By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Not a valid point on two counts.
First, Toyota conducts much of its engineering, design, accounting and other non-manufacturing functions in Japan. No doubt GM has far fewer employees per automobile produced in South Korea than HyunKia does.
Second, speaking of vehicles produced, GM manufacturers significantly more vehicles in the US than Toyota in any event.
A group of retirees from General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- fueled with a donation from Ford Motor Co.
Clearly a group with an agenda. And you can twist the statistics to show whatever is on your agenda.
Plus the productivity could just be lower, and I want it high for whatever car I buy, regardless of where it comes from.
-juice
-juice
Obviously, older factories are less productive. Which is why GM, Ford and Daimler are working to close as many as possible. Just as, I am sure, ToyHon would like to close older factories in Japan.
I recall a report last year that included GM and Ford plants among the more efficient in North America. I believe Nissan had the most efficient. Not surprisingly, it was also one of the newer facilities.
The 2nd article was interesting, you see some predictions in terms of job shifts. I think they're too conservative, I think there will be a much bigger shift.
Honda just announced plans for a new car plant in the US and a new engine plant in Canada. Toyota is adding an assembly line at Subaru's SIA in Indiana.
-juice
That is a hilarious claim!!! Funny in fact, but not in a good way. I believe GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been claiming reliability improvements in every decade I've been alive, and probably a few decades before I came around. If GM, Ford, and Chrysler keep saying they are committed to improving reliability for more than 30 plus years, and they are still where they are at.... WOW, where did they start from? I can't imagine that their claims in the 90's that they improved could be true. If a car was any worse than the one I bought in 94, then it would of never run, period. It would of been a decoration in the garage or the shop of some mechanic.
What I see from the Domestics is all talk, and no action. If their quality has improved, then why do they still have the shortest warranty in the business?
When Hyundai launched their 100k mile warranty their quality at the time was atrocious.
Conversely, Honda has the industry's shortest powertrain warranty, just 3/36. Yet they've always been rated highly.
It's a marketing tool that simply has ZERO correlation to quality.
-juice
Actually, I am basing my point on independent market surveys that show GM right up there with Honda and Toyota for reliability and Ford gaining.
Grbeck, for his part, also cited an indpendent analysis.
What I see from the Domestics is all talk, and no action. If their quality has improved, then why do they still have the shortest warranty in the business?
Honda has the shortest warranty.
-juice
-juice
That you did. I am getting slow in my old age :sick:
Hyundai raised their warranties because they had atrocious quality back in the day. Big 3 have not done the same. Hyundai has improved their quality tremendously, Big 3 have not. All you have to do is look at consumer reports list of USED cars to avoid, and USED cars to look for. The list is decidedly lopsided against buying American, for very objective dependability reasons.
The fact of the matter is the Big 3's design philosophy is to make cars that last about 3 years, and then fall apart, so that hopefully if you are an idiot you will think you need to buy a new car every 3 years. What the Big 3 failed to realize, is that most consumers are smart enough to realize that they can get a much more problem free vehicle that will last 9, 12, 15 years by buying a Honda or Toyota. Why would they buy a 3-year car?
That got customers back, and now that the cars are better they may actually stick around for a 2nd or 3rd one.
-juice
"Bold Moves", indeed.
What a load of tripe.
Seems whenever I think there will actually be reasonable debate here, the arguments starting falling back into nonsense world.
In any event, GM, Ford and Daimler have been extending their warranties as well.
Toyota might counter and say that they're better efficiency means those American jobs are more sustainable, i.e. those American jobs would have been lost eventually anyway due to inefficient cost structure (probably due to the pension that special interest group is trying to protect in the first place).
Or they may look only at the rate of change, and point to the unemployment the former Big 3 are creating and point out that they're offsetting as much of that as they can.
As for which cars are made here, that information is widely available to the public, just look at the first letter of the VIN. 1 or 4 is USA, I believe.
-juice
"Bold Moves", indeed.
That's precisely the reason I would never buy or consider a Big 3 vehicle. I am quite concerned about the extraoridinary costs to keep it running. Mechanic's and Auto repair shops are very expensive, particularly labor. So while American parts may be cheap (hence, the low quality and constant need for replacment), it's the labor costs that kill you.
Buying American definitely means you like supporting auto repair shops and overpaid mechanics. I'm not into pounding all my money into these overpriced and paid auto repair shops. They probably make 100 times more money off of people who buy domestic.
As usual, try to stimulate intelligent debate and end up with the high school finger pointing. Thanks logic1 for rational thought.
-juice
I find it hard to believe that people would actually think that the Big 3's history of reliability problems doesn't stem from the fact that they DESIGN the vehicles to fail after 3 years, meaning they DESIGN the vehicle to last about 3 years or 36K miles. After that, you are on your own, and sh** out of luck. AC breaks down at 37K ... there goes a thousand dollars. Head Gaskets go at 45K, there goes another grand. Tranny goes at 65K, there goes another 1,200 dollars out the door. Not to mention all the other little repair costs needed and tow truck fees (by the way, those little repair costs are never under $250 with a domestic breakdown in my experience).
In any event, GM, Ford and Daimler have been extending their warranties as well.
For reasonable debate and discussion, how about you provide the models/makes years where these big 3 have extended warranties, and to what kind of extension. I am unaware of any good warranties from the domestics (w/o paying extra for it).
By the way, Acura has recently extended their standard warranty to 5 years/60K, and I believe 6/72 for the powertrain.
I find it hard to believe that people would actually think that the Big 3's history of reliability problems doesn't stem from the fact that they DESIGN the vehicles to fail after 3 years, meaning they DESIGN the vehicle to last about 3 years or 36K miles. After that, you are on your own, and sh** out of luck. AC breaks down at 37K ... there goes a thousand dollars. Head Gaskets go at 45K, there goes another grand. Tranny goes at 65K, there goes another 1,200 dollars out the door. Not to mention all the other little repair costs needed and tow truck fees (by the way, those little repair costs are never under $250 with a domestic breakdown in my experience).
Balderdash. Objective reliability data provided by JD Powers and others has GM neck and neck with Toyota and Honda in reliability and Ford closing the gap.
For reasonable debate and discussion, how about you provide the models/makes years where these big 3 have extended warranties, and to what kind of extension.
Oh. OK. So you should be able to make a completely unsustainable claim the Big 3 deliberately engineer for 3 year life spans, but I need to offer proof on warranties.
Let's all be fair by all means.
Well, Cadillac is 4/50 and 6/100 rust. Lincoln is also 4/50 with one year free maintenance and 6/unlimited on rust.
As for warranties, Chrysler has now shortened their warranty. And the company is owned by a German company, and thus not American.
-Loren
One thing I have noticed though, is that right around that timeframe, if you do have a problem it seems like that's when it's going to crop up. My Mom & stepdad's '99 Altima pooped its transmission at 35,000 miles. My Intrepid had a few minor things start to go wrong (thermostat housing leak, door seals starting to shrink, passenger-side mirror adjust broke, ashtray cover coming loose) around the 40-50,000 mile mark. My friends' '94 Civic blew its first head gasket around the 40,000 mile mark, too. And my buddy's '98 Tracker ate its second tranny (well, okay, "went in for its second 'overhaul'" sounds more diplomatic) around the 40,000 mile mark too.
It seems like another common area for cars to start acting up is the 70-90,000 mile mark, although thankfully my Intrepid gave me no issues around that time. My '82 Cutlass killed its V-6 around 73,000 miles. It was 12 years old though, and could have been neglected before I bought it. Head gasket #2 blew on my friends' Civic around 80,000 miles. My '89 Gran Fury chewed up the #8 camshaft lobe at 73,000 miles (when the Richmond police dept owned it, not me). My '80 Malibu needed new rear axles around 80-85K. My buddy's '98 Tracker needed a new tranny around 92,000 (we put in a used one instead of trying to have them mess around with the existing one again). My uncle's '97 Silverado needed a new tranny around that timeframe too. My old '88 LeBaron started acting up between the 70-90K timeframe as well, mainly electronics stuff.
Once you get beyond those ranges though, how you maintain the car tends to be the key factor to when it ultimately dies. Although that '88 LeBaron seemed like it was engineered for about 115,000 miles. At that point, practically EVERYTHING on the car was broken, except for the transmission, which was leaking, and the body, which still looked pretty.
-Loren
They shortened an already very short warranty? What is it now, equivalent to cheap electronics with 90 day labor warranties, and 1 year parts warranties? LOL. Maybe thats whats next from the big 3, unequal labor/part warranties.
That can be because of the care given them by the owners. Different owners treat their cars with more care and less care.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Most GM cars I had required a basic rebuild right off the bat. This is to say water leaks, engine problems, noise in windshield, cables to re-adjust, and this and that. This was the first months work. Then some were good after for awhile. Never had one past three years that did not show signs of interior and exterior parts, paint and such failing. They really should back their cars for five years or more on the warranty. I think most previous owners would agree. Had a relative selling the GM cars, and liked to deal with him and the dealership. They tried hard. The car failed to deliver.
-Loren
I was in somebody's 1989 Honda Accord last night. The interior was very clean and in really nice condition. The paint and exterior trim, however, were absolutely shot. Obviously the owner cared about his car due to the condition of the interior and the fact it ran well.
I have a 1989 Cadillac Brougham. The paint, trim, interior, powertrain, accessories, tires, etc. are all in excellent condition. Maybe I know better how to care for the finish of a car than my coworker?
this is a prime example of how the domestic auto makers treat their customers.
and as for cars designed to fail, Fact dodge used nylon cages in the sealed bearings on the 1980's Chargers these bearings have a service life of about 40 to 60k miles, when athey faill they destroy the hub and steering knuckle.
Ford tempo's had nylon bushings in the tie rods not brass, also service life short in extreme cold they will last 1 to 2 years.
Look at how many greese fittings that new cars have now, parts are not serviceable, you have to replace them.
My dad had a 1978 toyota land cruiser that had the factory universal joints in it they got fresh greese every fall, he finally sold it because the body started falling off,
it was used to plow the roads around his house and from his house about 2 miles to the maintained road for over 15 years.
this is a prime example of how the domestic auto makers treat their customers.
This is a classic and typical example of why we should all just let the big 3 die out, and disappear. We'd all be better off. So much wasted time (labor) and money goes into making shoddy products continue to run. Why don't we as americans divert our attention to making products that are useful, economical, and profitable? Big 3 vehicles are very wasteful, poorly designed, and end up costing us tons more than the original purchase price. As Bush said, we need to make "relevant" products.
Chrysler, Mercedes, Dodge, and Smart are all brand names of a corporation known as DaimlerChrylser.
The corporation has North American operations, as does Toyota, Honda, etc. But there is no separate corporate identity for Chrysler.
Unlike Toyota and Honda, Daimler Chrysler has a full listing on the New York Stock Exchange as well as Gemany's DAX
the mercades has fallen in quality to the equalivant of the american cars.
Just take a look at recalls and service bulletins on mercades since the "merger" compared to all the years prior.
the mercades has fallen in quality to the equalivant of the american cars.
Just take a look at recalls and service bulletins on mercades since the "merger" compared to all the years prior.
Senior management at Daimler Chrysler, both in Europe and North America is German, up from the ranks of Daimler pre-merger.
If things went bad for the company, the Germans have only themselves to blame. They forced the US leadership out almost from the start.
Please remember that is IS possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
-juice
Chrysler had been making serious inroads with quality improvement back in the late 1990's and early 2000's, back when, even though management was German, all of the designs were still pure Chrysler. However, the latest offerings seem to be a mix. The LX cars have some previous-gen E-class in the rear suspension, and the 5-speed automatic is a Benz unit. Some interior bits are German too, such as the cruise control stalk and other parts I'm sure. The Pacifica also has some Benz in its architecture.
The Dodge Caliber is a collaboration between Mitsubishi, Hyundai, and Chrysler, and I don't know how much of that is actually a Chrysler contribution.
Some designs, like the Ram, PT Cruiser, recently departed Stratus/Sebring sedans/convertible and minivans, are still a bit more "pure" Chrysler, as they were all well into the design stages when this supposed "Merger of Equals" took place. I'm not sure about newer efforts, like the Durango, Dakota, and Grand Cherokee. The trucks do seem a bit more "heritage Mopar" than the cars, but even here I'm sure there's still some Benz influence.
And I'm also not so sure that the quality of the Chryslers is improving as more Benz gets infused into them. The 5-speed automatics were troublesome at first in the LX cars. Interiors are getting more spartan and plasticky. The paints are almost Nissan-quality in their orange-peel (and I DON'T intend that to be a compliment!
Just to clarify, one can purchase ADRs (American Depository Receipts) in Toyota Motor Corporation (1 ADR = 2 shares of stock). And these ARE listed on the NYSE (ticker symbol "TM"). Toyota Motor is also listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange (I'll see your two Exchanges and raise you one...
http://www.toyota.com/about/shareholder/services/faq.html
Same applies to the Honda Motor Co, Ltd. (established in 1948). They are listed on the NYSE (ticker symbol HMC) and they're also listed on the Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya Fukuoka and Sapporo Stock Exchanges in Japan as well as the London, Swiss and Euronext Paris Exchanges. In fact, they've been listed on the NYSE since 1977.
http://world.honda.com/investors/faq/
Companies using ADRs do not have to comply with many US company specific SEC disclosure rules, nor do they have to comply with US accounting standards.
My only point bringing up DaimlerChrysler's dual listing was the original poster appeared to distinguish between Daimler's North American and European operations. I thought maybe the stock listings were informing the distinction.
Yes, there is a difference between having a full listing on the NYSE vs. using ADRs.
I'm curious: I wonder if Ford/GM have 'full' listings on the Tokyo Exchange or if they use the equivalent of ADRs since they may (or may not) comply with the Japanese disclosure rules or Japanese accounting standards?
My only point in bringing THAT up is to distinguish between the difficulties of 'foreign' companies complying with the 'host' country's disclosure rules and accounting standards vs. what you appear to me to be insinuating (Honda/Toyota choose to not follow the rules therefore they must resort to ADRs).
Perhaps if ALL exchanges and ALL countries had the same disclosure rules/accounting standards, this wouldn't be an issue.