The 1978 Prelude was considerably shorter than an Accord (because it was based on a Civic), and had more power. It shared no external parts with the Accord, a trend it would continue "until its demise." Since there has been an Accord coupe since 1990, it would seem redundant with the Prelude, had it just been "a performance oriented" Accord, although its nice to see you concede that the Accord is no performance vehicle. Even into the 90s, the Prelude and Accord shared no mechanical components in the United States.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't the Accord coupe first come out in '87 or '88? I know I've seen a coupe version of the '86-89 flip-up headlight style, but I don't think it was offered initially. It did look kinda like a big Prelude.
The original Accords - back in the late 70s's were coupes. Well, at least they only had two doors. They were hatchback really - and more or less Civic related.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
1976 Accord was a 3-door hatchback, with an overall length of 161 inch and a wheelbase of about 93 inches, powered by a 1.6-liter/5MT.
A year later (1977), Honda added 4-door version on same wheelbase but the sedan was 10 inch longer and used the same engine.
One year later (1978), Honda added a coupe version of the Accord but with 1.8/5MT (same combo as Accord but with 0.2 liter additional displacement). This car had same length as Accord Coupe (161") and used a slightly shorter wheelbase (91"). This was the first Prelude.
Civic was a much smaller car, still a 3-door hatchback. It was almost 2 foot shorter than Accord/Prelude.
although its nice to see you concede that the Accord is no performance vehicle.
When did I say it was? At least not in America. Europe and Japan are another story. It is a balanced family sedan that leans towards neither extreme. Thats the way Honda has been marketing it (in America).
It is one thing to read a good review. It is quite another thing to own the car. I have a 99 Mercury Sable. It is very hard for Ford to convince me to go back to buy another Ford, or GM for that matter. Compare with a comparably equiped Camry/Accord, GM/Ford'd better price their cars at least 5k lower since that is the difference in the used car market. That has not counted the time spent visiting dealers.
"It is one thing to read a good review. It is quite another thing to own the car. I have a 99 Mercury Sable. It is very hard for Ford to convince me to go back to buy another Ford, or GM for that matter."
Why did you have a problem with a GM product that you wouldn't buy one or its just the resale value factor that bother you on a GM car?
"Compare with a comparably equiped Camry/Accord, GM/Ford'd better price their cars at least 5k lower since that is the difference in the used car market."
Well you get more rebates I bet from buying a Ford than you do a Honda(Accord)or Toyota(Camry) so that should offset some of the resale value that you would lose on the Ford(but not all of it.) On the dealer visits at least they are covered by warranty but it has to be a pain though taking time off from work just go the dealer.
As far as Ford and GM pricing their cars 5k lower than the comparable Honda or Toyota I don;t think they would ever do that.
wanted to "recover" some burned customers, they need to exceed the PERCEIVED value and quality of the imports, in the areas where they compete...
Toyota and Nissan, I believe, are no threat to the F150, Ram 1500 and GMC/Chevy Silverado, we seem to have a good stronghold on trucks, and, fortunately, trucks are high profit items for the automakers, as the technology and basic tooling are probably as old as the Crown Vic and just need tweaking every year...I would almost bet that much of their looses of the last 3 years would have been much worse if not for profitable trucks, and those who need a truck, regardless of MPG, will always buy a truck...
I wonder why GM, Ford and Chrysler never had a heart-to-heart talk with their dealers and stated that they depend on each other and if a customer receives poor dealer service on routine service or hassles on warranty service, if they desert the dealer they have a high probability of deserting the brand, and everybody loses...i.e. if my Ford dealer or any other Ford dealer cannot/will not competently repair my Ford vehicle, then I may not only never buy from those dealers again, but, as "agents" of Ford, I may never buy a Ford again...
Don't give me the true legal argument that the dealers are independent franchises, I know they are...but that does not matter to me...if my Ford dealer refuses to fix my car under warranty, I don't care about his legal staus as a franchisee, I simply know that Ford made a defective vehicle and the dealer cannot/will not repair it...either way, I will avoid Ford forever...
If I am coming off a previous bad experience with GM or Chrysler, just how long will it be before I go for Honda or Toy or Nissan???...and, if the import car is made half as well as their perceived reputation, the Big 3 have lost me forever...or pretty close to forever...
The makers depend on the dealers and the dealers depend on the makers...if I avoid Ford products then I am avoiding Ford dealers...can't they see that, that, as a customer, if they make me happy I will return, and if I am unhappy I will go elsewhere???...whereas years ago there were thousands lining up behind me and they did not care, now times are different???...that if they lose me, that I may be the one to tip the import market share to 55% as I desert them forever???
Does ANYBODY, union or mgmt, understand that I can be their best friend or their worst enemy, and fixing my car is all that it takes to make me happy???
I realize you were being hypothetical, but are you aware of the terrible reputation that foreign name brand dealerships have compared to the Big Three? To this day, I prefer dealing with Ford, GM, and Chrysler compared to the "off shore" companies. It is only a matter of opinion. I like to go where I feel my options are the most open.
> fixing my car is all that it takes to make me happy
How do you respond when you read about the long trials and tribulations of Camry owners with the transmission design/engineeering problem with shifting and flares and lags in accelerating. They were told by the dealers that's the way the car drives, you need to adjust to the car, it needs time to adjust to you, and told that's the way it is. Some TSBs have been applied which seem to fix some cars and not others. Toyota fans claim it's only the early 07s with the problem. That means a fix has been in from the factory, so how's 'bout fixing the ones on the road rather than telling the drivers to "go home" and learn to love it.
I'm still seeing problem cars posted about in the transmission and Camry discussions here. So, there seems to not be a definite fix yet. Where's the hate mail for Toyota? Will you give them the same treatment?
That all brands of dealership cover the spectrum of good to bad but I agree that a bad experience in any one might sour me to that brand. For me, the key has been the reliability of the vehicles in the first place and the consequent ability to minimize dealership experience. The Japanese developed a reputation for reliability which emerged by the early 70s and continued to grow thereafter. That coupled, with the obvious superiority of "fit and finish" attracted me in 1972 and most of my vehicles since have been Japanese. The fact that the domestic manufacturers have always treated smaller vehicles as [non-permissible content removed] stepchildren that they hoped would disappear has not helped to earn my business either.
>treated smaller vehicles as [non-permissible content removed] stepchildren
That is the case. The small cars were heavy shrunken versions. I suspect that was the concept of keeping the same manufacturing line and processes.
On the other hand the foreign cars showing up in the Midwest were prone to breakdowns. Maybe that worked well if you were near one of the few, few dealers. The real attracting was the high gas mileage.
I recall a person living near where I did who bought a Fiat. It was a boxy sedan and extremely small. He commuted to Dayton. Traveling the short trip miles to Dayton I would often see his car sitting along the highway. I didn't see lots of GMs and Fords or even Chryslers sitting. Another person had a Citroen which lowered itself when shut off. Not a car most people wanted with air bags for suspension.
The superiority of fit-and-finish is subjective. Lots of rust will let parts loosen quickly. That's what happened in the Midwest. In the 70s cars showed up and rusted quickly. A coworked had a VW Rabbit? I often gave him a ride to work because it wasn't running.
My point is your memory of the reliability and quality is subjective and is like grandpa's "We walked 3 miles to school in 5 feet of snow and uphill both ways." My father walked miles to school and started the coal stove in the morning before others got there in Central Indiana, but his stories were true.
What you are really saying is that now the reputation for those qualities of few failures that customers were aware of and good gas mileage with small engines carry into today. What needs to be done is comparison of current products from GM, Ford, and Chrysler with current products of the foreign brands. And bias in media still exists. I heard Clark Howard touting how wonderful CR is because they do extensive data collection and studying of experiences with cars to reach their conclusions. He said to buy only those cars they recommend especially as used cars. Even my kid can pick apart the data collection CR does. As for studies, BS.
My point is there is a lag in recognition of improvement. And there is a mindset against the cars. If the Camry interior I sat in at the dealership two weeks ago is better than the GM equivalently purposed car, I'm blind. Soft touch plastics, my foot. Come back to reality. The Camry a friend picked up her two grandkids in from our house last week was barely better and it was the previous model without the pig snout front.
Let's start actually comparing the cars. And no, they don't have to be better than the foreign brands to deserve barest consideration, equal should be fine. The quality in US brands has been there all along, just as warts in the foreign brands have been there all along. What's needed is a normal, middle-of-the-road group to evaluate the cars. Those of us here on Edmunds are normal (meaning typical) because we have a great interest in cars. We keep wanting to keep comparing every car to our favorite's strong points, i.e., comparing all cars to our favorite BMW or Bentley.
I have had good luck getting the Contour and the Tracer serviced, while the Toyota place back home continually botches routine maintenance tasks on a 1997 Siena, and in 10 years the Honda dealer back home couldn't fix the passenger side rear door on the Accord so it would work consistently. The Honda dealer by my work now took 3 tries to replace a camshaft seal so it didn't leak. The Fords have never required a follow up visit. We also had a '83 k-car and a '89 Grand Voyager, and those had more issues with the service department.
Toyota fans claim it's only the early 07s with the problem. That means a fix has been in from the factory, so how's 'bout fixing the ones on the road rather than telling the drivers to "go home" and learn to love it.
I don't know when that hesitation thing started, but it was earlier than '07. One of the managers here at work has an '05 or '06 Camry V-6. He also had a 1992 or so V-6 Camry until fairly recently. So having both cars at the same time, he was able to pick up on the difference right away. The newer one IS faster, but just has a seeming bit of hesitation, whereas the older one was more direct.
I think it was the switchover to "drive by wire" or something like that, which caused that hesitation feeling? I don't know if there's really much that can be done about it, either, if that's just the way the car is designed. I mean, I had a 1989 Gran Fury copcar that would do 0-60 about as quickly as my 2000 Intrepid, but the way those cars went about their business was totally different. The Gran Fury could burn rubber if pressed hard enough, and would lunge forward with a ferocity that would put you back in your seat for a moment, but then once it got to the top end of first gear it would back off, then lurch into second, and take off from there, but not as fast.
OTOH, the only way the Intrepid is going to peel out is to power-brake it, and even then I dunno if the engine is torquey enough to override the brakes. When you step on the pedal, for a split second there's nothing, but then it winds up, kicks in, and takes off. It'll jerk you for a moment when it first accelerates, but doesn't quite put you back in your seat like the Gran Fury. However, it gets out of first gear more quickly, and seems like it can do more with second than the Gran Fury, and when it's all said and done, in either car you're looking at 60 mph in about 9.5 seconds. Just getting there in different ways.
I think to a degree, you DO have to learn how to adapt to different cars, since they're simply not all built the same. But if there's something flat-out wrong with one then yeah, they need to hurry up and fix the thing.
"My point is there is a lag in recognition of improvement. "
Of course there is a "lag in recognition", that is the nature of reputation! And I will not be a beta tester for a manufacturer's claims of improvement, he must prove his claim by establishing a new reputation through a history of performance. It is also interesting that while I specifically referred to Japanese vehicles, you counter with examples of European cars such as the Fiats which were among the more fragile cars of the era. And you may remember that VW destroyed their reputation in the 70s by building Rabbits in the USA. Unlike the Japanese in later years, VW gave their US factory some autonomy in product design and material selection and source.
Someone named wwest has analyzed well in those discussions. He says it's an inadequacy in the pumps supplying oil to effect the gear changes. Of course smaller pumps means better economy. IOW it's an engineering design factor that's caught up with them in the Camry. The Avalon had an exhaust manifold change along with others to fix some of their problems; that ix has been posted on Edmunds in threads.
wtd: obviously, go where you feel the most appreciated,,,I never said the imports were perfect, and that Toyota sludge problem and tranny problem are 2 things I would chastise Toy for immediately...
Imidaz: it isn't that my memory is that selective ( altho I DID walk 5 miles to school in 4 feet of snow, digging trails uphill both ways... ...), I am simply noting that the Japanese, for WHATEVER reason, seemed to get the reputation back in the 1980s, when the "invasion" started, that their quality was better, and they were compared to the Big 3 offerings and most of it WAS better, IMO...
As time went on, even tho Toy has some problems, the brand overall still maintains that aura of quality, as does Honda, and for proof I offer that tidbit from last month where the imports took over 50% of the market for the first time...
The Big 3 dug themselves a hole in the 70s and 80s, and they are STILL trying to climb out of it...most of American car buyers are not edmunds posters, but they bought more imports than Big 3, so SOMEONE out there agrees with me that the import reputation for perceived quality is greater than the Big 3 rep for quality...
Sales prove what I say, regardless of your opinion, simply because if your opinion was correct on PERCEIVED quality and value, the Big 3 would have over 75% market share, but they are losing it daily, point by point...
Maybe the Big 3 have improved and maybe they are equal, but the purchases of the average Joe on the street seem to prove my point, which is Americans seem to believe that Big 3 are inferior, and Honda and Toy are better cars...no one is putting a gun to their heads to force them to buy Japanese, they are walking in with their hard-earned money on spending it the product they believe is the best for them, and it ain't GM, Ford or Chrylser, for the majority...
Like it or not, the Big 3 brought this on themselves, like the boy who cried wolf...they lost their credibility when they said "Quality is Job 1" and it wasn't, so now they are trying to convince folks they really do make a better product...too bad no one believes them anymore, or at least not enough to give them increased sales...
The auto market seems to be doing well, it is just the Big 3 that are contracting daily...they have a serious job ahead of them, and the Japanese aren't standing still...
The Big 3 have to realize that they cannot produce something to compete with what Honda or Toyota has on the market now. They have to produce something that will compete successfully with what Honda and Toyota will bring out 3 to 5 years from now and what their customers will want in the next few years. What people will look for are more than technological advances. What they want will be shaped by sociological and political realities.
of US News & World Report includes a unique auto rating summary. Rather than test or review any vehicle, they have compiled ratings of published sources, both government and private, and provide aggregate ratings that are a distillation of the data. It is noteworthy that not one domestic model ranked in the top 3 of any category of sedan, coupe or sports car. Domestics did dominate the "large SUV" category and managed a third place among "Affordable Mid-size SUVs". The article can be found at www.ratingsandreviews.com under the tab "Rating and Review".
No doubt we could nit pick over particulars of this article, but the point is that the general sense of the Press and government is that Foreign vehicles are superior.
"I am simply noting that the Japanese, for WHATEVER reason, seemed to get the reputation back in the 1980s, when the "invasion" started, that their quality was better, and they were compared to the Big 3 offerings and most of it WAS better, IMO..."
Well remember the Domestics still had 70% of the US market at the end of 1997 and going into Janurary of 1998 so buying Import really didn;t take off until the late 90's. The Boomers still bought their share of Domestics in the 80's and 90's even if the Domestic Big 3 offerings were inferior to the Japanese Car makes offerings at the time. I agree though the imports(Toyota Honda, and Nissan(pre-Carl Ghosn era, pre-2002+ Altima era) started to get their reputation for quality/reliability in the 80's. I don;t think the Domestic Big 3 had a bad reputation for quality reliability in the 70's though but they started to get a bad reputation for quality/reliability in the 80's.
"The auto market seems to be doing well, it is just the Big 3 that are contracting daily...they have a serious job ahead of them, and the Japanese aren't standing still..."
Well the Koreans aren;t standing still either.
"Maybe the Big 3 have improved and maybe they are equal, but the purchases of the average Joe on the street seem to prove my point, which is Americans seem to believe that Big 3 are inferior, and Honda and Toy are better cars...no one is putting a gun to their heads to force them to buy Japanese, they are walking in with their hard-earned money on spending it the product they believe is the best for them, and it ain't GM, Ford or Chrylser, for the majority..."
I thought 2 years ago Chrysler was the best domestic make now they offerings are even behind Ford and behind GM and Toyota. Chrysler is way behind Honda. I mean the only thing worth loooking at at Chrysler is the 300 and the Cherokee and the PT Cruiser while good is getting long in the tooth I mean the current car dates back to 2001. There is too much model overlap at Chrysler even Jim Press admitted that.
I say the only domestic on that is making progress right now in terms of putting good product out there on a consistent basis is GM.
"And you may remember that VW destroyed their reputation in the 70s by building Rabbits in the USA. Unlike the Japanese in later years, VW gave their US factory some autonomy in product design and material selection and source."
Yeah but even the last generation Jetta had a bad record for reliability until VW got the quality issues straightened out finally on the 04 and 05 model year Jetta's. I mean the current Touraeg has a bad record for reliability too. Vw does not have a good reputation for long term reliability.
Well that was all before the Japanese came out with luxury SUV's or sport or car like SUVs such as the RX 300, Murano, MDX and the Honda CR-V which had yet to build a up a name for itself like it has now. The CR-V came out as a 1997 model probably in late in 1996.
Other cars that came out after 1997 that probably put a damper in the Domestic Big 3 was probably a car like the 1999 Acura TL and the TL was priced under 30K at that time. too. Car like the 2003 Infinti G35 was another stud that put a damper into the Domestic Big 3 as well as well as the 2002 Nissan Altima. Nissan/Infinti offerings that came out in the 2002-2003 were offerings that could cater to a Domestic Big 3 audience because the Domestic Big 3 buying audience wanted Japanese Cars with style the Nissan/Infinti products that came out that had that "style" to them that Domestic Big 3 loyalists begged for in a Japanese make car.
What I also noticed from that 1997 sales that you put up too was GM only sold 1 million less vehicles I think in 2006 than they did in 1997 but Toyota sold 1.3 more million more vehicles in the US(2.5 million in 2006) than they did in 1997(1.2 million.) Honda sold 1.5 million vehicles in the US in 2006 when compared to their 1997 numbers(940K) so their up 560,000 units in a 10 year period. Nissan sold 1.1 milion units in the US in 2006 so their up 372,000 units in a 10 year period I think. Chrysler sold the same amount of vehicles in 1997 that they did in 2006(2.3 million.) Ford dropped big time(2.7 million units sold I think in 2006 vs 3.7 million units sold in 1997.) Finally: total automobile sales were up in 2006 by 1.4 million units(16.5 million units sold in 2006 vs 15.1 million units solds sold in 1997.)
Hyundai also had a big increase. I think somebody posted that Hyundai sold 91,000 cars in 1998 once on these boards but Hyundai sold 455,000 vehicles in the US for both 2005 and 2006. I wonder what Subaru's and Mercedes sales increases were sales wise(1997 vs 2006 figures.)
"I say the only domestic on that is making progress right now in terms of putting good product out there on a consistent basis is GM."
And what product would that be?
Last week I spent about 16 hours & 600+ miles in a current Impala. I must say that the driver's seat was the most comfortable that I've encountered in a GM car and the fuel mileage was impressive for such a large beast. But dynamically it was not the equal of the foreign cars that I have owned (well, perhaps not my '61 Triumph Herald). The suspension seemed less "floaty" than I recall from my last Buick LaCrosse eexperience but there was little communication from the steering and more transmission of road texture to the cabin than I expected from such a softly sprung vehicle. In typical GM fashion the brake pedal was too close in relation to the throttle, but better than the LaCrosse. It was a better GM car to be sure, but not good enough for me to buy.
Last week I spent about 16 hours & 600+ miles in a current Impala. I must say that the driver's seat was the most comfortable that I've encountered in a GM car and the fuel mileage was impressive for such a large beast. But dynamically it was not the equal of the foreign cars that I have owned (well, perhaps not my '61 Triumph Herald). The suspension seemed less "floaty" than I recall from my last Buick LaCrosse eexperience but there was little communication from the steering and more transmission of road texture to the cabin than I expected from such a softly sprung vehicle. In typical GM fashion the brake pedal was too close in relation to the throttle, but better than the LaCrosse. It was a better GM car to be sure, but not good enough for me to buy."
Well no the Impala isn't one of the GM products that is getting good reviews right now: the Lambadas, CTS, and Aura are getting good reviews but not the Impala.
Interestingly enough, Toyota sources its 6AT from the same vendor (Aisin) that Cadillac gets its transmission from (at least in CTS). If there is a design problem...
Imidazol97 - Enron was a great stock, if you sold it at the right time. The collapse took about 16 months - makes you wonder if one of the big 3 could go away in a year and a half if the contract talks break down. The GM vote should be finalized today.
>Even though an automobile is one of the most expensive products most people will ever buy, car reviews are notoriously subjective. Now U.S.News is taking the bias out of the advice, with a unique ranking system that distills information from numerous reviews into a single numerical score between 1 and 10.
The problem is the old computer axiom: garbage in, garbage out. They say their taking the bias out... Suppose I collect reports about Enron stock several months before news started to leak out? Do you think I'd get a pretty good picture of the real value in the stock? It was becoming more and more popular.
If I take a collection of opinions from various print media sources and reporters about who would be president? Do you think I'll get a good picture of the real character or lack of character of their favorites, aboutt whom they often fail to completely report?
Anyone dealing with statistics knows the magazine is just pimping an article that will be popular but not necessarily right because of the collection methods for the data.
Let JD Powers collect data from a truly random selection of all car owners in the US. Then let's hear their report. Otherwise you're playing American Idol (Yes, Melinda and Lakeisha should have won.)
The point is not whether the rankings are "right or wrong", it is that they reflect the predominant opinions of those who have tested/reviewed vehicles. It is also irrelevant whether these reviewers shape buyers' opinions or reflect them, but sales trends suggest that buyers do share those opinions and THAT matters. Everyone is biased and there is no objective analysis that will tell you what vehicle to buy. Reputations (and biases) are not created overnight and the "Big 3" must produce products that are demonstrably BETTER than the competition to win back buyers in the short term, otherwise they must build a good reputation over a similar period that they squandered building a bad one. I doubt that they'll last that long without dramatic change.
I believe your Enron analogy is seriously flawed...
My comment simply assumes that most folks do not buy a car every six months, so when they make a purchase, it will hopefully last them for 3-5 years or more...
If the imports have a 50%-plus market share, that means there are a lot of people who are not only out of the market for a few years, but have a great chance of buying that import again in 3-5 years if they believe that the car is equal to, or better than the Big 3 offering...
And, what made them walk into the import dealer to begin with, in greater percentages than the Big 3???...worthless unions???...rotten management???...crummy dealers???...I don't know, but you can't seriouly look at the dwindling market share of the Big 3 and not be alarmed if you like Big 3 products...fewer and fewer folks are buying their product...
Maybe they don't believe that Ford will survive, now that they mortgaged everything they own for $23 Billion...I wonder myself...Ford cannot make any mistakes...they are 3 runs down in the bottom of the ninth inning, one out and 3 men on base...they have only one extra out left, and somebody better hit a grand slam or Ford is history...
It doesn't matter if imports are REALLY better, but from what I see and read, the "general consensus" is that they are better, so folks at least give them a look...if they buy one, the Big 3 may lose another potential buyer forever, and the trend does not look good for the Big 3 overall...
Will GM and Chrysler disappear???...I don't think they will, but they will go from world domination, esp GM, to another minor (or small major) player in the auto business...Ford could be foreclosed any day...
So, your Enron analogy has no place here...stocks are bought and sold (abandoned) for a different reason than one abandons an automaker...
The Big 3 literally must really improve quality simply because it seems that the general public and the usual sources of information (magazines) rarely favor the domestic automakers...that bias, maybe well deserved, will be hard to overcome...like it or not, they DID sell us junk in massive quantities for many years, and some people refuse to be burned again, or allow them to be placed in the position where they MIGHT be burned again, so they have abandoned the Big 3...
You can give me all the contradictory proof you want about how good the Big 3 products are, it does not seem to be impressing the car buters out there, or at least a smaller and smaller number of them each succeeding year...
THAT is the reality that the Big 3 must overcome, or their dominance of the auto industry is history, and that may not be too far off from today...
And no, they don't have to be better than the foreign brands to deserve barest consideration, equal should be fine. The quality in US brands has been there all along, just as warts in the foreign brands have been there all along.
Wow, I wish someone would have passed on that memo and information to the people who built my 1995 Dodge. And also to the mechanics and tow truck drivers who sent me huge bills for that vehicle.
Where was the wart in a Toyota or Honda from 1985 to 2007?
I think they had blemish-free skin actually. Maybe an imperfection or two, but nothing that requires heavy coverup makeup like the entire lineup of cars from GM, Ford, and Chrysler do (excluding trucks).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
So, I was looking over the new Landcruiser, and noticed that in pictures, the third row of seats still only folds up against the sides of the trunk on the inside. When I read a little of the Edmunds review I noted that they said that not only did the seats not fold flat into the floor, but they were no longer completely removable, meaning, if you wanted to use the trunk, you had to have the seats folded up, partially blocking the rear side windows, and taking up valuable trunk space. I can only assume the Lexus version of this vehicle has a third row that operates in the same manner. My question now is, since almost everyone has bitched and moaned about the new Escalade not having fold flat seats, how will they react to the Land cruiser's seating system. Considering these vehicles are only seperated by a couple thousand dollars, a glaring deficiency like this ion the Land Cruiser should garner a lot of attention, based on how much attention the Escalade received. However, I doubt this will be the case, as it seems people tend to overlook these deficiencies when they appear in foreign vehicles.
Still can't fit in them though. I about dislocated a hip trying to get into the third row of a Commander and they really don't fold flat into the floor.
The Commander still has a solid rear axle so no room to have seats fold flat into a Low Load Height floor. The rear floor is jacked up several inches above the height of the bumper to make the seats fold flat into a level surface.
My brother has the old Jeep Cherokee Sport which has a solid axle. Unlike most SUV owners, he actually takes his vehicle off road. He tells me that a solid rear axle is better off-road as the Liberty with an IRS could get hung up on a rock more easily.
We checked out the Grand Cheokee. The second row is pathetic. I cannot imagine asking anyone to use the back seat. I wanted to like it for the diesel option. No way....
solid rear axle is better off-road as the Liberty with an IRS could get hung up on a rock more easily.
The liberty doesn't have IRS. It has IFS with a sold axle rear on coil springs. A vehicle really needs either a fully independent set up or front and rear solid axles like your Brother's Cherokee.
That is a common misconception that has roots in the past when beam/solid axles were better off-road. No one is taking an Escalade off-road anyway since it has no low range.
Plenty of truly outstanding off-road vehicles have fully independent suspension systems. The Range Rover has had a fully independent suspension since the 2003 MY. Yeah it is over 70 grand new but it has 13 inches of rear wheel travel more then any other stock 4X4. The LR3 has a fully independent suspension and you could get V6 models for less then 40,000. The Toureg and Cayenne are also fairly good off-road with their fully independent setups.
You can tuck the diffs up in the body to increase ground clearance with an independent suspension. In a beam axle the bottom of the pumpkin is very vulnerable. The problem with independent suspension was always with articulation. A solid axle could always out articulate a IFS/IRS setup until cross-linked valving came along in the Range Rover. Now by using the air suspension to force air from one side of the axle to the other a IFS/IRS setup can mimic a solid axle. As one tire goes when driving over an obstacle air is forced into the operate air spring forcing that tire down and increasing traction. Toyota has of course copied this design on new Land Cruiser/LX570 but it still has the solid axle so of course one step behind Land Rover again.
So it is more accurate to say that a solid axle design is cheaper to do but an independent suspension can be better it just costs more money.
robertsmx
Solid axles are a bit more bulky then a well done IRS. The IRS is why the explorer and expedition can now have a fold flat rear seat. It is also why the LR3 can have a fold flat rear seat and a real foot well for the third row.
I wanted to test drive the Land Rovers before I bought an SUV. The reason I did not is the premium fuel requirement. If you go into Mexico as I do you may not find high octane gas. An off road vehicle should be diesel preferably or regular unleaded. I am sure that the LR's are great vehicles. Finding dealers is also an issue if you have a problem. For some reason MB, BMW, LR, & Lexus think we want to use Premium unleaded. How stupid is that?
Comments
It was a "performance oriented" Accord, and largely stayed that way until its demise.
Even into the 90s, the Prelude and Accord shared no mechanical components in the United States.
The Accord coupe came out in 1988 as a replacement for the Accord hatchback in the US.
A year later (1977), Honda added 4-door version on same wheelbase but the sedan was 10 inch longer and used the same engine.
One year later (1978), Honda added a coupe version of the Accord but with 1.8/5MT (same combo as Accord but with 0.2 liter additional displacement). This car had same length as Accord Coupe (161") and used a slightly shorter wheelbase (91"). This was the first Prelude.
Civic was a much smaller car, still a 3-door hatchback. It was almost 2 foot shorter than Accord/Prelude.
although its nice to see you concede that the Accord is no performance vehicle.
When did I say it was? At least not in America. Europe and Japan are another story. It is a balanced family sedan that leans towards neither extreme. Thats the way Honda has been marketing it (in America).
Why did you have a problem with a GM product that you wouldn't buy one or its just the resale value factor that bother you on a GM car?
"Compare with a comparably equiped Camry/Accord, GM/Ford'd better price their cars at least 5k lower since that is the difference in the used car market."
Well you get more rebates I bet from buying a Ford than you do a Honda(Accord)or Toyota(Camry) so that should offset some of the resale value that you would lose on the Ford(but not all of it.) On the dealer visits at least they are covered by warranty but it has to be a pain though taking time off from work just go the dealer.
As far as Ford and GM pricing their cars 5k lower than the comparable Honda or Toyota I don;t think they would ever do that.
Toyota and Nissan, I believe, are no threat to the F150, Ram 1500 and GMC/Chevy Silverado, we seem to have a good stronghold on trucks, and, fortunately, trucks are high profit items for the automakers, as the technology and basic tooling are probably as old as the Crown Vic and just need tweaking every year...I would almost bet that much of their looses of the last 3 years would have been much worse if not for profitable trucks, and those who need a truck, regardless of MPG, will always buy a truck...
I wonder why GM, Ford and Chrysler never had a heart-to-heart talk with their dealers and stated that they depend on each other and if a customer receives poor dealer service on routine service or hassles on warranty service, if they desert the dealer they have a high probability of deserting the brand, and everybody loses...i.e. if my Ford dealer or any other Ford dealer cannot/will not competently repair my Ford vehicle, then I may not only never buy from those dealers again, but, as "agents" of Ford, I may never buy a Ford again...
Don't give me the true legal argument that the dealers are independent franchises, I know they are...but that does not matter to me...if my Ford dealer refuses to fix my car under warranty, I don't care about his legal staus as a franchisee, I simply know that Ford made a defective vehicle and the dealer cannot/will not repair it...either way, I will avoid Ford forever...
If I am coming off a previous bad experience with GM or Chrysler, just how long will it be before I go for Honda or Toy or Nissan???...and, if the import car is made half as well as their perceived reputation, the Big 3 have lost me forever...or pretty close to forever...
The makers depend on the dealers and the dealers depend on the makers...if I avoid Ford products then I am avoiding Ford dealers...can't they see that, that, as a customer, if they make me happy I will return, and if I am unhappy I will go elsewhere???...whereas years ago there were thousands lining up behind me and they did not care, now times are different???...that if they lose me, that I may be the one to tip the import market share to 55% as I desert them forever???
Does ANYBODY, union or mgmt, understand that I can be their best friend or their worst enemy, and fixing my car is all that it takes to make me happy???
How do you respond when you read about the long trials and tribulations of Camry owners with the transmission design/engineeering problem with shifting and flares and lags in accelerating. They were told by the dealers that's the way the car drives, you need to adjust to the car, it needs time to adjust to you, and told that's the way it is. Some TSBs have been applied which seem to fix some cars and not others. Toyota fans claim it's only the early 07s with the problem. That means a fix has been in from the factory, so how's 'bout fixing the ones on the road rather than telling the drivers to "go home" and learn to love it.
I'm still seeing problem cars posted about in the transmission and Camry discussions here. So, there seems to not be a definite fix yet. Where's the hate mail for Toyota? Will you give them the same treatment?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That is the case. The small cars were heavy shrunken versions. I suspect that was the concept of keeping the same manufacturing line and processes.
On the other hand the foreign cars showing up in the Midwest were prone to breakdowns. Maybe that worked well if you were near one of the few, few dealers. The real attracting was the high gas mileage.
I recall a person living near where I did who bought a Fiat. It was a boxy sedan and extremely small. He commuted to Dayton. Traveling the short trip miles to Dayton I would often see his car sitting along the highway. I didn't see lots of GMs and Fords or even Chryslers sitting. Another person had a Citroen which lowered itself when shut off. Not a car most people wanted with air bags for suspension.
The superiority of fit-and-finish is subjective. Lots of rust will let parts loosen quickly. That's what happened in the Midwest. In the 70s cars showed up and rusted quickly. A coworked had a VW Rabbit? I often gave him a ride to work because it wasn't running.
My point is your memory of the reliability and quality is subjective and is like grandpa's "We walked 3 miles to school in 5 feet of snow and uphill both ways." My father walked miles to school and started the coal stove in the morning before others got there in Central Indiana, but his stories were true.
What you are really saying is that now the reputation for those qualities of few failures that customers were aware of and good gas mileage with small engines carry into today. What needs to be done is comparison of current products from GM, Ford, and Chrysler with current products of the foreign brands. And bias in media still exists. I heard Clark Howard touting how wonderful CR is because they do extensive data collection and studying of experiences with cars to reach their conclusions. He said to buy only those cars they recommend especially as used cars. Even my kid can pick apart the data collection CR does. As for studies, BS.
My point is there is a lag in recognition of improvement. And there is a mindset against the cars. If the Camry interior I sat in at the dealership two weeks ago is better than the GM equivalently purposed car, I'm blind. Soft touch plastics, my foot. Come back to reality. The Camry a friend picked up her two grandkids in from our house last week was barely better and it was the previous model without the pig snout front.
Let's start actually comparing the cars. And no, they don't have to be better than the foreign brands to deserve barest consideration, equal should be fine. The quality in US brands has been there all along, just as warts in the foreign brands have been there all along. What's needed is a normal, middle-of-the-road group to evaluate the cars. Those of us here on Edmunds are normal (meaning typical) because we have a great interest in cars. We keep wanting to keep comparing every car to our favorite's strong points, i.e., comparing all cars to our favorite BMW or Bentley.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Fords have never required a follow up visit.
We also had a '83 k-car and a '89 Grand Voyager, and those had more issues with the service department.
I don't know when that hesitation thing started, but it was earlier than '07. One of the managers here at work has an '05 or '06 Camry V-6. He also had a 1992 or so V-6 Camry until fairly recently. So having both cars at the same time, he was able to pick up on the difference right away. The newer one IS faster, but just has a seeming bit of hesitation, whereas the older one was more direct.
I think it was the switchover to "drive by wire" or something like that, which caused that hesitation feeling? I don't know if there's really much that can be done about it, either, if that's just the way the car is designed. I mean, I had a 1989 Gran Fury copcar that would do 0-60 about as quickly as my 2000 Intrepid, but the way those cars went about their business was totally different. The Gran Fury could burn rubber if pressed hard enough, and would lunge forward with a ferocity that would put you back in your seat for a moment, but then once it got to the top end of first gear it would back off, then lurch into second, and take off from there, but not as fast.
OTOH, the only way the Intrepid is going to peel out is to power-brake it, and even then I dunno if the engine is torquey enough to override the brakes. When you step on the pedal, for a split second there's nothing, but then it winds up, kicks in, and takes off. It'll jerk you for a moment when it first accelerates, but doesn't quite put you back in your seat like the Gran Fury. However, it gets out of first gear more quickly, and seems like it can do more with second than the Gran Fury, and when it's all said and done, in either car you're looking at 60 mph in about 9.5 seconds. Just getting there in different ways.
I think to a degree, you DO have to learn how to adapt to different cars, since they're simply not all built the same. But if there's something flat-out wrong with one then yeah, they need to hurry up and fix the thing.
Of course there is a "lag in recognition", that is the nature of reputation! And I will not be a beta tester for a manufacturer's claims of improvement, he must prove his claim by establishing a new reputation through a history of performance. It is also interesting that while I specifically referred to Japanese vehicles, you counter with examples of European cars such as the Fiats which were among the more fragile cars of the era. And you may remember that VW destroyed their reputation in the 70s by building Rabbits in the USA. Unlike the Japanese in later years, VW gave their US factory some autonomy in product design and material selection and source.
From 2007 Toyota Camry Transmission Questions
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Imidaz: it isn't that my memory is that selective ( altho I DID walk 5 miles to school in 4 feet of snow, digging trails uphill both ways...
As time went on, even tho Toy has some problems, the brand overall still maintains that aura of quality, as does Honda, and for proof I offer that tidbit from last month where the imports took over 50% of the market for the first time...
The Big 3 dug themselves a hole in the 70s and 80s, and they are STILL trying to climb out of it...most of American car buyers are not edmunds posters, but they bought more imports than Big 3, so SOMEONE out there agrees with me that the import reputation for perceived quality is greater than the Big 3 rep for quality...
Sales prove what I say, regardless of your opinion, simply because if your opinion was correct on PERCEIVED quality and value, the Big 3 would have over 75% market share, but they are losing it daily, point by point...
Maybe the Big 3 have improved and maybe they are equal, but the purchases of the average Joe on the street seem to prove my point, which is Americans seem to believe that Big 3 are inferior, and Honda and Toy are better cars...no one is putting a gun to their heads to force them to buy Japanese, they are walking in with their hard-earned money on spending it the product they believe is the best for them, and it ain't GM, Ford or Chrylser, for the majority...
Like it or not, the Big 3 brought this on themselves, like the boy who cried wolf...they lost their credibility when they said "Quality is Job 1" and it wasn't, so now they are trying to convince folks they really do make a better product...too bad no one believes them anymore, or at least not enough to give them increased sales...
The auto market seems to be doing well, it is just the Big 3 that are contracting daily...they have a serious job ahead of them, and the Japanese aren't standing still...
No doubt we could nit pick over particulars of this article, but the point is that the general sense of the Press and government is that Foreign vehicles are superior.
The "Big 3" have dug a deep hole to climb out of.
Lots of those folk bought Enron stock along with MCI (Worldcome, LDDS) so that means those are superior stocks?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The "Press" has also preened their presentation of Hillary Rodman Clinton to be the next president... And?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Well remember the Domestics still had 70% of the US market at the end of 1997 and going into Janurary of 1998 so buying Import really didn;t take off until the late 90's. The Boomers still bought their share of Domestics in the 80's and 90's even if the Domestic Big 3 offerings were inferior to the Japanese Car makes offerings at the time. I agree though the imports(Toyota Honda, and Nissan(pre-Carl Ghosn era, pre-2002+ Altima era) started to get their reputation for quality/reliability in the 80's. I don;t think the Domestic Big 3 had a bad reputation for quality reliability in the 70's though but they started to get a bad reputation for quality/reliability in the 80's.
"The auto market seems to be doing well, it is just the Big 3 that are contracting daily...they have a serious job ahead of them, and the Japanese aren't standing still..."
Well the Koreans aren;t standing still either.
"Maybe the Big 3 have improved and maybe they are equal, but the purchases of the average Joe on the street seem to prove my point, which is Americans seem to believe that Big 3 are inferior, and Honda and Toy are better cars...no one is putting a gun to their heads to force them to buy Japanese, they are walking in with their hard-earned money on spending it the product they believe is the best for them, and it ain't GM, Ford or Chrylser, for the majority..."
I thought 2 years ago Chrysler was the best domestic make now they offerings are even behind Ford and behind GM and Toyota. Chrysler is way behind Honda. I mean the only thing worth loooking at at Chrysler is the 300 and the Cherokee and the PT Cruiser while good is getting long in the tooth I mean the current car dates back to 2001. There is too much model overlap at Chrysler even Jim Press admitted that.
I say the only domestic on that is making progress right now in terms of putting good product out there on a consistent basis is GM.
Yeah but even the last generation Jetta had a bad record for reliability until VW got the quality issues straightened out finally on the 04 and 05 model year Jetta's. I mean the current Touraeg has a bad record for reliability too. Vw does not have a good reputation for long term reliability.
1997 Total: 15,121,690
GM: 4,703,549 (31.1%)
Ford: 3,780,727 (25%)
Chrysler: 2,303,788 (15.2%)
Toyota: 1,230,112 (8.1%)
Honda: 940,385 (6.2%)
Nissan: 728,520 (4.8%)
everyone else: 1,434,609 (9.5%)
1997 Total: 15,121,690
GM: 4,703,549 (31.1%)
Ford: 3,780,727 (25%)
Chrysler: 2,303,788 (15.2%)
Toyota: 1,230,112 (8.1%)
Honda: 940,385 (6.2%)
Nissan: 728,520 (4.8%)
everyone else: 1,434,609 (9.5%)
Well that was all before the Japanese came out with luxury SUV's or sport or car like SUVs such as the RX 300, Murano, MDX and the Honda CR-V which had yet to build a up a name for itself like it has now. The CR-V came out as a 1997 model probably in late in 1996.
Other cars that came out after 1997 that probably put a damper in the Domestic Big 3 was probably a car like the 1999 Acura TL and the TL was priced under 30K at that time. too. Car like the 2003 Infinti G35 was another stud that put a damper into the Domestic Big 3 as well as well as the 2002 Nissan Altima. Nissan/Infinti offerings that came out in the 2002-2003 were offerings that could cater to a Domestic Big 3 audience because the Domestic Big 3 buying audience wanted Japanese Cars with style the Nissan/Infinti products that came out that had that "style" to them that Domestic Big 3 loyalists begged for in a Japanese make car.
What I also noticed from that 1997 sales that you put up too was GM only sold 1 million less vehicles I think in 2006 than they did in 1997 but Toyota sold 1.3 more million more vehicles in the US(2.5 million in 2006) than they did in 1997(1.2 million.) Honda sold 1.5 million vehicles in the US in 2006 when compared to their 1997 numbers(940K) so their up 560,000 units in a 10 year period. Nissan sold 1.1 milion units in the US in 2006 so their up 372,000 units in a 10 year period I think. Chrysler sold the same amount of vehicles in 1997 that they did in 2006(2.3 million.) Ford dropped big time(2.7 million units sold I think in 2006 vs 3.7 million units sold in 1997.) Finally: total automobile sales were up in 2006 by 1.4 million units(16.5 million units sold in 2006 vs 15.1 million units solds sold in 1997.)
Hyundai also had a big increase. I think somebody posted that Hyundai sold 91,000 cars in 1998 once on these boards but Hyundai sold 455,000 vehicles in the US for both 2005 and 2006. I wonder what Subaru's and Mercedes sales increases were sales wise(1997 vs 2006 figures.)
And what product would that be?
Last week I spent about 16 hours & 600+ miles in a current Impala. I must say that the driver's seat was the most comfortable that I've encountered in a GM car and the fuel mileage was impressive for such a large beast. But dynamically it was not the equal of the foreign cars that I have owned (well, perhaps not my '61 Triumph Herald). The suspension seemed less "floaty" than I recall from my last Buick LaCrosse eexperience but there was little communication from the steering and more transmission of road texture to the cabin than I expected from such a softly sprung vehicle. In typical GM fashion the brake pedal was too close in relation to the throttle, but better than the LaCrosse. It was a better GM car to be sure, but not good enough for me to buy.
Last week I spent about 16 hours & 600+ miles in a current Impala. I must say that the driver's seat was the most comfortable that I've encountered in a GM car and the fuel mileage was impressive for such a large beast. But dynamically it was not the equal of the foreign cars that I have owned (well, perhaps not my '61 Triumph Herald). The suspension seemed less "floaty" than I recall from my last Buick LaCrosse eexperience but there was little communication from the steering and more transmission of road texture to the cabin than I expected from such a softly sprung vehicle. In typical GM fashion the brake pedal was too close in relation to the throttle, but better than the LaCrosse. It was a better GM car to be sure, but not good enough for me to buy."
Well no the Impala isn't one of the GM products that is getting good reviews right now: the Lambadas, CTS, and Aura are getting good reviews but not the Impala.
US News New Car Rankings
Imidazol97 - Enron was a great stock, if you sold it at the right time. The collapse took about 16 months - makes you wonder if one of the big 3 could go away in a year and a half if the contract talks break down. The GM vote should be finalized today.
The problem is the old computer axiom: garbage in, garbage out. They say their taking the bias out... Suppose I collect reports about Enron stock several months before news started to leak out? Do you think I'd get a pretty good picture of the real value in the stock? It was becoming more and more popular.
If I take a collection of opinions from various print media sources and reporters about who would be president? Do you think I'll get a good picture of the real character or lack of character of their favorites, aboutt whom they often fail to completely report?
Anyone dealing with statistics knows the magazine is just pimping an article that will be popular but not necessarily right because of the collection methods for the data.
Let JD Powers collect data from a truly random selection of all car owners in the US. Then let's hear their report. Otherwise you're playing American Idol (Yes, Melinda and Lakeisha should have won.)
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My comment simply assumes that most folks do not buy a car every six months, so when they make a purchase, it will hopefully last them for 3-5 years or more...
If the imports have a 50%-plus market share, that means there are a lot of people who are not only out of the market for a few years, but have a great chance of buying that import again in 3-5 years if they believe that the car is equal to, or better than the Big 3 offering...
And, what made them walk into the import dealer to begin with, in greater percentages than the Big 3???...worthless unions???...rotten management???...crummy dealers???...I don't know, but you can't seriouly look at the dwindling market share of the Big 3 and not be alarmed if you like Big 3 products...fewer and fewer folks are buying their product...
Maybe they don't believe that Ford will survive, now that they mortgaged everything they own for $23 Billion...I wonder myself...Ford cannot make any mistakes...they are 3 runs down in the bottom of the ninth inning, one out and 3 men on base...they have only one extra out left, and somebody better hit a grand slam or Ford is history...
It doesn't matter if imports are REALLY better, but from what I see and read, the "general consensus" is that they are better, so folks at least give them a look...if they buy one, the Big 3 may lose another potential buyer forever, and the trend does not look good for the Big 3 overall...
Will GM and Chrysler disappear???...I don't think they will, but they will go from world domination, esp GM, to another minor (or small major) player in the auto business...Ford could be foreclosed any day...
So, your Enron analogy has no place here...stocks are bought and sold (abandoned) for a different reason than one abandons an automaker...
The Big 3 literally must really improve quality simply because it seems that the general public and the usual sources of information (magazines) rarely favor the domestic automakers...that bias, maybe well deserved, will be hard to overcome...like it or not, they DID sell us junk in massive quantities for many years, and some people refuse to be burned again, or allow them to be placed in the position where they MIGHT be burned again, so they have abandoned the Big 3...
You can give me all the contradictory proof you want about how good the Big 3 products are, it does not seem to be impressing the car buters out there, or at least a smaller and smaller number of them each succeeding year...
THAT is the reality that the Big 3 must overcome, or their dominance of the auto industry is history, and that may not be too far off from today...
Wow, I wish someone would have passed on that memo and information to the people who built my 1995 Dodge. And also to the mechanics and tow truck drivers who sent me huge bills for that vehicle.
Where was the wart in a Toyota or Honda from 1985 to 2007?
I think they had blemish-free skin actually. Maybe an imperfection or two, but nothing that requires heavy coverup makeup like the entire lineup of cars from GM, Ford, and Chrysler do (excluding trucks).
If Toyota or GM had bothered to spend the money to design a real Heavy Duty IRS setup they could have gotten in a third row.
Plenty of cars at prices less then the Land Cruiser and Escalade have HD IRS setups.
The Commander still has a solid rear axle so no room to have seats fold flat into a Low Load Height floor. The rear floor is jacked up several inches above the height of the bumper to make the seats fold flat into a level surface.
The liberty doesn't have IRS. It has IFS with a sold axle rear on coil springs. A vehicle really needs either a fully independent set up or front and rear solid axles like your Brother's Cherokee.
That is a common misconception that has roots in the past when beam/solid axles were better off-road. No one is taking an Escalade off-road anyway since it has no low range.
Plenty of truly outstanding off-road vehicles have fully independent suspension systems. The Range Rover has had a fully independent suspension since the 2003 MY. Yeah it is over 70 grand new but it has 13 inches of rear wheel travel more then any other stock 4X4. The LR3 has a fully independent suspension and you could get V6 models for less then 40,000. The Toureg and Cayenne are also fairly good off-road with their fully independent setups.
You can tuck the diffs up in the body to increase ground clearance with an independent suspension. In a beam axle the bottom of the pumpkin is very vulnerable. The problem with independent suspension was always with articulation. A solid axle could always out articulate a IFS/IRS setup until cross-linked valving came along in the Range Rover. Now by using the air suspension to force air from one side of the axle to the other a IFS/IRS setup can mimic a solid axle. As one tire goes when driving over an obstacle air is forced into the operate air spring forcing that tire down and increasing traction. Toyota has of course copied this design on new Land Cruiser/LX570 but it still has the solid axle so of course one step behind Land Rover again.
So it is more accurate to say that a solid axle design is cheaper to do but an independent suspension can be better it just costs more money.
robertsmx
Solid axles are a bit more bulky then a well done IRS. The IRS is why the explorer and expedition can now have a fold flat rear seat. It is also why the LR3 can have a fold flat rear seat and a real foot well for the third row.