the quality difference between Japanese and US cars is much more perception than reality.
That's the sort of denial that created these problems in the first place. The quality gap has been well documented by objective sources -- it isn't simply a matter of perception.
This is precisely the problem faced by companies such as GM -- instead of accepting the problems, confronting them and fixing them, they claim that the customer is wrong, stupid, lacking perception skills, biased, too much of a freethinker or whatever other excuse can be cooked up.
The company's job is to please the customer. If it can, it will prosper; if it can't, it will die. Perhaps this one deserves to die, so that the US taxpayers can save the billions that it effectively donates to GM each year through its tax loss writeoffs.
Amazing -- first, the company can't deliver the goods, then it adds insult to injury by costing us billions and telling us that we're the problem. Takes a lot of gall to screw up, then blame everyone but themselves for their own mistakes.
Toyota and Honda are good cars, however, the quality difference between Japanese and US cars is much more perception than reality. It's amazing to me how vehemently buyers defend cars (foreign and domestic) even though they had nothing to do with the building, designing or testing of the car.
This is ludicrous! Ridiculous. Absurd!
The reason people vehemently defend Japanese cars and disparage American ones is because they have owned at least one of each. I know I have. My American designed and built vehicle only cost me about $15,000 back in 1994. But as is typical with American cars, it took over $5,000 dollars more to keep it functional to 65,000 miles over 5 1/2 years. That doesn't include scheduled maintenance, which by the way, I changed the oil every 3,000 and the auto tranny fluid/oil every 15,000. Didn't matter, no matter how well you maintain them, they just break down, break down expensively, and break down often.
On the other hand... my 2003 Honda Accord LX V6 coupe is at 53,000 miles (purchased in November of 2002). I've spent exactly $0 on non-scheduled maintenance, and I'm changing the oil every 4,000 to 4,500 miles. Tranny oil every 30K. I drove a 95 Camry in the interim from about 75K miles to 100K miles, and that vehicle only needed new motor mounts other than scheduled maintenance.
I will disparage AMerican vehicles forever, because I was sold a lemon and never given my money back. Chrysler owes me my purchase price.... I won't ask for the repair costs.
I will praise Japanese cars (unless they fall in quality significantly). People warned me about the poor reliability of american cars back in 94 when I was 16 yrs old. I didn't listen cause I wanted a car that could beat a Civic 0-60MPH. But what you learn from experience is.... that the 0-60 time of a Neon is often infinity, because it doesn't run!!! I noticed how my Parents and older brother would have zero issues during warranty on their Toyotas, and sure enough get to 100K miles w/o opening their life savings up.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
NEED, to find out if a ford ranger 2001 xlt is a 4 wheel drive or not, i know this is not the proper site for it, but i need to know, it is a 2 door ford ranger 2001 xlt model.. can anyone help me
Heck, I could say the same thing about any of my Cadillacs or Buicks or my girlfriend's Chevrolet Impala or Buick LaCrosse as you do of your 2003 Honda Accord LX V-6 coupe. The only difference is, I still stick to the 3K oil change interval. I'm currently driving a 1988 Buick Park Avenue as my winter ride and that car seems like it will probably outlive me. I'd probably have to make a concious effort to destroy it to get it to quit running.
When I was 16 in 1981, I bought a 1968 Buick Special Deluxe. I listened to people who told me Buicks were excellent cars and they were right!!! I wasn't looking to race anybody's car. I just wanted a good, solid, dependable, durable, and long-lasting car. I got it. That car was still running in 1992 several years after I gave it to my brother and he is nowhere remotely as fanatical as maintaining his cars as am I. Heck, who knows how much longer that Buick would've lasted had my brother not received my Dad's old ride.
Actually, they claim the customer is right. After 30 years of non-customers like you bad mouthing them they are doing so poorly as to face the possibility of falling to second in the global market, and remain the leader in the U.S. market by a huge margin. If your number one you should follow number 4?
They don't listen to you, but your not a customer are you?
What gap? Yes Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura lead, but the fact that Buick and Cadillac continuosly beat out all the other Japanease makes don't count, right? The fact that the Ford Focus lost its possition as most recommended (cr)small car to the Honda Civic this year is proof in your mind that the Japanease are superior.
GM's market share has been eroding steadily for thirty years, and many of those remaining sales are to fleets, not to retail customers. Eliminate the fleet business, and you find that GM is selling about the same number of cars in the US as is Toyota. Not a good thing for GM.
The funny thing is, I'm not the problem -- GM's results are the problem. The company is bleeding cash in the North American market, with little substantive product in the pipeline that could stimulate a turnaround, and no obvious plan to fix it. With whom do you think the shareholders are more upset, GM management or me?
Let me guess. your driving around in two Dodge's w/o any AC, cause the compressor is dead, but you like it hot so you don't repair it. Your gears are jumpy and grind, but it still gets you from A to B. Your moldings and seals are falling apart, the car rattles and squeaks just about everywhere, but you dont mind. The head gasket leaks coolant, but you just do a weekly fill up and top off.
I suppose that's one way to get to $0 in repairs!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Gm doesn't even deserve the #4 spot in the Automotive kingdom... Sorry. Ford and Chrysler deserve the title a hell of a lot more for their efforts over the years. Buick and Caddy leadign the scores means zilch when you think about it. Between actual sales figures, model for model, they sell significantly less.
Heck, I could probably get high scores out of a Rolls Royce if I was of the Buick buying group...
"What gap? Yes Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura lead, but the fact that Buick and Cadillac continuosly beat out all the other Japanease makes don't count, right?"
I suppose it counts if one is cross-shopping a Buick against a Mazda or a Cadillac against a Nissan.
Toyotas and Hondas generally compete against Fords and Chevys (or Pontiacs).
Is the quality gap SHRINKING between Toyota/Honda vs. Ford/Chevy? YES.
Is the quality gap GONE between Toyota/Honda vs. Ford/Chevy? No.
"They don't listen to you, but your not a customer are you?"
If more people are LEAVING GM for the foreign nameplates than people leaving foreign nameplates for GM, there must be a reason. Who should GM listen too? Those who've owned GM in the past and left or the ever shrinking pool of those who'll stick with GM regardless of what they put on the showroom floor?
If more people are LEAVING GM for the foreign nameplates than people leaving foreign nameplates for GM, there must be a reason.
Of course. And if there is anyone in GM's upper management who fails to understand the significance of this, then that person needs to get pinkslipped.
Here's the unfortunate reality -- even if I personally became a convert to the GM cause, that still wouldn't fix what ails the company. The problems with GM come from its products and methods, not from its critics. Believe it or not, the critics are doing GM a favor, by providing free consulting services to expose problems that should have been understood years ago.
Let me guess. your driving around in two Dodge's w/o any AC, cause the compressor is dead, but you like it hot so you don't repair it.
HAHA That sounds like my Turbo Shadow!
I've had both Japanes, German, and American cars. When I went out and bought my last car (used), I told the salesmen this: "I'm looking for a four door with a fold down rear seat. If it is American it has to be GM (great transmissions.) If it is Japanes, it has to be a five speed (I hate Japanese automatics.)
But, if I buy a new car, it would be a toss up between the Honda Fit, and the Malibu Maxx. Probably the Fit would win. I love stick shifts, tiny motors, and hatch backs. What I really wish is that I'd never gotten rid of my 1989 Civic Si (got married, bought a house, and figured I needed a truck, so I bought a '98 Ranger--nice tuck, but living with a pickup day to day did not fit me too well.)
I wanted a car that could beat a Civic 0-60MPH. But what you learn from experience is.... that the 0-60 time of a Neon is often infinity, because it doesn't run!!
hopefully experience taught you a little more than that, if you wanted a car soley to beat a civic, neon would be a bad choice in anybodys book
now Ford is concentrating on Asia to the exclusion of the US..
Actually the background to this is that since the negotiated settlement between Detroit and Japan back in the late 80's trucks have had a 25% penalty duty added if imported here.
Thailand is the largest producer of small trucks for Toyota, Nissan,Ford ( apparently )but there is a Free Trade agreement sitting waiting to be signed in both capitals which would eliminate all barriers.
Thailand is balking because it doesnt want BoA and Citibank in their country and the US is balking because it will eliminate the 25% penalty on small trucks.... most of which are diesels.
When it is signed - eventually - much of this production will come here just in time for to meet the new cleaner diesel fuel that will be mandated for use in sept 2006. Most small trucks will be imports ( including Thai Rangers ) but diesel users.
hopefully experience taught you a little more than that, if you wanted a car soley to beat a civic, neon would be a bad choice in anybodys book
Hey now! I hate american automobiles due to my miserably pathetic excuse for a car Dodge Neon, but even I'll say this. It was actually a "decent" car when it ran. When it worked, it was a good handling, peppy car, with nice "convenience features" And oh yeah, I wanted a NEW car, and I couldn't spend more than 15,000. That limits your choices significantly. An equivalently loaded Civic did not fall in the budget unless I waived the new car smell requirement! If the Neon was as reliable as a Civic, I'd probably still have it today. So going back in time, I would of chosen a 2 year old or 1 year old "used" Civic. Hindsight is 20/20. Other than that..... a Geo Prizm/Toyota Corolla clone served my best friend quite well, and he raped the hell out of it the way he drove.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'll use my example to tell you guys about the problem with GM. First some background, I've owned 3 GM cars 89 Pontiac Grand Prix, 88 Fiero GT, and 91 Chevy Camaro, and my parents currently have a 99 Chevy S-10 P/U. Each of these cars was mediocre, the Grand Prix had the pealing paint problem, and poor interior trim quality, the Camaro always felt loose, the Fiero had certain stupid unfinished design items such as the windows not rolling all the way down into the doors, while the S-10 is fine, but the dash quality does feel super cheap and it rides pretty poorly.
Still I would like to give GM a chance, however they make nothing that I want to buy, besides maybe a Solstice. (Currently drive a 01 BMW 525i with 86k that has been pretty good though not perfect, but still feels brand new, and all the interior buttons, etc, looks/feel brand new)
GM- Please make your cars appeal to the young urban consumer ( I am 31, educated professional). None of my friends even want to think GM, the cars are huge. why is a grand prix and impala, 10 inches longer then accord/camry and have no more interior space. What's the point? Why is the ION/Cobalt equally large, compared to the imports, w/o more space.
Why does GM have no rear wheel drive cars to compete with the BMW 3's and Lexus IS, sorry CTS is way way longer.
About the only GM car that interest me know is the 07/08 CTS, but there is no info on it, and I don't think I can wait that long..
sorry to rant, but I keep getting disappointed, though hope for the best.
In the US, police agencies generally want large RWD sedans with large trunks (room to carry prisoners and gear in the back), and often have limitations on buying non-Big 2.5 cars, which means they have very few choices to suit them.
I disagree. I think it's because everyone cringes at the thought of getting donut crumbs in the nice interiors and bashing the nice bodies of the foreign cars during chases. Then there's the issue of criminals riding in the back seat. That's what domestic cars are made for.
I think it's because everyone cringes at the thought of getting donut crumbs in the nice interiors and bashing the nice bodies of the foreign cars during chases.
Maybe if the cops preferred croissants, they would demand Peugeots, instead. I'll have to think about it and get back to you...
American cars have traditionally been bigger heavier cars than the Japanese/German competitors. Heavier cars need more thrust to get moving and this wears out internal parts quicker. The brakes must apply more force to stop a larger car and this wears out more components faster. In my observations the most long lasting cars are smaller. In my life I have bought 4 new cars and many used ones. I bought a new 95 Grand AM for my ex wife- alternator went at 15000 miles and the tranny went at 40000 miles. The car also developed ALOT OF RATTLES - not good quality. I then bought her a 99 Grand AM GT 2 door coup (she liked Grand Am's what can I say :O) ). She totaled this car with less than 3000 miles on it so I cannot comment on its reliability. At the same time I bought her the 99 GRAND AM I bought a 99 HYUNDAI ELANTRA for myself. It was a very inexpensive car at $12,500. I drove it TROUBLE FREE (didnt even replace brake pads !!!) until last month when I traded it in ( with 82000 on it) for a Pontiac VIBE GT. I realize that the VIBE is really a TOYOTA MATRIX but I think it is styled better than a MATRIX. So far it is the most well designed, comfortable,and most fun car that I have ever owned. It has a high reving motor so I wouldnt expect it to be too long lasting however. Finally I would like to point out that I work in the manufacturing sector and I highly doubt that car part "quality" is much diferrent between any manufacturer. Everyone is held to exacting tolerances and quality control standards these days. The problem arises with American philosophy and that is to make a profit first and foremost and putting the product second. Germany and Japan strive to BUILD A QUALITY PRODUCT FIRST AND FOREMOST - profit will come when the first goal is met. I am curious if anyone can obtain profit margins between american cars and their foreign competitors. The reason GM loathes making smaller cars and "green cars" is because there is a very narrow profit margin. SUV's carry a huge profit margin -unfortunately for GM everyone knows that gas costing $4-$5 a gallon is not in the too distant future. Just some of my views...... Patrick
In the US, police agencies generally want large RWD sedans with large trunks (room to carry prisoners and gear in the back), and often have limitations on buying non-Big 2.5 cars, which means they have very few choices to suit them.
It seems most cities I have visited, almost all the taxis are American cars. I am sure if American cars fell apart or didn't last as some would like to make them out to be, these taxi companies and independents would buy foreign.
It's because the cab company's are used to buying new cabs by the dozens [fleet sales]and get them for super cheap. My point? 1. Old habits doe hard. 2. The only reason that GM still retains the #1 sales position is price. For most people a vehicle is a tool and they want the lest expensive tool around. But peoples mind sets are changing due to 1. Not some left wing conspiracy funded by the Asian auto group. 2. A reputation for making trash and then having the guts to sell it, then blame the unions
It seems most cities I have visited, almost all the taxis are American cars. I am sure if American cars fell apart or didn't last as some would like to make them out to be, these taxi companies and independents would buy foreign.
In other countries, such as in South America, 95% of the Taxi's are Toyota's, most of which are small Corollas or old Camry's (which were fairly compact too). They aren't dumb.
I suppose the cab company's in the US are similar to the fleet/rental companies, and just like buying the cheapeast (cheapest initial cost at least).
Heck, even the company I work for in Construction Management buys American trucks, even though the CEO is very cost conscious and a penny pincher, I don't get it. I think it has to do with him wanting to support "America" as a former Navy officer.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
And if you go to Germany, you'll see a lot of Mercedes cabs too. Not because they're being patriotic, but their domestic cars are simply cheaper to buy; same as they are here.
I don't know much about the South American auto industry; as far as I know there isn't one, but if there is someone here can educate us. But if there indeed isn't one, I bet the South Africans didn't research the autos of all nations and decided to use Toyotas at taxis because they were the best quality vehicles; it'd be because they were the least expensive - either to purchase initially, or to maintain long term.
The Neon was a stripper, which ment that it had no AC to go bad, or a slushbox to go out. We bought the car for out oldest, and he abused it beyond reason (he even got it stuck in a tree once). He traded it for a Grand Cherokee last year.
The Caravan has also had a hard life. Other than being in need of some front struts and some paint where my niece tried to back over a fence post. It leaks nothing, has no loose parts, and is in good repair and everything works. The secret is called maintenance.
Interesting article regarding GM in the current Business Week...basically says in addition to GM's union problems, they've also got dealer problems: "Though it sells nearly twice as many cars in the U.S. as Toyota Motor Corp., GM has about five times as many dealers: 7,500 vs. 1,422. Do the math. GM theoretically could stand to lose half of its franchises."
I've noticed Cadillac dealers are relatively scarce where I live; one here in town, and others in distant cities are at least 50 miles away. A dealer search on Cadillac.com shows 1 dealer within 25 miles of my ZIP code. The same search on Chevrolet.com turns up 25 dealers within that area.
Granted there are many more Chevrolets sold than Cadillacs, but fewer dealerships (Cadillac or Saturn model) would obviously be better for holding prices and building a relationship with customers than the multiple Chevrolet dealers in town, which I can pit against each other to negotiate a lower price.
They sell significantly less than what? Cadillac sell slightly less than Lexus and BMW, and more than Audi, Mercedes, Infiniti, Acura, ect...
Buick is one of the 5 all time highest selling brands in America. Even with the huge drop in sale the last few years, they are still 13th, between Mazda and Lexus.
Are people leaving GM? Sales are up 6% from 5 years ago. The market has grown, and their share has gotten smaller, but they are not selling fewer cars/trucks. Purhaps as retail sales decrease they are increasing fleet sales to make up for, I really couldn't say.
I was looking at the recent ad wave featuring Ford CEO, he talks about innovation. As far as I am concerned, reliability is the no:1. Few of my co-workers who had been di-hard made in America fans have recently bought Honda and Toyota since they got sick of frequent trips to the mechanic.
Funny, about 15 years ago, I got ridiculed openly by a few for driving a Toyota.
There is a difference between serving the customer right and fooling.
I'm not a huge fan of GM, but you seem to have a vendetta.
I would think that those within GM who are harming the brands, creating losses, setting the stage for more layoffs and terminations, and creating the products that cause market share to fall are the ones who are the problem, not myself or any other critical consumer.
If GM actually took its competition seriously and was customer focused, it would be making a profit, creating greater satisfaction among more customers, and might not be setting up its employees for job cuts and benefits losses. If anyone here is on a vendetta, GM seems to be the one.
If GM actually took its competition seriously and was customer focused, it would be making a profit, creating greater satisfaction among more customers, and might not be setting up its employees for job cuts and benefits losses. If anyone here is on a vendetta, GM seems to be the one. The absurdity of this statement perfectly confirms your credibility.
"If GM actually took its competition seriously and was customer focused, it would be making a profit, creating greater satisfaction among more customers, and might not be setting up its employees for job cuts and benefits losses. If anyone here is on a vendetta, GM seems to be the one."
The absurdity of this statement perfectly confirms your credibility.
It really doesn't matter what I think, I'm not the one ruining the conpany. These figures will tell you what you need to know:
-Market share, current vs. historical -Fleet sales, as a percentage of sales -Average sales price per unit -Net income (hint: this number is negative)
Looking at the company's financial statements is pretty revealing, too.
-Why does GM generate lower margins than Toyota? (And no, it isn't just due to the UAW, the latest and greatest cop-out by GM management. Hint: Fleet sales might be part of the issue.)
-Why do GM dealers sell fewer new cars per month than Toyota? (Answer: costly, excessive distribution chain.)
-Whose brilliant idea was it to do the botched FIAT deal?
I could go on, but the point is obvious.
If customers were coming to GM, and the company was well managed, then it would be making money. Instead, the taxpayers of the US may very well have to help GM cover a few billion of its losses this year in the form of its writeoffs, and continue to do so for years to come.
At least Toyota delivers a product that people (not just Avis and National) want, and can do so at a price point that helps pay taxes to the federal treasury. What has GM done for us lately?
The absurdity of this statement perfectly confirms your credibility.
Socala makes good points. Many are consistent with what the general public has read in WSJ, Business Week and a myriad of others. Perhaps claydog could share his insights on what went wrong at GM and what are recent bad business decisions.
Nothing, based on his comments, it sounds like everything is hunky-dory over at GM. It's really the consumers who are at fault for not accepting mediocrity...
Interesting article regarding GM in the current Business Week...basically says in addition to GM's union problems, they've also got dealer problems: "Though it sells nearly twice as many cars in the U.S. as Toyota Motor Corp., GM has about five times as many dealers: 7,500 vs. 1,422. Do the math. GM theoretically could stand to lose half of its franchises."
The thing that is missed in this latest GM blame fest, i.e.the union/health care topic that GM's PR department is clearly touting in the media, is that GM has numerous problems that contribute to its losses.
Yes, the union does create challenges, to be sure, but it has gotten to a point at which the union is being scapegoated in order to shield management from getting the scrutiny that it deserves, rather than to create a turnaround.
Here's one thing to look to -- Looking at Edmunds, I see that they class cars into eight basic body styles:
GM's North American lineup has more than 80 nameplates, about triple of that of Toyota Motor Corp. Is there any good reason that GM produces to have 80+ models (each of which requires its own marketing, promotion, development, distribution and corporate bureaucracy) when there are essentially only about eight categories of vehicles that cover the needs of most buyers?
I don't doubt that you and many other GM employees really are motivated to build the best vehicles possible...but having worked in a large (non-automotive) corporation, I can understand how the best intentions and efforts of dedicated employees are whittled away through hundreds of little compromises, until the end result is mediocrity on the showroom floor.
Like it or not, GM has very little credibility at this point, especially among people on this site, who follow the auto industry very closely. Let's count how many times we've heard these promises from a GM executive or PR person:
"Wait until you see the new products around the corner - those will turn this ship around!" (We've heard that one since the mid-1980s.)
"We've streamlined our development processes to bring new cars and trucks to market faster than ever!" (Except that intervals between major makeovers never seem to decrease, while Toyota and Honda, in particular, aggressively remake their core products every 4-5 years.)
"Our sales are up for this month!" (Except that, reading the footnotes - or articles in other publications - we discover that much higher fleet sales fueled the increase.)
"We're cutting back on fleet sales and the use of incentives." (Which won't happen, because the UAW contracts have made labor a fixed cost, so GM HAS to keep the factories running, and then figure out ways to create a demand, or lose even MORE money.)
"We're going to make sure that our brands stand for something, and each vehicle will support its brand's unique characteristics in the marketplace." (And then GM introduces badge-engineered versions of a mediocre minivan or mid-size SUV, and spreads them throughout the divisions, or gives Pontiac a Cobalt coupe with different taillights and grille, because the dealers wanted one.)
Sorry, but GM has to make drastic changes in the way it does business if it really wants to improve its public image among car buyers. Smoke-and-mirrors - let alone press releases - won't cut it anymore.
Oldsmobile buyers clearly did not migrate to other divisions. Buick has dropped of the top 10 in sales for the first ever, having half the retail sales of just 5 years ago. Pontiac's restruction plan (which seems to have been "dump our most popular models and confuse our buyer with meaningless new names") has hurt their sales as well.
There is no arguing that management is the primary source of their troubles. I could list specifics, but lets face it, management is responsible for the success or failure of every company.
But GM isn't a complete failure.
Chevrolet beat out Ford for the title of USA-1 last year for the first time in 20 year (although YTD sales so far suggest Ford is taking it back). Chevrolets car sales have been constant for several years and are second only to Toyota.
Cadillac has also remained stable, third in sales in their market to Lexus and BMW.
When it comes to product, there is lots of room for arguement. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is. Even Henry Ford eventually admitted the model was due for a replacement (although a little late). But I fail to understand how one can say all GM products are terrible.
The arguement against GM's successes seems to be that people that buy GM products are morons and loyalists. It couldn't possibly be for any other reason.
And the arguement for Toyota seems to be the world leading reliability. Thats great, but Toyota is not the most reliable car in every market, and if thats your only consideration, your really not much of an enthusiast.
Lets say your looking at purchasing car A, or car B.
Car A comes from a country with a higher overall rating than car B. This is like saying cars from companies that start with a C have a higher rating than cars from companies that start with P (and they do). Irrelevent to your purchase.
Going farther, car A comes from a company with a higher rating than car B. This could be important if your looking to purchase a companies entire line-up.
If you want to look at reliability, what you really want to know is if car A is actually higher rated then car B. But why do research when we can make assumptions based on generalizations. Odds are it will come out same.
The arguement against GM's successes seems to be that people that buy GM products are morons and loyalists. It couldn't possibly be for any other reason.
The appropriate core argument is that other automakers are able to capture market share at GM's expense. Obviously, the retail marketplace assesses the products available, and is increasingly more likely to select a non-GM alternative, particularly in the passenger car segments.
If a solution to this cannot be found, then the company is in trouble. What solutions would you suggest that could actually create improvements to the bottom line? (Note: blaming the customer isn't a solution, unless the blame can be used to change consumer preferences or behavior, and create profits. For the moment, it would be safer to assume that the consumer needs to won over, rather than shouted down or ignored.)
Dont count on the General to wave the white flag. It may be "hammer time" for some tough decisions and transitions, however the right size is determined by making thousands of intelligent choices. Improvement in every area has been key at GM for many years. The way business is conducted has become more efficient by changes in everything from union work rules to leading edge technology integration. Obvious from the earliest days of Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac, the customer must be served with attractive products that satisfy their expectations. Every company has its high and low notes but determination is the difference between successful projects and failed ones. Anyone who perceives GM as being critical of their customers doesn't know about the pride and spirit that is typically taken as a natural attitude of the GM work force.
I'm sorry, but that reads like a press release, not an objective analysis.
Anyone who perceives GM as being critical of their customers doesn't know about the pride and spirit that is typically taken as a natural attitude of the GM work force.
Unfortunately, the customers receiving most of the benefit of that focus seem to be fleet managers, not retail consumers. We've been hearing this rhetoric for a few decades, and so far this has simply made the gap somewhat smaller, rather than leapfrogging ahead of the competition so as to set a new standard.
Certainly too little, although whether that translates into being too late remains to be seen. With all the unbridled spin, rather than a commitment to acknowledge that a problem even exists and that this problem requires a solution, I have serious doubts that anything will come of it, at least for North American car buyers.
And soccer moms everywhere are getting second careers as cabbies! Heck, too bad they don't still have the awesome old Checker cabs. I'd love to have one.
Heck, too bad they don't still have the awesome old Checker cabs. I'd love to have one.
As a "special interest car"? In green or pukey yellow? Wasn't Checker about 10-15 years behind in technology when they went out of business? Was it a bankruptcy or did they just quit? Is there something to be learned about the Checker business applicable to American car companies?
Good post. I'm usually on the opposite side, but I believe your last paragraph states what will be key to maintaining a "US" auto industry. The employees are ready and willing. I believe that consumers would root for the "home team", if given reason to do so. Management must harness this with intelligent cost and supply decisions.
Great article in Newsweek about how building American cars as distinctively American, rather than copies of Japanese or European cars, may just reverse the slide in share.
Quote: Motown execs promise the bad old days of Camry clones and Audi imitators are gone. "For a while, we were doing pretty bad cars," admits Lutz. "I suppose we had to give the public a chance to forget those so that we can go back to the '60s, when everybody loved us." If Detroit can rekindle that love affair, it just might have found its salvation.
Checker was about 10-15 years behind when they ENTERED the business! At least, with the final model, the one that's the most familiar. The Checker company had been around for a long, long time. I think it was 1956 that the one we all know and love (or not) first came out. The earlier models had different front-end styling, which makes me think a bit of a combination of '53 Chevy, 50's Nash, and just a touch of those old International pickup trucks.
Originally they were only sold to taxi companies, but in 1960 they offered them to the public. Demand was phenomenal. Partly due to recession, and partly due to a weakened Plymouth, the Checker almost beat the Rambler to third place in sales that year! Okay, I'm kidding there...actually I don't think they built more than 8,000 Checkers in any given year, at least not the '56-82 style.
The 50's and early 60's models used some old side-valve inline-6 that was manufactured by Continental Engines or something like that, and put out maybe 85 hp. Eventually an OHV version was offered, and soon after that they just went to Chevy engines.
...Checkers were just cool! It has nothing to do with macroeconomics or the situation in which domestic makers find themselves. Checker goes way back to the 1920s when it was founded by Morris Markin. Sad to see such an icon being replaced by dorky minivans.
Comments
That's the sort of denial that created these problems in the first place. The quality gap has been well documented by objective sources -- it isn't simply a matter of perception.
This is precisely the problem faced by companies such as GM -- instead of accepting the problems, confronting them and fixing them, they claim that the customer is wrong, stupid, lacking perception skills, biased, too much of a freethinker or whatever other excuse can be cooked up.
The company's job is to please the customer. If it can, it will prosper; if it can't, it will die. Perhaps this one deserves to die, so that the US taxpayers can save the billions that it effectively donates to GM each year through its tax loss writeoffs.
Amazing -- first, the company can't deliver the goods, then it adds insult to injury by costing us billions and telling us that we're the problem. Takes a lot of gall to screw up, then blame everyone but themselves for their own mistakes.
This is ludicrous! Ridiculous. Absurd!
The reason people vehemently defend Japanese cars and disparage American ones is because they have owned at least one of each. I know I have. My American designed and built vehicle only cost me about $15,000 back in 1994. But as is typical with American cars, it took over $5,000 dollars more to keep it functional to 65,000 miles over 5 1/2 years. That doesn't include scheduled maintenance, which by the way, I changed the oil every 3,000 and the auto tranny fluid/oil every 15,000. Didn't matter, no matter how well you maintain them, they just break down, break down expensively, and break down often.
On the other hand... my 2003 Honda Accord LX V6 coupe is at 53,000 miles (purchased in November of 2002). I've spent exactly $0 on non-scheduled maintenance, and I'm changing the oil every 4,000 to 4,500 miles. Tranny oil every 30K. I drove a 95 Camry in the interim from about 75K miles to 100K miles, and that vehicle only needed new motor mounts other than scheduled maintenance.
I will disparage AMerican vehicles forever, because I was sold a lemon and never given my money back. Chrysler owes me my purchase price.... I won't ask for the repair costs.
I will praise Japanese cars (unless they fall in quality significantly). People warned me about the poor reliability of american cars back in 94 when I was 16 yrs old. I didn't listen cause I wanted a car that could beat a Civic 0-60MPH. But what you learn from experience is.... that the 0-60 time of a Neon is often infinity, because it doesn't run!!! I noticed how my Parents and older brother would have zero issues during warranty on their Toyotas, and sure enough get to 100K miles w/o opening their life savings up.
When I was 16 in 1981, I bought a 1968 Buick Special Deluxe. I listened to people who told me Buicks were excellent cars and they were right!!! I wasn't looking to race anybody's car. I just wanted a good, solid, dependable, durable, and long-lasting car. I got it. That car was still running in 1992 several years after I gave it to my brother and he is nowhere remotely as fanatical as maintaining his cars as am I. Heck, who knows how much longer that Buick would've lasted had my brother not received my Dad's old ride.
Go to the 'Used Cars' section.
Under 'Buyers' click on 'Research'.
here....http://www.edmunds.com/used/1991/ford/ranger/index.html
2002 Dodge Caravan 85,000 miles, $0 repairs
1996 Dodge Neon 123,000, $0 repairs
1996 Chrysler SLX 96,000 (mitsubishi), $2,000
1988 Mazda B2200 188,000, $8,000
Results? meaningless.
Actually, they claim the customer is right. After 30 years of non-customers like you bad mouthing them they are doing so poorly as to face the possibility of falling to second in the global market, and remain the leader in the U.S. market by a huge margin. If your number one you should follow number 4?
They don't listen to you, but your not a customer are you?
What gap? Yes Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura lead, but the fact that Buick and Cadillac continuosly beat out all the other Japanease makes don't count, right? The fact that the Ford Focus lost its possition as most recommended (cr)small car to the Honda Civic this year is proof in your mind that the Japanease are superior.
It is clear your bias knows no bounds.
The funny thing is, I'm not the problem -- GM's results are the problem. The company is bleeding cash in the North American market, with little substantive product in the pipeline that could stimulate a turnaround, and no obvious plan to fix it. With whom do you think the shareholders are more upset, GM management or me?
2002 Dodge Caravan 85,000 miles, $0 repairs
1996 Dodge Neon 123,000, $0 repairs
Let me guess. your driving around in two Dodge's w/o any AC, cause the compressor is dead, but you like it hot so you don't repair it. Your gears are jumpy and grind, but it still gets you from A to B. Your moldings and seals are falling apart, the car rattles and squeaks just about everywhere, but you dont mind. The head gasket leaks coolant, but you just do a weekly fill up and top off.
I suppose that's one way to get to $0 in repairs!
Heck, I could probably get high scores out of a Rolls Royce if I was of the Buick buying group...
I suppose it counts if one is cross-shopping a Buick against a Mazda or a Cadillac against a Nissan.
Toyotas and Hondas generally compete against Fords and Chevys (or Pontiacs).
Is the quality gap SHRINKING between Toyota/Honda vs. Ford/Chevy? YES.
Is the quality gap GONE between Toyota/Honda vs. Ford/Chevy? No.
"They don't listen to you, but your not a customer are you?"
If more people are LEAVING GM for the foreign nameplates than people leaving foreign nameplates for GM, there must be a reason. Who should GM listen too? Those who've owned GM in the past and left or the ever shrinking pool of those who'll stick with GM regardless of what they put on the showroom floor?
Of course. And if there is anyone in GM's upper management who fails to understand the significance of this, then that person needs to get pinkslipped.
Here's the unfortunate reality -- even if I personally became a convert to the GM cause, that still wouldn't fix what ails the company. The problems with GM come from its products and methods, not from its critics. Believe it or not, the critics are doing GM a favor, by providing free consulting services to expose problems that should have been understood years ago.
HAHA That sounds like my Turbo Shadow!
I've had both Japanes, German, and American cars. When I went out and bought my last car (used), I told the salesmen this: "I'm looking for a four door with a fold down rear seat. If it is American it has to be GM (great transmissions.) If it is Japanes, it has to be a five speed (I hate Japanese automatics.)
But, if I buy a new car, it would be a toss up between the Honda Fit, and the Malibu Maxx. Probably the Fit would win. I love stick shifts, tiny motors, and hatch backs. What I really wish is that I'd never gotten rid of my 1989 Civic Si (got married, bought a house, and figured I needed a truck, so I bought a '98 Ranger--nice tuck, but living with a pickup day to day did not fit me too well.)
But I digress...
Turbo Shadow
hopefully experience taught you a little more than that, if you wanted a car soley to beat a civic, neon would be a bad choice in anybodys book
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=109511
now Ford is concentrating on Asia to the exclusion of the US..
Actually the background to this is that since the negotiated settlement between Detroit and Japan back in the late 80's trucks have had a 25% penalty duty added if imported here.
Thailand is the largest producer of small trucks for Toyota, Nissan,Ford ( apparently )but there is a Free Trade agreement sitting waiting to be signed in both capitals which would eliminate all barriers.
Thailand is balking because it doesnt want BoA and Citibank in their country and the US is balking because it will eliminate the 25% penalty on small trucks.... most of which are diesels.
When it is signed - eventually - much of this production will come here just in time for to meet the new cleaner diesel fuel that will be mandated for use in sept 2006. Most small trucks will be imports ( including Thai Rangers ) but diesel users.
Hey now! I hate american automobiles due to my miserably pathetic excuse for a car Dodge Neon, but even I'll say this. It was actually a "decent" car when it ran. When it worked, it was a good handling, peppy car, with nice "convenience features" And oh yeah, I wanted a NEW car, and I couldn't spend more than 15,000. That limits your choices significantly. An equivalently loaded Civic did not fall in the budget unless I waived the new car smell requirement!
If the Neon was as reliable as a Civic, I'd probably still have it today. So going back in time, I would of chosen a 2 year old or 1 year old "used" Civic. Hindsight is 20/20. Other than that..... a Geo Prizm/Toyota Corolla clone served my best friend quite well, and he raped the hell out of it the way he drove.
Still I would like to give GM a chance, however they make nothing that I want to buy, besides maybe a Solstice. (Currently drive a 01 BMW 525i with 86k that has been pretty good though not perfect, but still feels brand new, and all the interior buttons, etc, looks/feel brand new)
GM- Please make your cars appeal to the young urban consumer ( I am 31, educated professional). None of my friends even want to think GM, the cars are huge.
why is a grand prix and impala, 10 inches longer then accord/camry and have no more interior space.
What's the point?
Why is the ION/Cobalt equally large, compared to the imports, w/o more space.
Why does GM have no rear wheel drive cars to compete with the BMW 3's and Lexus IS, sorry CTS is way way longer.
About the only GM car that interest me know is the 07/08 CTS, but there is no info on it, and I don't think I can wait that long..
sorry to rant, but I keep getting disappointed, though hope for the best.
I disagree. I think it's because everyone cringes at the thought of getting donut crumbs in the nice interiors and bashing the nice bodies of the foreign cars during chases. Then there's the issue of criminals riding in the back seat. That's what domestic cars are made for.
Maybe if the cops preferred croissants, they would demand Peugeots, instead. I'll have to think about it and get back to you...
Finally I would like to point out that I work in the manufacturing sector and I highly doubt that car part "quality" is much diferrent between any manufacturer. Everyone is held to exacting tolerances and quality control standards these days. The problem arises with American philosophy and that is to make a profit first and foremost and putting the product second. Germany and Japan strive to BUILD A QUALITY PRODUCT FIRST AND FOREMOST - profit will come when the first goal is met. I am curious if anyone can obtain profit margins between american cars and their foreign competitors. The reason GM loathes making smaller cars and "green cars" is because there is a very narrow profit margin. SUV's carry a huge profit margin -unfortunately for GM everyone knows that gas costing $4-$5 a gallon is not in the too distant future. Just some of my views......
Patrick
It seems most cities I have visited, almost all the taxis are American cars. I am sure if American cars fell apart or didn't last as some would like to make them out to be, these taxi companies and independents would buy foreign.
1. Old habits doe hard.
2. The only reason that GM still retains the #1 sales position is price. For most people a vehicle is a tool and they want the lest expensive tool around. But peoples mind sets are changing due to
1. Not some left wing conspiracy funded by the Asian auto group.
2. A reputation for making trash and then having the guts to sell it, then blame the unions
In other countries, such as in South America, 95% of the Taxi's are Toyota's, most of which are small Corollas or old Camry's (which were fairly compact too). They aren't dumb.
I suppose the cab company's in the US are similar to the fleet/rental companies, and just like buying the cheapeast (cheapest initial cost at least).
Heck, even the company I work for in Construction Management buys American trucks, even though the CEO is very cost conscious and a penny pincher, I don't get it. I think it has to do with him wanting to support "America" as a former Navy officer.
I don't know much about the South American auto industry; as far as I know there isn't one, but if there is someone here can educate us. But if there indeed isn't one, I bet the South Africans didn't research the autos of all nations and decided to use Toyotas at taxis because they were the best quality vehicles; it'd be because they were the least expensive - either to purchase initially, or to maintain long term.
If GM's retail sales are similar to Toyota's, how is that ok for Toyota and bad for GM.
No, your not the problem. GM's problems are the same they've been since before, Sloan, Nash and Chrysler. Management.
But just becuase you're not their customer, does not mean that nobody wants their product, or that their products are all garbage.
I'm not a huge fan of GM, but you seem to have a vendetta.
The Neon was a stripper, which ment that it had no AC to go bad, or a slushbox to go out. We bought the car for out oldest, and he abused it beyond reason (he even got it stuck in a tree once). He traded it for a Grand Cherokee last year.
The Caravan has also had a hard life. Other than being in need of some front struts and some paint where my niece tried to back over a fence post. It leaks nothing, has no loose parts, and is in good repair and everything works. The secret is called maintenance.
I've noticed Cadillac dealers are relatively scarce where I live; one here in town, and others in distant cities are at least 50 miles away. A dealer search on Cadillac.com shows 1 dealer within 25 miles of my ZIP code. The same search on Chevrolet.com turns up 25 dealers within that area.
Granted there are many more Chevrolets sold than Cadillacs, but fewer dealerships (Cadillac or Saturn model) would obviously be better for holding prices and building a relationship with customers than the multiple Chevrolet dealers in town, which I can pit against each other to negotiate a lower price.
They sell significantly less than what? Cadillac sell slightly less than Lexus and BMW, and more than Audi, Mercedes, Infiniti, Acura, ect...
Buick is one of the 5 all time highest selling brands in America. Even with the huge drop in sale the last few years, they are still 13th, between Mazda and Lexus.
Funny, about 15 years ago, I got ridiculed openly by a few for driving a Toyota.
There is a difference between serving the customer right and fooling.
I would think that those within GM who are harming the brands, creating losses, setting the stage for more layoffs and terminations, and creating the products that cause market share to fall are the ones who are the problem, not myself or any other critical consumer.
If GM actually took its competition seriously and was customer focused, it would be making a profit, creating greater satisfaction among more customers, and might not be setting up its employees for job cuts and benefits losses. If anyone here is on a vendetta, GM seems to be the one.
The absurdity of this statement perfectly confirms your credibility.
The absurdity of this statement perfectly confirms your credibility.
It really doesn't matter what I think, I'm not the one ruining the conpany. These figures will tell you what you need to know:
-Market share, current vs. historical
-Fleet sales, as a percentage of sales
-Average sales price per unit
-Net income (hint: this number is negative)
Looking at the company's financial statements is pretty revealing, too.
-Why does GM generate lower margins than Toyota? (And no, it isn't just due to the UAW, the latest and greatest cop-out by GM management. Hint: Fleet sales might be part of the issue.)
-Why do GM dealers sell fewer new cars per month than Toyota? (Answer: costly, excessive distribution chain.)
-Whose brilliant idea was it to do the botched FIAT deal?
I could go on, but the point is obvious.
If customers were coming to GM, and the company was well managed, then it would be making money. Instead, the taxpayers of the US may very well have to help GM cover a few billion of its losses this year in the form of its writeoffs, and continue to do so for years to come.
At least Toyota delivers a product that people (not just Avis and National) want, and can do so at a price point that helps pay taxes to the federal treasury. What has GM done for us lately?
Socala makes good points. Many are consistent with what the general public has read in WSJ, Business Week and a myriad of others. Perhaps claydog could share his insights on what went wrong at GM and what are recent bad business decisions.
The thing that is missed in this latest GM blame fest, i.e.the union/health care topic that GM's PR department is clearly touting in the media, is that GM has numerous problems that contribute to its losses.
Yes, the union does create challenges, to be sure, but it has gotten to a point at which the union is being scapegoated in order to shield management from getting the scrutiny that it deserves, rather than to create a turnaround.
Here's one thing to look to -- Looking at Edmunds, I see that they class cars into eight basic body styles:
SUVs
Minivans
Wagons
Sedans
Convertibles
Luxury
Trucks
Coupes
GM's North American lineup has more than 80 nameplates, about triple of that of Toyota Motor Corp. Is there any good reason that GM produces to have 80+ models (each of which requires its own marketing, promotion, development, distribution and corporate bureaucracy) when there are essentially only about eight categories of vehicles that cover the needs of most buyers?
Like it or not, GM has very little credibility at this point, especially among people on this site, who follow the auto industry very closely. Let's count how many times we've heard these promises from a GM executive or PR person:
"Wait until you see the new products around the corner - those will turn this ship around!" (We've heard that one since the mid-1980s.)
"We've streamlined our development processes to bring new cars and trucks to market faster than ever!" (Except that intervals between major makeovers never seem to decrease, while Toyota and Honda, in particular, aggressively remake their core products every 4-5 years.)
"Our sales are up for this month!" (Except that, reading the footnotes - or articles in other publications - we discover that much higher fleet sales fueled the increase.)
"We're cutting back on fleet sales and the use of incentives." (Which won't happen, because the UAW contracts have made labor a fixed cost, so GM HAS to keep the factories running, and then figure out ways to create a demand, or lose even MORE money.)
"We're going to make sure that our brands stand for something, and each vehicle will support its brand's unique characteristics in the marketplace." (And then GM introduces badge-engineered versions of a mediocre minivan or mid-size SUV, and spreads them throughout the divisions, or gives Pontiac a Cobalt coupe with different taillights and grille, because the dealers wanted one.)
Sorry, but GM has to make drastic changes in the way it does business if it really wants to improve its public image among car buyers. Smoke-and-mirrors - let alone press releases - won't cut it anymore.
Oldsmobile buyers clearly did not migrate to other divisions. Buick has dropped of the top 10 in sales for the first ever, having half the retail sales of just 5 years ago. Pontiac's restruction plan (which seems to have been "dump our most popular models and confuse our buyer with meaningless new names") has hurt their sales as well.
There is no arguing that management is the primary source of their troubles. I could list specifics, but lets face it, management is responsible for the success or failure of every company.
But GM isn't a complete failure.
Chevrolet beat out Ford for the title of USA-1 last year for the first time in 20 year (although YTD sales so far suggest Ford is taking it back). Chevrolets car sales have been constant for several years and are second only to Toyota.
Cadillac has also remained stable, third in sales in their market to Lexus and BMW.
When it comes to product, there is lots of room for arguement. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is. Even Henry Ford eventually admitted the model was due for a replacement (although a little late). But I fail to understand how one can say all GM products are terrible.
The arguement against GM's successes seems to be that people that buy GM products are morons and loyalists. It couldn't possibly be for any other reason.
And the arguement for Toyota seems to be the world leading reliability. Thats great, but Toyota is not the most reliable car in every market, and if thats your only consideration, your really not much of an enthusiast.
Car A comes from a country with a higher overall rating than car B. This is like saying cars from companies that start with a C have a higher rating than cars from companies that start with P (and they do). Irrelevent to your purchase.
Going farther, car A comes from a company with a higher rating than car B. This could be important if your looking to purchase a companies entire line-up.
If you want to look at reliability, what you really want to know is if car A is actually higher rated then car B. But why do research when we can make assumptions based on generalizations. Odds are it will come out same.
The appropriate core argument is that other automakers are able to capture market share at GM's expense. Obviously, the retail marketplace assesses the products available, and is increasingly more likely to select a non-GM alternative, particularly in the passenger car segments.
If a solution to this cannot be found, then the company is in trouble. What solutions would you suggest that could actually create improvements to the bottom line? (Note: blaming the customer isn't a solution, unless the blame can be used to change consumer preferences or behavior, and create profits. For the moment, it would be safer to assume that the consumer needs to won over, rather than shouted down or ignored.)
Every company has its high and low notes but determination is the difference between successful projects and failed ones. Anyone who perceives GM as being critical of their customers doesn't know about the pride and spirit that is typically taken as a natural attitude of the GM work force.
Anyone who perceives GM as being critical of their customers doesn't know about the pride and spirit that is typically taken as a natural attitude of the GM work force.
Unfortunately, the customers receiving most of the benefit of that focus seem to be fleet managers, not retail consumers. We've been hearing this rhetoric for a few decades, and so far this has simply made the gap somewhat smaller, rather than leapfrogging ahead of the competition so as to set a new standard.
Certainly too little, although whether that translates into being too late remains to be seen. With all the unbridled spin, rather than a commitment to acknowledge that a problem even exists and that this problem requires a solution, I have serious doubts that anything will come of it, at least for North American car buyers.
As a "special interest car"? In green or pukey yellow? Wasn't Checker about 10-15 years behind in technology when they went out of business? Was it a bankruptcy or did they just quit? Is there something to be learned about the Checker business applicable to American car companies?
What are the latest efficient work rules for GM employees sitting in study rooms in the Jobs Bank?
Great article in Newsweek about how building American cars as distinctively American, rather than copies of Japanese or European cars, may just reverse the slide in share.
Detroit Muscles Up
Quote: Motown execs promise the bad old days of Camry clones and Audi imitators are gone. "For a while, we were doing pretty bad cars," admits Lutz. "I suppose we had to give the public a chance to forget those so that we can go back to the '60s, when everybody loved us." If Detroit can rekindle that love affair, it just might have found its salvation.
Originally they were only sold to taxi companies, but in 1960 they offered them to the public. Demand was phenomenal. Partly due to recession, and partly due to a weakened Plymouth, the Checker almost beat the Rambler to third place in sales that year! Okay, I'm kidding there...actually I don't think they built more than 8,000 Checkers in any given year, at least not the '56-82 style.
The 50's and early 60's models used some old side-valve inline-6 that was manufactured by Continental Engines or something like that, and put out maybe 85 hp. Eventually an OHV version was offered, and soon after that they just went to Chevy engines.
I see a nice original light green metallic Checker wagon around here now and then.