular nameplates do perform well with JD Power.

But the problem is that they don't build cars that I, or people like me, want. Cadillac, Buick and Lincoln appeal to an aging demographic that is the age of my parents and grandparents.

I don't want a land yacht with a marshmallow ride and a sofa for a driver's seat, or some bloated SUV that appeals to the bling-bling rapper crowd, but a car that appeals to my sensibilities, goes fast very well and offers fit-and-finish and styling that pleases, rather than irritates. Neither do my peers.

Don't blame me because GM doesn't meet my needs. I'm not going to spend $25-50k on a car, only to get something that I don't want and whose value plummets like a rock.

lemko

For me, there is nowhere to go from there. When you're in a Cadillac you ARE at the top. Anything beyond Cadillac is throwing money away IMHO. Trade in? Well, I trade my cars when they're quite old and resale is academic. Some I just keep forever like my 1989 Cadillac Brougham. My 1988 Buick Park Avenue is holding up so well, I'd probably have to make a deliberate attempt to destroy it to justify buying a replacement for it.

socala4

OK, Lemko, so I guess you're a committed GM-phile.

Allow me to ask you a question: Suppose today, you became CEO of GM. You could do anything you wanted to create change within the company, such as its products, management, etc.

A caveat: You're CEO of GM, not of the world, so you won't be changing any laws, erecting any trade barriers, or burning down any Toyota dealerships. You'll only have the power in this scenario to change GM, its business and its practices.

Now, given this power, what would you do? Would you do nothing? Do you think that it's OK to continue along with the status quo, or are there any changes that you would make?

lemko

I agree with you on the SUV thing. I hate them with a royal passion. You're as likely to see me buying an Escalade as you are seeing me buy a Prius.

Aging? I'm only 40 and have been buying Cadillacs and Buicks for the last 20+ years. You obviously haven't driven a Cadillac or Buick in a long time. That mushy ride is long gone and I know what you're talking about as I have an old-school Cadillac. My 2002 Cadillac Seville STS handles way better than any of those old cars. Heck even my 1988 Park Ave seems nimble. Fast? Well, I'd say my STS is really fast, but I get scared after 110. My 1994 Cadillac DeVille was also a pretty fast car and it didn't even have the Northstar. The Park Ave also delivers decent acceleration despite a weak by today's standards 165-hp V-6.

xrunner2

Second:
Don't compare pathetic airlines and telecom companies to a giant like GM.

Some airlines, telecoms were mismanaged. But, pathetic airlines and telecom in US have outstanding safety and reliability in world. They have excelled at delivering their services. Can't say that there is similar excellence with regard to some car companies in US.

2zmax

Some of us feel that even a cadillac is "throwing money away "
I'd settle for a G35

2zmax

I was not referring to their safety and reliability record
but merely to their economic impact on our country.
You do live in US don't you?

john500

Let's muddle the picture some more.
1. Most automobile manufacturers (especially the Japanese in the US) build plants in other countries to circumvent IMPORT QUOTAS imposed by the host country.
2. What exactly is the legal definition of "parts content" that many seem to quote? The "parts content" can be interpreted quite improperly if the "legal definition" is not explicitly stated and stated for every automaker. I could arbitrarily call a car as composed of five parts (lugnuts, steering wheel, doorhandle, floormats, other). There's 80 % in parts, but less than 10 % of the total cost.

cob

-The Big 2.5 use standard tooling for assembly; Japan is metric, and Japanese mechanics don't typically have standard-sized tools. So why would they want our cars?

Since you work at the Chevy-Toyota dealership maybe you can help out Socala4. He thinks tooling for US cars is in standard English and not metric. Ask one of your Chevy mechanics how many standard wrenches he uses on Chevy vehicles and report back. It would appear that there is a poster who makes generalizations without the info to back them up. The big three have designed all vehicles in metric since the 1980s. Every fastener is metric just like the Japanese. So I would think their tools would work on American cars.

socala4

Most automobile manufacturers (especially the Japanese in the US) build plants in other countries to circumvent IMPORT QUOTAS imposed by the host country.

That's partially true. (Another reason was to take advantage of relatively low US costs that resulted from the falling dollar, and to reduce their exposure to fluctuating exchange rates.)

But who cares? No company is in business because it loves apple pie, God and country -- they are in business to make money. Fortunately, their pursuit of profits helps to put food on the table for tens of thousands of people who become employed directly or indirectly because of them, while providing products that people want. A win-win for the American people, all the way around.

What exactly is the legal definition of "parts content" that many seem to quote? The "parts content" can be interpreted quite improperly if the "legal definition" is not explicitly stated and stated for every automaker. I could arbitrarily call a car as composed of five parts (lugnuts, steering wheel, doorhandle, floormats, other). There's 80 % in parts, but less than 10 % of the total cost.

You don't need to speculate or make things up, just read the definition for yourself. It's based upon the cost of the parts, not the percentage.

drewmeister

The bias towards foreign automakers has extended from journalists and other newsmakers to everyday Americans with vendettas against their home-team companies in the form of letters to the editor and blogs on the Internet. The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story titled “Are Rumours Hurting Sales” reporting on a Los Angeles resident who started a Web log called “GM Can Do Better.” It’s not that this individual has not heard the reports of numerous quality awards bestowed upon American automakers. It’s that he’s skeptical the reports are true.

Mr. Simmermaker,
Let me say that I certainly respect your views. Personally, I own a Jeep and a Ford (American nameplates, for the most part) so I do not disagree with your basic "buy American" views. I can, however, explain a bit why the Boomers and Gen X (currently the two most powerful purchasing segments) are hurting GM, Ford, and DC via their opinions and purchases.

In a word, management. The management of these companies has shown, almost from the very beginning, a distinct lack of any obligation to protect the American consumer or to offer him the best quality product. Their own "vendetta". From planned obsolescence to fighting safety regulations and sending manufacturing overseas and across borders, they have repeatedly demonstrated that making an extra profit, regardless of human costs, was what mattered most.

The sequence of events that did it for my father involved a 1978 Dodge Aspen and a 1983 Buick Century, owned, unfortunately, in succession. As the Buick ground it's camshaft into dust due to coolant-passage failures in it's Mexican-made engine block (at 51,000 miles), he finally gave up. It was traded on a new 1987 Honda Accord. That car drove flawlessly for 120k miles. It was still running "like a sewing machine" when he got sick of the color and traded it for a 1994 model. Which, as you might guess, drove perfectly for another 140k miles. Then a CRV and another 120k miles. They also put 150k on a Civic as a second car. Again, no mechanical failures aside from one fuel filter, which was the fault of the gas station (water in the tank). Now they own an Avalon. Learned response.

So, what about me? In the past few years I've owned three Fords and one Jeep. On the Fords I've been through fuel pumps, transmission problems, arcing electrics, and more rattles than a paint mixer. And a couple of rescues. The Jeep simply rattles itself silly, but to it's credit keeps running. There are no GM cars in this mix, but all it took was a 1995 Grand Am to cure us of that. It's air conditioner would freeze and shrink the dash plastic so much that the gauges would vibrate up and down. But, I still drive "American" brands. Maybe I'll finally reach my breaking point as my father did, maybe not. I do not blame the GM, Ford, or DC employees for this. I am not in a position to dictate the engineering and materials my company uses in it's products, and neither are they. Their management is. It is cheaper in the short-run to label consumers driving Toyotas as "unpatriotic" than to bite the bullet and use better materials and methods. VW is about to learn just as the big 2.5 have. If you read the VW boards on Edmunds you can hear the rumbles of frustration with their quality issues. Nice interiors and advertising aren't going to save them from consumer opinion based on experience.

In the end, I wanted to offer what I believe is the underlying reason for the behaviors you describe. "Once-bitten" is probably the term. It will take many years of consumers telling each other "wow, that Impala I have is really great" to erase past experience.

xrunner2

That mushy ride is long gone and I know what you're talking about as I have an old-school Cadillac. My 2002 Cadillac Seville STS handles way better than any of those old cars.

Edmunds says that latest STS has excellent handling for its size. It even beats the GTO in the slalom - 61.5 MPH for STS vs 60.0 for GTO.

mikartita

My point of view on this discussion will be to keep it simple. We are discussing the qualities of the different vehicles not the economy of the country... personally I am a german car fan, on the upper scale , Mercedes and Beamers, at entry level price I go for VW's but when it comes to trucks up to recently I preferred GM's but now Japan is moving in with Toyota and Nissan V8's... I hope this war of companies continue so the consumer can benefit (More GM employee discounts?) I will probably keep on buying american trucks but when it comes to cars nothing beats the fine craftmanship of a german vehicle... :

daryll44

Good letter to Mr. Simmermaker. You seem to want to give the unions a "pass" here, however. The truth is that the unions milked where THEY could and management milked where THEY could. And once it became apparent that the cow was dying (or at least needs surgery), EVERYONE is trying to get their last drops of milk. In the end, GM and Ford WILL be competitive with ToyHon in terms of wages and quality. It might take a Chapter 11 reorganization to get the the compensation costs down. And the garbage lower quality vehicles will be what go by the wayside.

By the way, isn't Impala comparable to Avalon, while Malibu would be the competitor to Camry?

imidazol97

Amen.

And the Chevy version won't have sludge problems.

lemko

...I'd start with Chevrolet. They've got trucks, SUVs, and the Corvette down pat so I'd leave them alone. I'd concentrate on the Impala, Malibu, and Cobalt.

For Impala:

What hurts the Impala now is lack of distinctive styling. It now looks too much like an update of the 1999 Lumina. I'd bring back the four/six round taillight hallmark. Heck, I'll take a page from DCX's playbook per the styling of the 300 and Charger and apply it as best as I can to an Impala.

Base 3.5 V-6 cars wouldn't be called Impalas. The rental specials and fleet cars will be called Biscaynes and feature four taillights. Drivetrain configuration = FWD.

Slightly upgraded car will be the Bel-Air - four taillights with FWD configuration.

Impalas will be feature the 5.3 V-8 only and have RWD/AWD config. Six taillights.

Impala SS - shoehorn the massive 5.7 in there! Make a hardtop coupe available - yes I have the power! A 6-speed manual will be available! Six taillights as always.

Caprice - an extended wheelbase Impala with an Avalonesque interior. Comes with 5.3 V-8 and RWD. Big 5.7 V-8 optional.

Biggest changes - MANY more interior colors. I'm sure everybody is sick of gray, black, and pukey beiges. Heck, I'll even offer two-tone interiors to those who want them. Interiors will feature more chrome and NONE of the crappy silver painted plastic that is so much in vogue! Another change - EVERYBODY gets a God's-honest full-size spare! All my cars WILL come standard with ashtrays and cigarette lighters! To blazes with the PC crowd! Every one of my full-size Chevrolets will be attractive from the lowliest Biscayne to the mosy opulent Caprice just like it was back in the 1960s.

rorr

So...

Your method to save GM comes down to taillight design, renaming the various models, interior color choices, more chrome, full-sized spares and cigarette lighters?

Okay....

lemko

for Malibu:

The car needs a serious restyling. As it looks, I think of the car more as a Corolla competitor than a Camry competitor. Don't change the dimensions, just do something to make the car look sleeker and less stubby. The headlights are too high. I'd lower them and make them flush with the grille. I'd also try to make the front end resemble the 1970 model - a car I absolutely love. Per the interior - I'd get the HVAC controls from the Buick LaCrosse. The ones currently used feel like crap. Make the SS available only with 5.3 V-8. No wimpy sixes! Six-speed manual available. And with the Impala - more colors both inside and out. Heck, give the SS racing stripes and hood pins!

For Cobalt - no compromises. If we have to buy a Civic and reverse-engineer it - do it! Meet or exceed the quality. The first beancounter that complains is immediately terminated and black-balled from the auto industry forever. Go work for Wal-Mart, loser! Follow the tuner crowd seriously and try to tap into what the younger generation wants without being condescending. Don't try to appear cool. Trying to look cool is uncool.

Camaro - good God, bring this car to market and price it within reach of Joe Sixpack. I absolutely love the new retro Mustang. Why not a retro Camaro?

socala4

Lemko, I appreciate the effort, and I'll even go further by saying that there are people within GM who probably abide by this philosophy.

Which I believe is the problem. The problems with GM aren't with a lack of interior colors or taillights, but include the following:

-The cars are unreliable. (Yes, they are getting better and a few are actually quite good, but in large part, they are mediocre or below average.)

-The cars have a poor reputation. Years of poor reliability and substandard build quality have tarnished their image, and they will need to work very hard for a very long time to earn its reputation back.

-The cars are often poorly styled in comparison to the competition. Some competitors, such as Toyota, can get by with bland looks because the quality edge is so superior that it can appeal to some based upon reputation alone. But since GM doesn't have this reputation, it needs another edge.

-Too many brands and nameplates. GM has triple the nameplates of Toyota, but roughly the same R&D budget. When you have to service more brands, more dealer networks, more bureaucracy from seperate divisions and more marketing budgets, you end up with higher costs but without any benefit.

-There is no appealing entry-level car to grab young customers and to turn them into long-term customers. Instead, competitors build better entry-level cars which breed customer loyalty to the competition.

(There are other problems, but these are enough for the moment.)

Here's the issue: tweaking some nameplates just won't come anywhere close to addressing any of these issues. Unless and until GM can confront these problems and solve them, you could add baubles, tinsel, fifty taillights and a 454 to a Cobalt, and it still won't help reach the marketplace or win hearts and minds. A few modest changes won't be enough.

lemko

Can't beat them at their own game so we've go to change the game. Toyotas are dependable but dull. My whole philosophy is to make the cars dependable and EXCITING! More to it but nameplate changes. Placing the Impala name on a rental dilutes it. That's why I suggest renaming the lower-end models within the full-size range. If you also read my post, I suggest a lot drivetrain changes but use existing components. GM does drivetrains right.

lemko

If anything, my GM cars have been exponentially reliable. I think everybody makes a reliable car compared to what was built in the past. Did any of those GM rentals you hate so much break down and leave you on the side of the road with the hood up and the radiator steaming? Did any fail to start or, worse yet, stop? Shoot, I never had one of my GM cars fail me. I haven't seen anybody's recent models broken down on the side of the road. Most broken-down cars I see are old junkers of all makes.

socala4

Can't beat them at their own game so we've go to change the game.

In broader terms, I think that you've nailed it there. GM needs to differentiate itself from its competitors.

Think of Big 2.5 vehicles that have been or are successful, such as the Mustang (current body style), Taurus (first model, circa 1985 +/-), Chrysler minivans or the Chrysler 300.

What do they have in common? They offer something unique to the marketplace that the marketplace wanted. As it turns out, the public wanted minivans for their combination of utility and being more similar to a car than a truck. The Mustang and 300 offer style and driving experience that is unique from would-be competitors. The Taurus offered a unique design and a noticeable leap in build quality for its time.

If the products hit a hot button, they will sell, even with a domestic nameplate or if built using union labor. If they don't resonate with the public, they won't.

The key to their success will be to build cars that people want. (Yugo, Renault and FIAT didn't, and you can see how far it got them.) The Big 2.5 have clearly done it before, at least on occasion, and if they are to prosper, they need to do it again.

lemko

Yeah, that's the idea! I think Americans forgot how to build the American-style cars that made them successful in the past. For 25 years they've been building poor copies of Japanese and European cars. Shoot, if I want a Camry, I'll buy a Camry - not an imitation. It makes me wince when some domestic make tries to compare itself to a Camry. I don't see Chrysler comparing the 300 to a Camry or Ford the Mustang to a Celica!

socala4

I think everybody makes a reliable car compared to what was built in the past.

That's true, but you need to compare similar models of similar age to each other, and you'll see that for the most part, Toyotas, Hondas, some Nissans and Subarus typically fare better than their Big 2.5 competitors.

Compare Buick or Cadillac to Lexus, and you'll find Lexus ahead. Compare Chevrolet, Saturn or Pontiac to Toyota or Honda, and you'll find Toyota and Honda ahead. If I am comparing a Cobalt or a Corolla, it really doesn't matter much if the Cadillac is pretty good if the Cobalt sucks wind.

Perhaps it should be pointed out that not all "imports" are created equal -- I don't know if I'd choose a Mitsubishi over a Chevy if reliability was my priority, for example. Clearly, some of the Japanese nameplates excel while others don't, and I have preferred my rental Chryslers to my rental Kias. (Like the Big 2.5, Kia also worked hard to build a poor reputation for itself in the US.) We're talking about the creme de la creme Japanese makers as compared to the Big 2.5, not all of them (and certainly not Kia, either -- Hyundai may prove to be another story).

kdhspyder

GM is not going down.. they may cut loose the UAW and their retirees but that's their business decision. It has nothing to do with the current likes and dislikes of one auto over another.

Liking GM over Ford over Honda over DC over Toyota is neither patriotic nor in 'our best interests'. It's purely a personal decision as it should be.

GM's and Ford's business decisions do have a flavor of patriotism to them but in the end like other business decisions they are cold calculations, that's all. If they do cut loose the UAW and all their retirees then for sure there will be pain felt for a short time but then everyone will adjust and life will go on.

The piece above was actually a good presentation of a pro-GM/F viewpoint. There was nothing factually wrong or mistated. There was no mention world wide conspiracies or currency manipulations barring GM/F from succeeding. It does mention that there is a lot of domestic perception presently standing in the way of success.

With a good lineup and marketing along with several auto hits to go along with their world-class trucks both GM/F will survive nicely. It probably will be with an emasculated version of the UAW though.

kdhspyder

If you remember I was in the steel industry for nearly 30 yrs. The US steel industry is the most innovative and profitable of any anywhere. It's just that the 19th Century dinosaurs got laid to rest by new technology.

This is exactly the same. Exactly. Those 'dino'-jobs just moved to newer and more modern facilities in the south and midwest. This is progress. The older companies/plants don't or can't react and they just die out to faster or better facilities eleswhere here.

This is capitalism and it's been happening ever since the textile industry moved out of New England to the Carolina's early in the last century. It hurts but that's what business is about cold calculations to increase profits. No one ever was guarenteed protection against all threats. It's just business.

kdhspyder

But the problem is that they don't build cars that I, or people like me, want. Cadillac, Buick and Lincoln appeal to an aging demographic that is the age of my parents and grandparents.

This is a good point which every automaker has to address. Toyota has known for a long time that it's customer base is old. Buick of course, Caddy's as well.

What are the domestic three doing to grab the new 19 y.o. FTB ( first time buyer ) and keep them in the family for the next 30 yrs?

The Focus is pretty good, but not the best effort.
Cobalt? Aveo?

What 18 y.o. thinks a small domestic auto is cool - and affordable. Muscle cars aren't grabbing anyones attention other than middle aged guys remembering 'what it was like with no responsibilities'. Who's got the attention of the iPod Gen at $16K or less? This is the future. Can GM/F/DC compete now in the $16000 playing field?