Checked the midsize cars in the autoshow. Altima's curvy appearance and curvy roofline felt very unique, even though the interior lacked good quality materials and decent finish. Even Fusion's interior looked better compared to Altima's. Camry had the best interior --- the LE on display was just perfect in every respect. Accord (07 model) offered most bang for the buck --- Honda was even advertising cash rebate on the SE model. Aura was cool --- the XR with brown leather and chrome finish was turning heads despite high price tag. Mazda6 and Sonata looked good too. Lots of choices in this segment. Disappointments: Malibu (07 model is cheap-looking), G6 (again, cheap-looking), Avenger (too little too late) and Sebring (stupid styling).
I still believe "group think" has a some part in slanting the reliability ratings. If CR says my Honda or Toyota I just bought is excellent than it must be. If it has any problems, they can be ignored on a CR survey.
Of course, the Camry has used a timing chain for the last five years, the Corolla for the last ten, so I don't suppose this is something owners of those vehicles spend too much time worrying about, eh?! ;-)
murphydog: thank you for bringing a touch of sanity to this discussion. I mean, even if CR truly had an officewide policy of skewing their recommendations towards Honda and Toyota, which I think is ludicrous, GM is stuck with it. On-topic, one has to ask if it has that much of an effect on sales of the two - is CR everyone's bible or something? And as I said before, no matter what the answer there, GM is still stuck with it. No point crying "no fair" - you have to deal with problems, not sit down and cry about them.
As for allegations of statistically erroneous methodology in CR's data production, I am not qualified to give an educated opinion, and probably many if not most of the posters here are equally unqualified (anyone here an accountant, or have a degree in statistics?). But again, it is what it is.
And as for the models CR recommends (to respond to 62vette a bit), they have to like the vehicle enough to recommend it AND find that it has at least average reliability. What they are saying is that only 37% of GM vehicles tested by them have both at least average reliability and a good review from their test drive. They have actually come right out and said they prioritize three areas in their reviews, and one is fuel economy - is it any wonder then that Toyota and Honda do better in their reviews? Their reviews therefore become fairly useless to someone who prefers sportiness and power to fuel economy.
If it is true that CR is having a broad effect on car sales, then I think the conclusion to be drawn is that peoples' priorities tend away from power and sportiness and towards appliance-like characteristics. What a shock eh? No surprise to Edmunds posters, I am sure. The vast majority of car owners just want a nice appliance that is also safe and perhaps has good resale so they can buy a new one in five years without having zero equity in their trade.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I wonder if this could go the other way, that is people have such crazy high expectations that they would report every little thing. Kind of like the movie that everybody tells you to see, then you get there and you are disappointed.
GM had the market, and chose to take it for granted. They've dropped the ball, and they know it. Toyota picked it up, and they won't give it back. And GM (and it's fans) are left to cry in their beer.
Now GM has to wait until Toyota is done scoring, and eventually drops the ball. Could be next year, could be 50 years from now.
GM has a lot of talent, and even disabled, is more or less the equal to Toyota, given their home-field advantage
But the cream rises to the top. Toyota has earned America's respect and admiration. GM has squandered theirs.
Toyota sells solid cars. Has been for about 20 years.
GM sells a deal, when they can't deliver the car Toyota does.
The emperor has no pants. It's too late to start trying now. The people are too busy laughing.
I wish GM well. Nobody wants Toyota to take over the market, lock, stock, and barrel. At least they aren't in Fordland, allegedly begging Toyota to Chryslerize them.
GM needs to get smaller, and more focused. Think like an underdog. Overengineer like Toyota has been for quite some time now.
And even then, they only have a 50/50 shot at parity. They've lost the benefit of the doubt, rightly so.
If GM has an image/perception problem, it's a self-created illness, like alcoholism, or obesity. :sick:
Poor management, insulting their customer base, and misreading the market is no way to stay #1. :lemon:
Let's get serious here. Is it *just possible* that the GM cars have been in totality, fairly poor and CR is not as biased as some people say? Is it *just possible* that some have GM loyalty (we all have loyalty to certain brands, not just cars) and they are letting their loyalty skew their comments?
I'm not a big conspiracy theorist. The problem with most conspiracies is that they would require tens or hundreds of people to be in the know and somehow not let that get out. It would mean many people are unethical and willingly deceiving others. In the case of CR, it would mean that there are many people who work for this organization that would willingly risk the reputation of their group for the sake of favoring certain manufacturers. Just as the JFK conspiracies have never been proven, where is the evidence of CR's bias?
It's been implied CR could be getting kickbacks, etc. All of this is possible, but likely? Doesn't seem very likely. Even the car seat fiasco earlier this year -- was a screw up, but nothing intentional. And CR came out and admitted it. NASA crashed a healthy probe into Mars by accident. Even smart people screw up.
Funny how a lot of the public has the same impressions and experiences that would support the CR perspectives. I read the auto issue and I think, while imperfect, that most of it is spot on.
We don't like hearing that a company we are loyal to has screwed up, but deep inside we have to admit it. I've always liked Apple, but in the 90's they screwed up. I need to accept that. And in the '80s and '90s GM screwed up. Even loyalists need to admit that. And while we're all happy GM is improving, perhaps they're not yet as close with many of their vehicles as some would hope.
So CR is not the right topic, it diverts us from the real issues. Given that most people would agree that GM is doing the right things and has made very impressive progress in the last couple of years, what other things should GM do to continue its march forward, and make more vehicles that become best in class?
It does hurt. I have yet to read a publication, either tree rags or online, that appears to be truly objective. It would be nice if a vehicle could be evaluated fairly on its own without the manufacturer's past brought into it. Any car, reviewed at any time, is what it is despite the baggage carried by whatever emblem you find on the grill. It seems that all media sources, to one extent or another, seem to have trouble coming to terms with that.
I agree with you regarding that this whole "anti-GM" thing is not a conspiracy. It's not only delusional thinking but it is also improbable and down right silly to think there's a big anti-domestic racket with a secret headquarters built into the edifice of a mountain.
I do, however, believe there is something out there called "bias." We're all familiar with bias to some extent or another. One primary example being racial bias. It makes no sense, it's ethically and morally wrong and is a losing situation for both those holding the bias and those receiving it. Despite that it still persists even now, although we have come a long way in confronting it. Tell me why it isn't possible that there is a healthy, deep-seated bias towards domestic manufacturers? The evidence of their inadequacy justifies only so much of the ill will they receive and yet many publications persist in their wholesale disregard to what they have to offer.
Consider this, if you wish. I believe that these days many Americans have a big, big self-esteem problem. So many people are telling them that America, and anything that comes out of or from it, sucks. They say our government officials are murderers and psychopaths (thank you, Senor Hugo Chavez) and that our basic military functions violate every human right known. In addition to that, everyone has an opinion on how fat, lazy and morally bankrupt Americans are. There aren't many people who are in a position to make statements like that. The point is, when American citizens are told and reminded on a daily basis that their country is lousy, it's not a far stretch to believe they would consequently have a low opinion of the products that come from such an apparently "defective" nation. Unfortunately, many Americans have such an overwhelming sense of guilt for living a good life in terms of standards of living that they berate themselves and their country so they can get some sleep at night. The media has drilled into their minds, day in and day out, that they are terrible people, a part of a terrible nation.
Tell me, tell me please, who can feel good about that?
1985 was the year Suzuki started selling vehicles in the USA, according to this article.
Still waiting to see where the new(er) vehicles are. No concepts, so far this year, at the major autoshows. Kind of a let down. No news, concepts, nothing new for '08 or '09?
The domestics, if nothing else, have proven that they can't build it, and if they can, can't do it consistently (see Ford Taurus, for example).
If we can, it costs us too much, with legacy and other labor costs.
The imports have a cost advantage, but we would do a lot better if we also weren't being out-managed.
The domestics have been given more than enough chances, and those bad prior experiences are coming back to bite someone in the pants.
GM and Ford like to screw up. Honda and 'Yota don't. They'd be embarassed if they had the track record the domestics have. That's really the critical difference.
The real funny part is that Toyota isn't beating GM and Ford. Toyota's just being patient, waiting for us to stumble. We are beating ourselves! Slowly, but surely. Toyota has a nice pace goin', while we're stumbling around the track. :sick:
Reminds me of that girl Julie Moss (?), in the '83 (?) Triathalon who fell down, crapped herself, and got passed, many times.
Well, humbleness and willingness to learn from others is a powerful tool leading to success. Toyota learned from GM and Ford for decades. What did GM (and Ford) in was the arrogance of the 70's and 80's. Same thing has been happening to the Germans in recent years, especially at Mercedes. "We can do no wrong" and "we do not need to learn from anyone" attitude usually lead to hubris and downfalls. I'm sure someday, that same human weakness will befall Toyota, too. Japanese actually had a word for it, the "victory disease," like they suffered in 1942.
Well it seems GM does have a lot to be proud of. Certainly many of us, a year ago, would not have thought GM would have executed the last year as well as they have. You need to agree that Wagoner has a very tough job and has navigated the situation pretty well to date.
Where GM could improve more: - Interiors: they seem to be doing this on newer models - Reliability: they appear to be pretty good and improving - Revinement: I'd suggest this is the place to improve. They need some smoother engines, especially a good four cylinder. They should be investing in a world-class 4 that can provide the economy and smoothness that import buyers expect.
> willingly risk the reputation of their group for the sake of favoring certain manufacturers.
Personal favorites always have the advantage on the court. Refs often do a biased game and noone can do anything about it. Don't forget CR is not a government group nor a think tank. It's a business organization. The people are on the east coast which has favored foreign vehicles for a long time, for whatever reason you may choose to believe.
But I mentioned the etymology of the philosophy. In the 70s I can barely recall the enviromentalism was the big thing. The econoboxes came out and provided economical (understatement) gas mileage and cheap purchase price. That part of the market US manufacturers somewhat (understatement) ignored as a movement that would go away like the compact Studebakers. It didn't.
The big changes in gas mileage requirements in the beginnings of the 80s left larger motors undertuned for pollution control and with high axle ratios for economy.
At the same time GM was disliked because it was part of the military-industrial complex (whatever that was) of the Carter era. It often was mentioned that GM had a gross product making it the 9th largest country in the world.
There was an overall envirnment of politics and environmentalism. I'll have to go read some CRs from the era.
As for money trail as I mentioned earlier, I wonder where all the endowment money that CR actively seeks is invested? Think it's in blind trusts? Is it in an auto stocks? Is it public info? That'll be an interesting phone call.
I haven't read all these posts, but I admit to owning and (for the most part) enjoying my GM vehicles from the '70's to the present. I have found an excellent dealer whose service dept. is a "no excuses, we'll get it done" type place for warranty work and that makes all the difference--plus, it's only one mile from my home. And...I'm a fussy customer! My latest GM (2005) hasn't needed much work and at 26K miles is as tight as when I picked it up.
One thing that has always amazed me about CR is that they appear to ignore "sample error". In other words, it has not been uncommon for them to say a 4-cylinder model of one car has worse body integrity, say, than the 6-cylinder model of the same car, or that "twins" of a manufacturer have different reliability records, even if identical vehicles assembled on the same line in the same plant. A recent example of this is the Chevy Equinox and Pontiac Torrent. Identical vehicles. Chevy reliability rating: Worse than average. Pontiac: Better than average. (This was in an issue a few months back.)
Of course, this type of thing will always happen, but they treat their statistics like they are the Bible. This is almost laughable! They actually said that the Pontiac was more reliable!
Bill
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
the fuel economy disparity: under Bush's new plan to boost fuel economy standards by 4% per year, the administration expects the prices of GM's vehicles to rise an average of $1800 in ten years, while this will only cause a rise of $600 in Honda's vehicles. This is related to how far ahead of GM Honda is in terms of fuel economy today. One area where I would really like to see GM compete is fuel economy.
Funny thing is, as bad as some believe those 1980s GM cars were, I've done extremely well. The three 1980s GM cars I've owned have been excellent. My first new GM car was a 1987 Chevrolet Caprice Classic. I know I could probably still be driving this car if I didn't trade it for the 1989 Cadillac Brougham I still own. My Grandpop still has his 1989 Chevrolet Caprice Classic Brougham.
The Caprices of '77-'90, by most accounts, were considered excellent cars....especially if you got the 350 engine and trans the first three model years. This is probably lost on most readers now, but the '83 Caprice (similar right up to '90) was rated by Car and Driver as one of "The World's Ten Best Cars". Yep...a lowly Chevy built by (gasp!) GM in the '80's! I think the styling has stood the test of time too.
Bill
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
A redesigned Chevy Equinox is badly needed. GM can stop wasting energy on Saturn and start focusing on its main brand Chevy. Rav4 and CR-V hardly face any competition - neither Escape nor Equinox had an update since the orignial launch. How about making the Equinox lighter, adding a trim with a silk-smooth 4-cyl engine with great fuel-economy, making the looks more youthful (both inside and outside), and, of course, making safety features such as ABS, curtain airbags, etc. standard? A plug-in for IPod can be standard as well :-) Chevy can use a price tag similar to CR-V's, but offer slightly better financing and leasing deals to steal customers.
LaCrosse and Lucerne likely get mid-cycle updates for 2008 model year.
Of course, there's the new 2008 Buick LaCrosse Super coming out sometime this fall. It will have the 5.3 V-8 with heavy duty tranny and suspension, just like the Impala and Monte SS cars. I read where Pontiac is discontinuing the Grand Prix GXP.
A recent example of this is the Chevy Equinox and Pontiac Torrent. Identical vehicles. Chevy reliability rating: Worse than average. Pontiac: Better than average.
this will no longer be true. CR now combines like vehicles into one sample size so that these discrepancies in their data is not visible.
In 1990 my Grandfather bought a Mazda 929S after being Mr Cadillac for decades. He never went back to Caddy after that. I was the next defector when I bought a 95 Civic EX. My parents thought I was nuts..right up until they drove it. A year later they both owned Honda's and can't believe how reliable they are. My wife had two American cars, then bought a Toyota. It got totalled last month so we're car shopping again. She refuses to even consider an American car.
Perfect examples of real-life situations and experiences, and demonstrates the truth of the situation; thank you for sharing.
I can tell you that people who own American or have so for a long time become used to having poor cars with poor reliability that constantly and consistently break down every few months. They think its "normal" or to be "expected." In fact, the Dodge dealer service manager told me when I asked why I had to keep bringing my car back right after they had serviced/repaired it recently "parts just break down!" That is what he said, and I quote "parts just break down." Well.... he should tell that to the millions of HOnda and Toyota owners that NEVER have parts "just break down."
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
How do they pick the dealers. Do they go back to the dealer with a car for checks: "This car got low mileage on a run. Is something out of kilter?"
Another example of a problem I'd have with Magazines and sources that would do as you suggest. That would be unfair. Why should CR have to go back to the dealer to get 10 things fixed on the GM vehicles so that they can get a better MPG figure? If they don't have to go back to the Honda and Toyota dealers, why should they go back to GM's?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
3.)Due to this poor reliability CR only recommends 37% of them (ok they said domestic but it must be close to that).
I think GM is actually probably doing better than Ford and especially Chrysler. Just because a GM vehicle is decently reliable(66% of them) doesn't mean they are also good vehicles (37%).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
One of the problems for GM's 70's and 80's cars was the fact that the great cars they produced in the 60's were still around for comparison.
Look at the beauty of the 60's Chevelle's and then at the Citation. Additionally the 60's cars were very simple technology, refined by literally decades of improvements, where the 80's FWD cars were the first of their types with all the new-design problems of any innovation.
A lot of people were unhappy that the cars that they were buying weren't as good as the old cars they'd gotten rid of.
So it's sort of the disappointment you feel when the beautiful girl you married gains 300 pounds and starts drinking...
You might start looking at that new Japanese girl in town. If she turns out to be a pretty good cook, there may be a divorce brewing.
Lemko - the cars that you like are really variations of the classic GM car that they did so well, till they stopped making them Big, Automatic, RWD cars.
But even then not every one had the great experience you're having.
My wife's Japanese boss, bought a new top-of-the-line Caprice Classic in 1987. He could have afforded a Caddy or a Mercedes but since he was opening a business here in the states, he wanted to appear modest and American-oriented.
Well, the !$#%!@% thing would never start when it was cold. Never. The dealer couldn't fix it. After a year of growing frustration, he dumped it and bought one of the first Lexus 400's
But he tried - he really tried - until he couldn't stand it.
So anecdotes can be found on both sides of the spectrum.
I wouldn't tolerate constant failures from any product be it an automobile or a refrigerator. A burned-out bulb drives me bananas. I consistently purchase GM cars, especially Buicks and Cadillacs, because they are both extremely durable and reliable not to mention very attractive. I've been driving domestic cars for over 25 years and will for the foreseeable future.
Again, let's pay attention to the discussion title that's in big letters at the top of the page. This is not imports vs domestics. Thanks.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
GM and Ford like to screw up. Honda and 'Yota don't. They'd be embarassed if they had the track record the domestics have. That's really the critical difference.
Couldn't have said it better myself, but add Chrysler to the group that likes to screw up.
I got the impression that Chrysler purposefully and knowingly engineered my vehicle to cost thousands of dollars to keep running until 65K miles. They knew they were screwing people over the moment the assembly line started production!
On the other hand, I got the impression everytime something minor went wrong with my Honda that they were genuinely embarrassed of the situation; no matter how minor.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
no offense, but dont you think its a little insulting to say that people who by American are too ignorant to realize that a car is unreliable? Seems a little harsh to me.
3.)Due to this poor reliability CR only recommends 37% of them (ok they said domestic but it must be close to that).
Overall we recommend a much smaller percentage of U.S. cars than Japanese makes (37 percent vs. 80 percent), mainly because their reliability is hit-or-miss,
Funny, I thought I read the above in the CR comment. It says mainly the reason why they do not recommend the vehicles is because of reliability, yet their own numbers show that most of the GM cars have reliability that would give them a recommended buy. Yet they do not recommend most of GM's products??
I am sure they misspoke on how they rate the vehicles per reliability. Obviously they did not mean that they mainly do not recommend GM products because of reliability. Must be all those other issues. They just were wrong in how they explained why they do not rate GM vehicles higher.
Saturn is very important now because they have a real lineup and import buyers will consider Saturn. I dont know what GM is wasting money by giving Saturn new products. Nor do I think GM is spending much on Saturn since half their vehicles are related to Opel models. I think the Vue is a direct competitor for the CR-V and Rav4. Just my opinion though.
Since we are comparing Toyota to GM I think its fair to compare GM's recent interiors to Toyotas. I would say most every GM product introduced in the last two-three years has had an interior just as good as comparably Toyotas. It's quite surprising actually but perhaps the current management is really making the necessary changes within the company. It's not going to be enough to derail Toyota from becoming #1, but its still impressive.
I think the '08 highlander vs Acadia/Enclave is a good example of how current GM and Toyota designs stack up and the GM vehicles look just as good as the Highlander IMHO.
Looks like Mercedes is worried about a takeover of their company. With all this secret talking going on between GM and Daimler perhaps they are talking of a merger. Mercedes really needs some help with Chrysler and also getting thier quality back up. GM could help with both.
But for the first time Tuesday, DaimlerChrysler CEO Dieter Zetsche alluded to other pressures bearing on the Stuttgart, Germany-based automaker -- the risk of a possible takeover of the company.
"In today's world, a 50 billion euro ($65 billion) market cap doesn't protect you from those considerations," he said in his first wide-ranging talks with reporters since the stunning Feb. 14 announcement that the nine-year merger might be dissolved.
"Looks like Mercedes is worried about a takeover of their company. With all this secret talking going on between GM and Daimler perhaps they are talking of a merger. Mercedes really needs some help with Chrysler and also getting thier quality back up. GM could help with both."
That would be funny if GM merged with Mercedes considering the way Mercedes kicked Caddy's butt in the 80's. Anyways, how would a GM merger affect Caddy since Mercedes competes with Caddy? Personally if I were GM I would stop talks with Dailmer because GM is infamous just for buying companies while they(GM) still have problems of their own. In my opinion, Despite GM's sales gain in the month of Febuary GM still has alot more work to do.
As far as Mercedes getting their quality back up their quality lapeses since the 2000 model year are their own fault. Mercedes was dead last in reliability I think in CR's surveys even behind Kia I think!
I don't mean to insult anyone. I dont' think most Americans are too ignorant to realize their car is unreliable; only that they may be used to accepting and living with less than what I'd put up with.
Some people may not mind having to get their vehicle repaired once, twice, or maybe even 3 times a year. I mind everytime I have to go back to the dealer for unscheduled maintenance/repair. I believe my wife's '05 Civic was a standard by which all cars should live by - 2 years, 26K miles, no warranty visits or problems!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I would say most every GM product introduced in the last two-three years has had an interior just as good as comparably Toyotas.
Yeah, Toyota's US-market vehicle interiors have been backsliding for a while now- materials aren't as nice as they used to be and they aren't put together as well either. GM did make vastly-needed improvements (though they still have a lot of product on the market from the bad old days before 2005) but Toyota also spotted them some significant yardage.
Yes, as long as Gm focuses on the product like they have been doing of late with the Aura, and Outlook yes they can hold off Toyota. Its the product that sells in the auto business and GM lacked alot of good product in the 90's thus lead to their declining market share.
"A redesigned Chevy Equinox is badly needed. GM can stop wasting energy on Saturn and start focusing on its main brand Chevy. Rav4 and CR-V hardly face any competition - neither Escape nor Equinox had an update since the orignial launch."
The Escape outsold the RAV4 and CR-V I think for awhile there. I knowe the Escape and Equinox haven't been redeigned since their original launch.
The Equinox while nice looking on the outside it had a dated engine and terrible fuel mileadge from what CR said about it. I mean in my opinion a 3.4 liter engine that produces just 185 HP is not that good I mean that big of a engine producing that little amount of horesepower(185 HP) thats not good. GM could have used a smaller engine size wise to produce 185 HP in the Equinox I think.
I dont know how many domestic vehicles you have owned recently, but personally I think its a stretch to assume the average domestic vehicles makes 3 or 4 warranty visits a year. I think if you look at long term tests in magazines or here on edmunds you will see that is a gross exaggeration. I would think that the average Japanese vehicle needs less warranty work than the average domestic but that isnt the same as saying domestic vehicles are in the shop all the time.
I dont think anyone likes going to the dealership for repairs, not even domestic car owners who supposedly dont know reliable cars exist.
1487: I guess CR had to agree with the masses on those two cases but that doesnt change the fact that mediocre Toyota products continue to get top rankings by CR.
Or better yet, those particular Toyotas are underwhelming, and the magazine told it like it is, while other Toyotas score well, and the magazine again told it like it is.
You are the one labeling Toyotas "mediocre," an opinion that is apparently not shared by everyone, judging by the sales figures and the reviews. It is not a "fact" that those Toyotas aside from the FJ Cruiser and Yaris are mediocre.
1487: Stop making excuses for CR. As I said other publications/shows have praised the car and they said it was garbage.
They didn't say "it was garbage." They merely ranked it in the middle of the pack.
And they didn't say "it was garbage." They merely ranked it in the middle of the pack.
Good point. I don't think CR uses words like "garbage" to describe vehicles, not even the one's scoring quite poorly, and as you said, the Aura scored competently.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'm no Toyota expert, but most enthusiats magazines are lukewarm about Toyotas as far as I can tell. Do you disagree with that? Aside from the new Tundra what Toyota models do you know of that have gotten great reviews from the press? It seems to me that the Camry, Rav4, Scions, Avalon, Yaris, etc. have gotten decent, but hardly exceptional reviews by the press. Perhaps we define mediocre differently but to me a vehicle with OK looks, OK handling, and OK pricing is mediocre in today's market. DOnt get me wrong, today's mediocre car is still a great way to get from A to B reliably, but that is just the standard cost of entry today. I havent seen much media excitement about Toyota products outside of the Tundra.
>I dont' think most Americans are too ignorant to realize their car is unreliable; only that they may be used to accepting and living with less than what I'd put up with.
I still read that to imply that anyone buying an American car is getting one that is unreliable compared to those folk smart enough to buy primarily the two foreign cars espoused by some here.
I also realize this is off topic but that's my topic. Any GM discussion, here about Toyota's growth vs GM's growth, turns into "I had a 197X car that was a problem. But since I got ABCDE brand religion they're the greatest thing and never have problems." It's the same posters.
So we all know if you don't like GM then you don't think they should hold off Toyota's growth.
Then the CR lemonaid comes into the discussion as proof that American brands are junk for the gullible and etc., etc., etc. And CR is the bible because their data is so perfectly collected they have to use Ohio's super computer at OSU campus to crunch the numbers to a 0.1% reliability error potential. Yes, I'm exaggerating.
So we each know the other's opinion again.
Back to the Toyota. A bill was voted down to force public votes for union activities. The votes for joining or not joining unions will still be secret if I understand the Chamber of Commerce thank you ads on radio here in Cincy. This means unionizing current and future plants by UAW and others will still be a secret ballot.
The unionization of foreign plants will help put things on an equal footing and it's a bitter fight. I saw a webpage about the Georgetown (KY Camry) plant that was really vicious (even makes some Edmunds discussions look tame, grin).
I think Rick and Co. at GM now know what it takes to be successful and not only have they tasted it...they like it. So you can probably expect to see them upping the ante with Toyota as the months and years crawl on.
I'll agree with Toyota interiors being somewhat bland, cheap. My wife and I shopped Toyota/Scion and Honda last weekend. The Fit, Element SC, and Civic Si we looked had really interesting and inviting interiors. The Toyota/Scions we looked at were really boring (Xa, Matrix). The FJ cruiser was kind of cool on the inside but the visibility and blind spots were worse than my old Freighliner. We didn't look at either the Accord or Camry, though.
Toyota isn't aimed at me, though. They aren't aiming to be hip, edgy, or sporty.
Good point there. There are a lot of makes that just seem to be marketing to a particular group. Look at the Accord over the years and I think for the most part you see them changing teh product as the folks who first bought them aged. Heck, I was 31 when I bought my first Accord. I loved the thing but it wouldn't suit my needs now but my current Accord does.
I think GM has "gotten it" in terms of aiming at a segment rather than putting out a product and saying "well, here it is."
It has come up again and again in here that GM of the 80s and 80s, save for the old traditional RWD big cars, left a lot to be desired. I think that's fair. I also see a lot of "but their product has really improved now" and I think that is fair, too. Unfortunately, when you spend 20 years making a bad name for yourself it takes time to reestablish. I think they will do it. I don't think, but would love to be proven wrong, that they are going to either hold off Toyota or zip back into the number one spot. That said, they will be a big player in the market which is a great deal better than I can say for Ford and Chrysler. I think at best one of them will survive another ten years. If I had to bet I;d say that would be Ford.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Comments
murphydog: thank you for bringing a touch of sanity to this discussion. I mean, even if CR truly had an officewide policy of skewing their recommendations towards Honda and Toyota, which I think is ludicrous, GM is stuck with it. On-topic, one has to ask if it has that much of an effect on sales of the two - is CR everyone's bible or something? And as I said before, no matter what the answer there, GM is still stuck with it. No point crying "no fair" - you have to deal with problems, not sit down and cry about them.
As for allegations of statistically erroneous methodology in CR's data production, I am not qualified to give an educated opinion, and probably many if not most of the posters here are equally unqualified (anyone here an accountant, or have a degree in statistics?). But again, it is what it is.
And as for the models CR recommends (to respond to 62vette a bit), they have to like the vehicle enough to recommend it AND find that it has at least average reliability. What they are saying is that only 37% of GM vehicles tested by them have both at least average reliability and a good review from their test drive. They have actually come right out and said they prioritize three areas in their reviews, and one is fuel economy - is it any wonder then that Toyota and Honda do better in their reviews? Their reviews therefore become fairly useless to someone who prefers sportiness and power to fuel economy.
If it is true that CR is having a broad effect on car sales, then I think the conclusion to be drawn is that peoples' priorities tend away from power and sportiness and towards appliance-like characteristics. What a shock eh? No surprise to Edmunds posters, I am sure. The vast majority of car owners just want a nice appliance that is also safe and perhaps has good resale so they can buy a new one in five years without having zero equity in their trade.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Then you must really hate this site, which has chosen Toyota over the competition 7 times in direct comparisons, and Honda's Odyssey in another!
That's gotta hurt. No credibility here either. It's getting embarassing. It's like a....conspiracy..... :confuse:
DrFill
Now GM has to wait until Toyota is done scoring, and eventually drops the ball. Could be next year, could be 50 years from now.
GM has a lot of talent, and even disabled, is more or less the equal to Toyota, given their home-field advantage
But the cream rises to the top. Toyota has earned America's respect and admiration. GM has squandered theirs.
Toyota sells solid cars. Has been for about 20 years.
GM sells a deal, when they can't deliver the car Toyota does.
The emperor has no pants. It's too late to start trying now. The people are too busy laughing.
I wish GM well. Nobody wants Toyota to take over the market, lock, stock, and barrel. At least they aren't in Fordland, allegedly begging Toyota to Chryslerize them.
GM needs to get smaller, and more focused. Think like an underdog. Overengineer like Toyota has been for quite some time now.
And even then, they only have a 50/50 shot at parity. They've lost the benefit of the doubt, rightly so.
If GM has an image/perception problem, it's a self-created illness, like alcoholism, or obesity. :sick:
Poor management, insulting their customer base, and misreading the market is no way to stay #1. :lemon:
DrFill
Let's get serious here. Is it *just possible* that the GM cars have been in totality, fairly poor and CR is not as biased as some people say? Is it *just possible* that some have GM loyalty (we all have loyalty to certain brands, not just cars) and they are letting their loyalty skew their comments?
I'm not a big conspiracy theorist. The problem with most conspiracies is that they would require tens or hundreds of people to be in the know and somehow not let that get out. It would mean many people are unethical and willingly deceiving others. In the case of CR, it would mean that there are many people who work for this organization that would willingly risk the reputation of their group for the sake of favoring certain manufacturers. Just as the JFK conspiracies have never been proven, where is the evidence of CR's bias?
It's been implied CR could be getting kickbacks, etc. All of this is possible, but likely? Doesn't seem very likely. Even the car seat fiasco earlier this year -- was a screw up, but nothing intentional. And CR came out and admitted it. NASA crashed a healthy probe into Mars by accident. Even smart people screw up.
Funny how a lot of the public has the same impressions and experiences that would support the CR perspectives. I read the auto issue and I think, while imperfect, that most of it is spot on.
We don't like hearing that a company we are loyal to has screwed up, but deep inside we have to admit it. I've always liked Apple, but in the 90's they screwed up. I need to accept that. And in the '80s and '90s GM screwed up. Even loyalists need to admit that. And while we're all happy GM is improving, perhaps they're not yet as close with many of their vehicles as some would hope.
So CR is not the right topic, it diverts us from the real issues. Given that most people would agree that GM is doing the right things and has made very impressive progress in the last couple of years, what other things should GM do to continue its march forward, and make more vehicles that become best in class?
I do, however, believe there is something out there called "bias." We're all familiar with bias to some extent or another. One primary example being racial bias. It makes no sense, it's ethically and morally wrong and is a losing situation for both those holding the bias and those receiving it. Despite that it still persists even now, although we have come a long way in confronting it. Tell me why it isn't possible that there is a healthy, deep-seated bias towards domestic manufacturers? The evidence of their inadequacy justifies only so much of the ill will they receive and yet many publications persist in their wholesale disregard to what they have to offer.
Consider this, if you wish. I believe that these days many Americans have a big, big self-esteem problem. So many people are telling them that America, and anything that comes out of or from it, sucks. They say our government officials are murderers and psychopaths (thank you, Senor Hugo Chavez) and that our basic military functions violate every human right known. In addition to that, everyone has an opinion on how fat, lazy and morally bankrupt Americans are. There aren't many people who are in a position to make statements like that. The point is, when American citizens are told and reminded on a daily basis that their country is lousy, it's not a far stretch to believe they would consequently have a low opinion of the products that come from such an apparently "defective" nation. Unfortunately, many Americans have such an overwhelming sense of guilt for living a good life in terms of standards of living that they berate themselves and their country so they can get some sleep at night. The media has drilled into their minds, day in and day out, that they are terrible people, a part of a terrible nation.
Tell me, tell me please, who can feel good about that?
1985 was the year Suzuki started selling vehicles in the USA, according to this article.
Still waiting to see where the new(er) vehicles are. No concepts, so far this year, at the major autoshows.
Kind of a let down. No news, concepts, nothing new for '08 or '09?
If we can, it costs us too much, with legacy and other labor costs.
The imports have a cost advantage, but we would do a lot better if we also weren't being out-managed.
The domestics have been given more than enough chances, and those bad prior experiences are coming back to bite someone in the pants.
GM and Ford like to screw up. Honda and 'Yota don't. They'd be embarassed if they had the track record the domestics have. That's really the critical difference.
The real funny part is that Toyota isn't beating GM and Ford. Toyota's just being patient, waiting for us to stumble. We are beating ourselves! Slowly, but surely. Toyota has a nice pace goin', while we're stumbling around the track. :sick:
Reminds me of that girl Julie Moss (?), in the '83 (?) Triathalon who fell down, crapped herself, and got passed, many times.
That would be Ford. And Chrysler.
DrFill
Where GM could improve more:
- Interiors: they seem to be doing this on newer models
- Reliability: they appear to be pretty good and improving
- Revinement: I'd suggest this is the place to improve. They need some smoother engines, especially a good four cylinder. They should be investing in a world-class 4 that can provide the economy and smoothness that import buyers expect.
Any other ideas?
Personal favorites always have the advantage on the court. Refs often do a biased game and noone can do anything about it. Don't forget CR is not a government group nor a think tank. It's a business organization. The people are on the east coast which has favored foreign vehicles for a long time, for whatever reason you may choose to believe.
But I mentioned the etymology of the philosophy. In the 70s I can barely recall the enviromentalism was the big thing. The econoboxes came out and provided economical (understatement) gas mileage and cheap purchase price. That part of the market US manufacturers somewhat (understatement) ignored as a movement that would go away like the compact Studebakers. It didn't.
The big changes in gas mileage requirements in the beginnings of the 80s left larger motors undertuned for pollution control and with high axle ratios for economy.
At the same time GM was disliked because it was part of the military-industrial complex (whatever that was) of the Carter era. It often was mentioned that GM had a gross product making it the 9th largest country in the world.
There was an overall envirnment of politics and environmentalism. I'll have to go read some CRs from the era.
As for money trail as I mentioned earlier, I wonder where all the endowment money that CR actively seeks is invested? Think it's in blind trusts? Is it in an auto stocks? Is it public info? That'll be an interesting phone call.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
One thing that has always amazed me about CR is that they appear to ignore "sample error". In other words, it has not been uncommon for them to say a 4-cylinder model of one car has worse body integrity, say, than the 6-cylinder model of the same car, or that "twins" of a manufacturer have different reliability records, even if identical vehicles assembled on the same line in the same plant. A recent example of this is the Chevy Equinox and Pontiac Torrent. Identical vehicles. Chevy reliability rating: Worse than average. Pontiac: Better than average. (This was in an issue a few months back.)
Of course, this type of thing will always happen, but they treat their statistics like they are the Bible. This is almost laughable! They actually said that the Pontiac was more reliable!
Bill
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070307/FREE/70305011/1024/L- ATESTNEWS
I truly believe that if GM made fuel economy a top priority, it would have more success in stealing sales back from Toyota and Honda.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Bill
Of course, there's the new 2008 Buick LaCrosse Super coming out sometime this fall. It will have the 5.3 V-8 with heavy duty tranny and suspension, just like the Impala and Monte SS cars. I read where Pontiac is discontinuing the Grand Prix GXP.
Carry on.
this will no longer be true. CR now combines like vehicles into one sample size so that these discrepancies in their data is not visible.
Perfect examples of real-life situations and experiences, and demonstrates the truth of the situation; thank you for sharing.
I can tell you that people who own American or have so for a long time become used to having poor cars with poor reliability that constantly and consistently break down every few months. They think its "normal" or to be "expected." In fact, the Dodge dealer service manager told me when I asked why I had to keep bringing my car back right after they had serviced/repaired it recently "parts just break down!" That is what he said, and I quote "parts just break down." Well.... he should tell that to the millions of HOnda and Toyota owners that NEVER have parts "just break down."
Another example of a problem I'd have with Magazines and sources that would do as you suggest. That would be unfair. Why should CR have to go back to the dealer to get 10 things fixed on the GM vehicles so that they can get a better MPG figure? If they don't have to go back to the Honda and Toyota dealers, why should they go back to GM's?
I think GM is actually probably doing better than Ford and especially Chrysler. Just because a GM vehicle is decently reliable(66% of them) doesn't mean they are also good vehicles (37%).
Look at the beauty of the 60's Chevelle's and then at the Citation. Additionally the 60's cars were very simple technology, refined by literally decades of improvements, where the 80's FWD cars were the first of their types with all the new-design problems of any innovation.
A lot of people were unhappy that the cars that they were buying weren't as good as the old cars they'd gotten rid of.
So it's sort of the disappointment you feel when the beautiful girl you married gains 300 pounds and starts drinking...
You might start looking at that new Japanese girl in town.
If she turns out to be a pretty good cook, there may be a divorce brewing.
Lemko - the cars that you like are really variations of the classic GM car that they did so well, till they stopped making them Big, Automatic, RWD cars.
But even then not every one had the great experience you're having.
My wife's Japanese boss, bought a new top-of-the-line Caprice Classic in 1987. He could have afforded a Caddy or a Mercedes but since he was opening a business here in the states, he wanted to appear modest and American-oriented.
Well, the !$#%!@% thing would never start when it was cold. Never. The dealer couldn't fix it. After a year of growing frustration, he dumped it and bought one of the first Lexus 400's
But he tried - he really tried - until he couldn't stand it.
So anecdotes can be found on both sides of the spectrum.
I wouldn't tolerate constant failures from any product be it an automobile or a refrigerator. A burned-out bulb drives me bananas. I consistently purchase GM cars, especially Buicks and Cadillacs, because they are both extremely durable and reliable not to mention very attractive. I've been driving domestic cars for over 25 years and will for the foreseeable future.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Couldn't have said it better myself, but add Chrysler to the group that likes to screw up.
I got the impression that Chrysler purposefully and knowingly engineered my vehicle to cost thousands of dollars to keep running until 65K miles. They knew they were screwing people over the moment the assembly line started production!
On the other hand, I got the impression everytime something minor went wrong with my Honda that they were genuinely embarrassed of the situation; no matter how minor.
Overall we recommend a much smaller percentage of U.S. cars than Japanese makes (37 percent vs. 80 percent), mainly because their reliability is hit-or-miss,
Funny, I thought I read the above in the CR comment. It says mainly the reason why they do not recommend the vehicles is because of reliability, yet their own numbers show that most of the GM cars have reliability that would give them a recommended buy. Yet they do not recommend most of GM's products??
I am sure they misspoke on how they rate the vehicles per reliability. Obviously they did not mean that they mainly do not recommend GM products because of reliability. Must be all those other issues. They just were wrong in how they explained why they do not rate GM vehicles higher.
I think the '08 highlander vs Acadia/Enclave is a good example of how current GM and Toyota designs stack up and the GM vehicles look just as good as the Highlander IMHO.
What do you think?
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070307/AUTO04/703070380/1148- /AUTO01
But for the first time Tuesday, DaimlerChrysler CEO Dieter Zetsche alluded to other pressures bearing on the Stuttgart, Germany-based automaker -- the risk of a possible takeover of the company.
"In today's world, a 50 billion euro ($65 billion) market cap doesn't protect you from those considerations," he said in his first wide-ranging talks with reporters since the stunning Feb. 14 announcement that the nine-year merger might be dissolved.
That would be funny if GM merged with Mercedes considering the way Mercedes kicked Caddy's butt in the 80's. Anyways, how would a GM merger affect Caddy since Mercedes competes with Caddy? Personally if I were GM I would stop talks with Dailmer because GM is infamous just for buying companies while they(GM) still have problems of their own. In my opinion, Despite GM's sales gain in the month of Febuary GM still has alot more work to do.
As far as Mercedes getting their quality back up their quality lapeses since the 2000 model year are their own fault. Mercedes was dead last in reliability I think in CR's surveys even behind Kia I think!
Some people may not mind having to get their vehicle repaired once, twice, or maybe even 3 times a year. I mind everytime I have to go back to the dealer for unscheduled maintenance/repair. I believe my wife's '05 Civic was a standard by which all cars should live by - 2 years, 26K miles, no warranty visits or problems!
Yeah, Toyota's US-market vehicle interiors have been backsliding for a while now- materials aren't as nice as they used to be and they aren't put together as well either. GM did make vastly-needed improvements (though they still have a lot of product on the market from the bad old days before 2005) but Toyota also spotted them some significant yardage.
The Escape outsold the RAV4 and CR-V I think for awhile there. I knowe the Escape and Equinox haven't been redeigned since their original launch.
The Equinox while nice looking on the outside it had a dated engine and terrible fuel mileadge from what CR said about it. I mean in my opinion a 3.4 liter engine that produces just 185 HP is not that good I mean that big of a engine producing that little amount of horesepower(185 HP) thats not good. GM could have used a smaller engine size wise to produce 185 HP in the Equinox I think.
I dont think anyone likes going to the dealership for repairs, not even domestic car owners who supposedly dont know reliable cars exist.
Or better yet, those particular Toyotas are underwhelming, and the magazine told it like it is, while other Toyotas score well, and the magazine again told it like it is.
You are the one labeling Toyotas "mediocre," an opinion that is apparently not shared by everyone, judging by the sales figures and the reviews. It is not a "fact" that those Toyotas aside from the FJ Cruiser and Yaris are mediocre.
1487: Stop making excuses for CR. As I said other publications/shows have praised the car and they said it was garbage.
They didn't say "it was garbage." They merely ranked it in the middle of the pack.
Good point. I don't think CR uses words like "garbage" to describe vehicles, not even the one's scoring quite poorly, and as you said, the Aura scored competently.
I still read that to imply that anyone buying an American car is getting one that is unreliable compared to those folk smart enough to buy primarily the two foreign cars espoused by some here.
I also realize this is off topic but that's my topic. Any GM discussion, here about Toyota's growth vs GM's growth, turns into "I had a 197X car that was a problem. But since I got ABCDE brand religion they're the greatest thing and never have problems." It's the same posters.
So we all know if you don't like GM then you don't think they should hold off Toyota's growth.
Then the CR lemonaid comes into the discussion as proof that American brands are junk for the gullible and etc., etc., etc. And CR is the bible because their data is so perfectly collected they have to use Ohio's super computer at OSU campus to crunch the numbers to a 0.1% reliability error potential. Yes, I'm exaggerating.
So we each know the other's opinion again.
Back to the Toyota. A bill was voted down to force public votes for union activities. The votes for joining or not joining unions will still be secret if I understand the Chamber of Commerce thank you ads on radio here in Cincy. This means unionizing current and future plants by UAW and others will still be a secret ballot.
The unionization of foreign plants will help put things on an equal footing and it's a bitter fight. I saw a webpage about the Georgetown (KY Camry) plant that was really vicious (even makes some Edmunds discussions look tame, grin).
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Toyota isn't aimed at me, though. They aren't aiming to be hip, edgy, or sporty.
I think GM has "gotten it" in terms of aiming at a segment rather than putting out a product and saying "well, here it is."
It has come up again and again in here that GM of the 80s and 80s, save for the old traditional RWD big cars, left a lot to be desired. I think that's fair. I also see a lot of "but their product has really improved now" and I think that is fair, too. Unfortunately, when you spend 20 years making a bad name for yourself it takes time to reestablish. I think they will do it. I don't think, but would love to be proven wrong, that they are going to either hold off Toyota or zip back into the number one spot. That said, they will be a big player in the market which is a great deal better than I can say for Ford and Chrysler. I think at best one of them will survive another ten years. If I had to bet I;d say that would be Ford.