Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If Toyota (or others for that matter) remain on the high recall path, guess what - they'll lose credibility, too. For now they're given a pass, cause they have a track record. But it wan't last forever.
My point is - domestics low credibility is not result of overnight shift in public's mood. It took roughly two decades of constant disapointments, subpar products, piling up horror stories, denials, etc.
It may take them twice as long to regain it. And angry posts of some diehard fans will not change it. Once the trust is gone, a new commercial, a new CEO or even new product and a few faithful swearing for are simply not enough to bring everybody back, or even make them consider it. The only way is a swift and sweeping improvement and then patient continuation of that path.
Is it happening - for I could tell, only here and there. Take Cobalt - was it an improvement over Cavalier? Sure it was - the catch is it came 4 years late! That car would have been a legitimate Corrolla fighter in 1999, not in 2005, not to mention 2007! Today it is arguably worst product in its segment, or one of the worst - not because it's so terrible (actually - it is, but lets say it is not), but because the competition is so much better. Now - the question - when will we see a new Cobalt? If Cavalier is a guide, it may be 2010 or so. That's simply unacceptable.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
The Cobalt was actually praised when it came out for its strong engine, great ride and overall refinement. C&D was comparing it to the Jetta NOT the Corolla (or civic) when they first tested it. I'll let you figure out why. The old civic was a joke and its only attributes were economy and resale value. In power, features, styling, handling, etc. it was the epitome of average.
Let me explain something to you. People like you seem to assume that "everyone" has domestic failure stories and its an accepted fact that every domestic car produced before 2004 or so was an unreliable piece of crap and any import problems are rare and most likely exaggerated. It is beyond naive to imply that people who had problems with imports are really the ones at fault and not the vehicles. Personally, I dont have a lot of anecdotal evidence that domestic cars fall apart. I read a lot of stories here on edmunds from import die hards who have been burned numerous times in the 70s and 80s and I just assume these people are telling the truth. In all honestly, I am reading the same stuff by the same import soldiers over and over again in many cases. I accept the domestic horror stories as truth and you need to do the same. I have a hard time believing that people who have owned imports for decades and know friends and family with imports cant think of ANY problem stories but it that's your position I have to believe you.
My ex-neighbors had an '87 Toyota that was full of problems and they bought a new car the same year that my parents replaced their '86 chevy. Both cars were having issues in 1998 and both got replaced. My neighbors had problems with the '98 Avalon they bought and got loaner cars from Toyota on several occasions. Of course I'm sure that was the ONLY avalon to EVER have a problem but that is what happened.
2. Fit and finish - ouch
3. Reliabity - solid black in CR, consistent over the lifetime of the model.
4. general "feel" inside - I know, I know - I'm anti'GM, so it doesn't count. But I'm not anti-domestic; I always liked Focus and Caliber don't offend me, either.
I admit that engine power and transmission were the strongest parts of it. Just the rest was still screaming "Cavalier".
2018 430i Gran Coupe
whomever said Toyota "cant" affordably redevelop brownsfields and would be be foolish to try is wrong. GM and Ford modify and expand old plants all the time. It can be done if that's what a company wants to do. Industrial structures can be reused for industrial uses pretty easily because the main things you need in a new plant (huge floor area, high ceiling, parking, road/rail connections) exist with older plants. Toyota wants to build in the rural south and that's all there is to it. GM has just built the most enviromentally friend car plant in the world in Michigan and I bet you havent heard anything about it because the media is too busy writing about GM's gas guzzling SUVs that are destroying the planet. I read nothing suggesting Toyota's new Tundra plant incorporates the "green" features of GM's new plant.
Sorry, but a rental test drive doesnt cut it with me. As I said read C&D's first road test and other reviews from 2004. The Cobalt exceeded the competition in acceleraton, braking distance and skidpad performance and they said the ride quality was great. Keep in mind this was the LT model and not the as yet unreleased SS model with better suspention and more power. I assure you the Cobalt's handling is no worse than the corolla, Elantra, Sentra, etc. The 3 is probably better and maybe the NEW civic, not the old one. I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly why the corolla and civic were superior to the cobalt in 2004. Both cars were dull and had hard plastics all over.
I havent seen the CR reliability rankings but I'm not surprised. If the Ion and HHR reliability rankings dont match up with the Cobalts than something is wrong. CR often rates cars with the same mechanicals differently in reliability which tells you there is a problem with their system. Plus if you read up on CRs methods you will see that a dark circle or half dark circle doesnt mean a car is unreliable, it just means its less than average which doesnt tell you much. If average is a 3% problem rate a dark circle might mean the Cobalt has an 8% problem rate which hardly constitues "unreliable".
Just looked at a Cobalt at the autoshoe yesterday and I saw no glaring fit/finish issues. Care to be specific?
See why the perception exists?"
No I dont. How many domestic cars from the last decade to you know about that needed engines rebuilt after 24k miles? How many in recent years have had tranny rebuilt? I dont know of any and my parents car has over 90k miles thus far. Their two previosu cars lasted about 10 years and never had trannies rebuilt to my knowledge. If you have recent examples, let us know. It is a mininum expectation for a modern car (OK, camrys and some Honda's excluded) to last 100k miles with no major powertrain issues. This is not the exclusive domain of Japanese makes in 2007. I would expect a Kia or Ford or even Chrysler to last 100K miles without any engine or tranny rebuilding.
I just read in MT that their long term A3 spent 41 days in the shop over 3 visits due to a failing AC system. How many domestic cars do you know about that have been in the shop half that much time in the last decade? You wont have negaive equity in a car if you make a downpayment and keep it more than a year. If you put no money down, get a high financing rate and try to trade in a car after 8 months because you want something newer you will be upside down. I dont see how higher resale value is better than saving money on monthly payments and borrowing less. If you can explain it to me I would love to know.
That's exactly the attitude that has to be overcome. It's simply amazing the self-rightous approach of some who want to pretend that problems which did exist with quality, assembly, and reliability in GMs in 80s and early 90s, have not been improved.
The JDPowers results indicate for a long time there is little difference between the statistical number of problems among the various makes. In fact from highest to mean is not very meaningful. I just read in CR that the difference between repair results _reported_ to them by CR subscribers is not meaningfully accurate when less than 4% (refrigerators).
I haven't heard anyone discuss the Odyssey tradein value. I think I have the post bookmarked that discussed the decrease in value of the Odyssey. I'll check my bookmarks.
As I said about touring the GM assembly plant for SUVs, it was a revelation. I didn't see anyone not working. The body language of those on the line was good. There was one person on break at the small, workgroup table, microwave, refrigerator, bulletin board, lockers scattered throughout the plant. They get 2 ten-minute breaks an a 20-minute lunch break, IIRC from the guide who had retired from that plant (and the Fridgidaire plant) where he worked.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Let's talk about inserting a tube to run transmission fluid in transmissions on the Accord, Odyssey, Pilot because the design was insufficient? Hmmmmm.
Last I saw the Honda dealer has a large repair area on the back of the sales room. Same for Toyota dealer. In fact he's enlarging his.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Slick did not work here!
Buick and Pontiac will not be high volume brands. They will both sell close to 400K in an optimum world (after Pontiac drops the trucks and greatly lowers the fleet sales). Price range will be lower for Pontiac because performance needs to reach down into younger age market.
You can wish, but it is what it will be.
Fenders, on this side of the Pacific.
http://www.oztion.com.au/buy/auction.aspx?itemid=548689
When the 4rth quarter profit comes out we will see what is said.
Remember there is a tipping point to the press to. Once the good news starts to come out many will jump on the bandwagon and print even more good press. Just the way it works.
Go back to the other GM forum here a year ago and see the comments.
Just to be clear, I've never been Corrola's fan, or Toyota's in general. Hondas on the other hand, are much more driver oriented and friendly (I don't own one).
My point originally was - it took GM, Ford and Chrysler two decades to lose public's trust, late 90s being their lowest point especially in small/midsize car designs. Are they improving? Yes. Do we have to care? No.
It's their job to convince us, not our job to give them 20th chance just because they (or their faithful) say so. We have no obligation to act on their promises, statements, commercials, or even product improvement, regardless what angry posts from their followers say. Why should we change if what we have works? There will be no massive overnight conversions. It takes patience and long term commitment, not just one-time hustle of Super Bowl commercials. All they can do is hope to win over people one by one for the next 20 years.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
The air is pretty thin once you get into the $40k and up market. Volumes drop fast. Lots of competion.
That much? I think 250k for each is more realistic, after they finish honing their product lines and ditch the massive fleet sales.
Actually they started about 5 years ago and the visible consequences were seen about 2 years ago. Wagoner saw the writing then and hired Lutz to fix the product. He also personally took over the North America and ran it himself (was/is the CEO of all GM). Cars like the Aura and Lamdas do not just happen overnight. Also they had to have huge losses to get the UAW to help. There were/are so many issues but it took a little push to get them changed.
Which car companies are performing well and gaining market share, and which ones are losing money (measured in billions of dollars) and losing market share? Do you think all of those lost sales at GM and Ford are from "Naive" consumers? Did you ever think that maybe the downfall of domestic car sales in more recent years is because of all the research data available on the internet? And maybe the American consumer is using more and more of this data prior to purchasing a car, verses just the people that subscribe to consumer magazines twenty years ago?
Consumers in this country have freedom of choice and they vote with their money.
Not counting fleet the G6 and a future american built G8 will get 300K sales. Throw in a real G5, Solstice, new Vibe and you have another 100K. In fact the right G5 should get 100k sales by itself (selling 8000/moonth now).
Roo bar: http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_50023/newsarticle.html
If they make a profit I do think we'll see some better articles in the media.
One of the discussions we had focused on education and philosophy - no not religion or cultural philosophy - engineering philosophy.
We came to this conclusion -
American Engineers are trained to this way of thinking:
"How can I make the same quality of product, but make it cheaper?"
Japanese Engineers are trained to this way of thinking:
"How can I make the product better without making it more expensive?"
Neither engineer ever completely succeeds, of course.
With cost being the driving factor, quality gradually fades away, until failures or complaints become excessive and then cost is put back in - but only to the point where the failures stop.
With improvement being the driver, costs gradually creep up until the product becomes too expensive. Then generally features are taken out until the price becomes acceptable to the market again.
I think if you look at the history of the Mazda RX-7 you can see a good example of the Japanese pattern. The cars got more and more elaborate until they were too complex and too expensive.
I think that General Motors interiors are a good example of the the American pattern. The interiors were a great place to save money, but when they began to affect sales, GM started to pay attention to them.
Now the question: When you buy products, whose philosophy is more likely to make you, as a consumer, happier?
Everyone has to answer that one for himself.
Buick- LaCrosse, LaCrosse retractable hardtop coupe, Enclave, RWD/AWD V8 Lucerne
Pontiac- Solstice convertible, Solstice hatchback, RWD G6 sedan, RWD/AWD G8 sedan, GTO coupe
20th chance? You know people that have had 19 unreliable GM products? amazing.
"We have no obligation to act on their promises, statements, commercials, or even product improvement, regardless what angry posts from their followers say. Why should we change if what we have works? There will be no massive overnight conversions. It takes patience and long term commitment, not just one-time hustle of Super Bowl commercials. All they can do is hope to win over people one by one for the next 20 years. "
So I guess you are saying Toyota is wasting its time with the Tundra. You are saying ads dont matter, product doesnt matter, etc. Nothing matters except reputation and thus its pointless for an automaker to try and change their repuation through better designs, warranties, advertising, pricing, performance, etc. Interesting.
Which companies have been expanding their lineups and dealerships over the past decade? Which companies have lower overhead and legacy costs and are equipped to spend billions on R&D and new factories? Which companies were weak on trucks but strong in small cars and thus benefitted from the rapid run up in fuel prices 2 years ago? which companies operate in a country where the market is totally dominated by the homegrown automakers and face little competitive pressure from the Europeans and Americans at home?
The problems and poor decision making by the Big 3 has been well documented. But you and others need to understand that marketshare losses were inevitable due to increased competition. Hyundai was nothing in the US 10 years back and now they are a full line manufacturer with a US plant. Toyota was nothing more than the Camry, Corolla and a few sorry trucks/SUVs a decade ago and now they are strong in almost every category and offer more models than anyone except Chevy. If Toyota or HOnda went out of business tomorrow GM's share would go up and vice versa. More competition means less share. Toyota's share is going up but it will peak soon, and I assure you it wont be peaking anywhere near what GM held in the 80s or even 90s because that is impossible these days. As I said before there are 3 major domestic automakers who have about 55% share right now. The Big 7 foreign automakers have the other 45%. 10 major manufacturers, dozens of brands and hundreds of models means lower share for the home team.
I love how people base the car they buy on growing (or shrinking) marketshare and profitability. Are you saying GM would be OK with you if they were profitable? Would you buy GM if their share increases in 2007? I doubt it. GM was profitable 2 or 3 years ago but for some reason I'm confident you werent a fan just as you arent now.
BTW, studies have shown (recently, n fact) that GM has one of the highest loyalty rates in the industry. I think Toyota was second. The fact of the matter is GM is only losing a small percentage of thier customers but that is hard to stop in a market with so many new products. Loyalty rate is important because it shows you that automakers like Toyota and Honda lose a lot of existing customers but they are making up for it with new customers which leads to sales increases. GM is losing small %s of customers but is unable to get non-GM or non-domestic owners to buy which is a big problem.
I think if you look at the history of the Mazda RX-7 you can see a good example of the Japanese pattern. The cars got more and more elaborate until they were too complex and too expensive."
WOW! - I never looked at it that way before. That would also explain why the Honda Civic is now over $18,000 for the mid line, LX model. The Civic is now what the Accord was twenty years ago. On the other hand, does anyone remember the names "Cimarron" or "Catera"??
2. There are a lot of people (not me really - I always look around - that's why I'm even here) with this attitude around me and many of them got it because they were let down too many times by domestics, GM namely. To win them back will take long and patient efforts.
3. I didn't say that they should not advertise on Superbowl. I only said it will not bring mentioned people overnight. Same for Toyota - it's unlikely their Superbowl commercials will make anyone buy Tundra. Just patience, product and product again.
4. If you can't distinguish figurative speach ("20th time"), I can't help you.
5. Little hint - angry post usually have opposite effect than intended.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Edmunds says different, but they're biased.
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1997/toyota/index.html
You entirely missed the point - market share shrinking is the result of people opting to buy other brands because they are, or at least "perceived", to be better.
"Are you saying GM would be OK with you if they were profitable? Would you buy GM if their share increases in 2007?"
No, profitability and market share have no impact on my car buying decision - remember the posting about past experiences?
"GM was profitable 2 or 3 years ago but for some reason I'm confident you weren't a fan just as you aren't now."
You are actually correct on that one! And you are contradicting your previous posts I quoted in this reply.
Rental fleets take up about 23% of new car sales every year. So who will sell to the rentals? Pretty much everyone and it will be more profitable. They need those cars no matter what. Since some will never sell rentals in quantities (MB, BMW, Lexus, Acura, Infiniti, etc.) then we will see the rest take up the slack. Camry/Corolla are at about 13% now. So Toyota will move up to 20% and GM will lower to 20-25% and it will be profitable.
Also a vehicle above the Lucerne at Buick.
Increased competition? OK then, why have only the "Big 3" lost market share over the same period? If that statement was true, then Honda and Toyota should be losing market share too, correct?
"The fact of the matter is GM is only losing a small percentage of their customers...."
OK, I just will let that go without a comment.
How about paseo, T100, Tercel, Previa?
secondly, I think the point you are missing is that its all about the product. Marketshare arguments are great until you realize that GM's products today are far better than they were when GM had 30% share or 50% share. According to your logic everything was great in GM's world 15 or 30 years ago when they were making money and had larger share. I disagree because older GM models werent stylish (post 60s), fuel efficient, reliable or innovative. American tastes were different and many people were used to what GM put out back then, but the products werent great. I dont care what Toyota's share is today, it doesnt make the majority of their vehicles desirable. The press backs this up for the most part saying TOyota vehicles are boring but great for people who see cars as appliances.
The anecdotal evidence, the customer surveys, the increased warranties, the long terms tests, etc. show that quality is vastly improved. If you are willing to disregard that because of a 1980 Vega or Pinto that is on you. To each his own. You are the kind of custmer Toyota and HOnda loves. Sell you a car for $500 under MSRP with bunch of packaged options you didnt want at a higher interest rate than GM offers and then justify it by saying they are the only reliable cars in town so you should be grateful.
Not really. Basic marketing. If you put two products on a grocery shelf, and both are basically the same, and priced the same, over time there will be a shift to the new product and 50/50 penetration. Some people just do not care and grap a box. Others will try the new box and think it is better. It will take time but it will happen. For proof look at Toothpaste. There seem to be a dozen brands but if you look closely there are only a couple manufacturers.
What normally happens though is the new product comes out at a lower price and more try it for saving money.
No, this is a simple concept. The companies with the MOST marketshare and the MOST offerings would suffer the MOST marketshare loses. WHy would Toyota and Honda lose share when they have larger lineups and more dealers than they ddi 10-15 years ago? GM and Chrysler have killed brands and Toyota has added a brand. On top of that we now have Kia which didnt even exist a few years ago. Do you think Kia should have lower share as well?
"OK, I just will let that go without a comment. "
The statement is true, the marketshare loss has been gradual and thus I dont know why you are "letting it go". You are acting like GM went from 50% share to 24% in a couple of years, that took 35 years last time I checked. GM had its highest share in the 60s or early 70s. BTW, they arent really selling a lot less cars, they just have been unable to grow their sales in proportion with the overall market. GM's best year was 1979 and their second best was 2006 or 2005 overall.
T100 -> Tacoma (or Tundra)
Previa -> Sienna
Echo -> Replaced by Yaris in the lineup
Celica -> Scion tC
Supra -> Coming back soon...
T100 -> Tacoma (or Tundra)
Previa -> Sienna
Echo -> Replaced by Yaris in the lineup
Celica -> Scion tC
Supra -> Coming back soon...
This is a GM board after all ain't it?
How about we try and cit back on the Toyota thing! I know I started it but I would really like to see some more GM data. How about those Tigers!
Excuse me, but the product is what I am talking about all along. If you build a good product, market share and profitability will follow. If you build a poor product, well, market share and profitability dwindle. It is American Capitalism at it's best.
"I dont care what Toyota's share is today, it doesnt make the majority of their vehicles desirable."
Exactly the point I am making, only that is my perceived opinion of Big 3 products.
"...because of a 1980 Vega or Pinto that is on you."
I forgave all of the past problems when I purchased a new 2002 Pontiac. The 2002 ruined it for me.
competition and legacy costs pose tough challenges for U.S. carmakers ("Rx
for our corporate culture," The Forum, Jan. 25).
That is why General Motors has been remaking its culture in ways that are
becoming increasingly visible. For starters, GM is now truly global, with
thousands of designers, engineers and others collaborating daily with
colleagues in every region. More than half of our employees and sales are
now outside the USA. We are leaders in many of the world's most dynamic
markets, including China, where GM is the No.1 carmaker.
This cultural transformation is reflected in our products and technology.
GM is a leader in the push for energy diversity. At the recent auto show in
Detroit, GM showcased the Chevy Volt, which brings extended-range electric
vehicles much closer to reality. GM also captured the North American Car
and Truck of the Year awards for (respectively) the Saturn Aura and Chevy
Silverado, hardly the sign of a company whose best days are past.
Even in health care, we are using what we have learned in building cars and
trucks to improve quality, reduce errors and control costs. Just recently,
GM and several partners announced an electronic prescription pilot in
Dayton, Ohio, to help reduce medication errors and simplify the prescribing
process. Our hands-on involvement in creating health care solutions is one
more indication of the dynamic culture we are working to grow throughout
GM.
The point with the nameplates is that Toytoa has lauched a lot of flops and when that happens they change names. The Previa, Echo, MR2, Celica (last gen) and Supra were not successess at all. When GM changes names (grand am, Lesabre, etc.) there is a big fuss about how GM is "confusing" customers and they need to stick with proven names but Toyota changes names all the time. Acura and Infiniti have done the same thing but no one seemed to care. Remember the Vigor and the Integra? remember the SLX?
Heres the bottom line with Toyota, they make about a half dozen very successful products and a lot of products that are mediocre successes in the market. RX, Tacoma, Camry, corolla, Prius, Rav4, Es are doing well. GS, Tundra (old one), Scion models, Yaris, Sequoia, hybrids other than Prius, Land Cruiser, etc. are doing merely OK in the market so this notion that everything Toyota touches i gold is far fetched.
maligned as a gas guzzler – nabbed a surprising award in IntelliChoice's
intermediate-utility class, with the new H3. "In its class, it's not as
awful as the stereotype is for fuel efficiency," Mr. Bell says.
maligned as a gas guzzler – nabbed a surprising award in IntelliChoice's
intermediate-utility class, with the new H3. "In its class, it's not as
awful as the stereotype is for fuel efficiency," Mr. Bell says.
Toyota Motor Corp. offers consumers the best selection of vehicles that
retain their value over time and feature other ownership cost benefits,
according to awards that will be announced today at the Chicago Auto Show.
Toyota received 11 "Best Overall Value of the Year" awards, handed out by
IntelliChoice.com, a car-shopping Web site. Lexus, Toyota's luxury brand,
grabbed seven awards. General Motors Corp.'s Chevrolet brand came in a
close second, with 10 awards, led by its new Silverado truck.
The awards, which included eight overall category winners and 33 winners by
segment and class, recognized 2007 models that IntelliChoice determined
offer the best cost of ownership over a five-year period. Among the factors
IntelliChoice considered in cost of ownership were depreciation,
maintenance, repairs, fuel, state fees, financing and insurance.
Among IntelliChoice's overall category winners, Toyota's popular Prius
hybrid won best car value for a price under $23,000. That led a good
showing for hybrids on the entire awards list, which also recognized Ford
Motor Co.'s Escape sport-utility vehicle and Honda's Civic.
The Lexus ES won best car over $23,000. Toyota's Tacoma won best truck
under $27,000, while Chevrolet's Silverado won best truck over $27,000. The
Ford Escape Hybrid took the best SUV under $28,000, while the Lexus RX 350
won best SUV over $28,000. The Honda Odyssey swept the minivan category for
the third straight year.
Resale value can be a significant boon or bust for car owners. Detroit's
Big Three have recently vowed to curtail the practice of slapping
incentives on their vehicles, which can erode resale value and, in turn,
make products less attractive to consumers.
Another hot topic for current car buyers: fuel economy. GM's Hummer – much
maligned as a gas guzzler – nabbed a surprising award in IntelliChoice's
intermediate-utility class, with the new H3. "In its class, it's not as
awful as the stereotype is for fuel efficiency," Mr. Bell says.
Noticeably absent from IntelliChoice's awards: DaimlerChrysler AG's
Chrysler Group. Chrysler is just beginning to see the effects of a quality
program instituted five years ago, a company representative says, and
expects more positive response to its products in coming years.
Ford's Escape was the only vehicle from that automaker recognized by
IntelliChoice. A Ford spokesman says the car maker has revamped its
approach to vehicles in the past year and a half, emphasizing more
appealing design, new features, more standard safety equipment and lower
prices.