I love domestics, but I agree that GM probably won't "hold off Toyota". The only way I could see that happening is Ford and Chrysler going under soon (quite possible) and GM being the last domestic pick for those who only buy domestic.
Seems like folks are way more forgiving about Hyundai and Kia than GM. Their cars were jokes for years, and are now much better. Benz cars supposedly are trouble-prone now, but few will admit it, I bet, now or later.
Bill
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I think GM could easily come back to dominate, with the right leadership. I'm afraid it will take the route Chrystler did in the 80's and put out a lot of trash at low prices (remember the K-car?) or try to get the Feds to bail them out.
All they have to do is continue to improve quality and get some really good designers. GM (and the rest of detroit) can roll out some real winners, but it's hit or miss. For every good looking car, they roll out several boring to downright homely ones. G
M (and the rest of detroit) also need to focus on the bread and butter cars that 70+% of us buy rather than try to wow us with cars with production concept cars that are either poorly produced (SSR), meet no ones needs (Blackwood), or are so pricey that only the ultra rich will buy them (Ford GT, Viper).
You are correct on the free pass that seems to have hone to Hyundai and Kia. At least in Hyundai I could see gradual improvement leading up to the 05 Sonata which was dramatically better and the new intros since then have followed that course. It seems to me that Kia kind of did an outhouse to the penthouse almost overnight. Some of that is rebadging Hyundais but not all.
Mercedes is getting a free ride from years of good cars but sooner or later that has to end. To a degree a lot of their target audience has moved to BMW and for good reason.
Meanwhile, also correct is the fact that GM has to take dead aim on the Camcord segment of teh market where so many cars are sold, That is why the Aura is encouraging. I would be very pleased if before they set the 08 Malibu in stone that they take the reviews of the Aura to heart. It is very much in GM's interest to not just save Chevrolet but to make it thrive!
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I think one thing that may be keeping Mercedes from the bad rep is the high dollars they charge for their cars. Admitting you bought a $20 lemon is somewhat embarassing. When it's 60,000, it's even more so.
Also, I'd venture most of the original owners don't keep them around long enough for the real problems to start showing. Most probably either lease or trade in for something more stylish/new every few years.
I think fewer are bailing ship to BMW that are going to Lexus. Lexus has pretty much copied the Mercedes models. BMW's models haven't been doing so well lately other than the always amazing 3 series.
I rented a 2007 Camry SE last June for a week's family trip to western NY from IL. Yesterday, I rented a 2007 Camry LE for a 1,500 mile business trip. I much prefer the SE interior to the LE - the LE's looks rather cheap in places, and I was surprised to see the interior's fit and finish to be sub-par. In comparison to the previous rental on my last business trip a month ago (a 2007 Chevy Impala) - I much prefer the Impala's interior.
How did Kia and Hyundai get a free ride? No way in hell did they get a "free" ride. Notice the 10 year 100K mile warranties for the last decade???? GM still can't, won't, and hasn't matched their warranty (only providing half the term).
Warranties speak louder than promises or words.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'd agree about that. If Hyundai had not offered that warretny no one would buy them. Even the Japanese had to overcome bad product(thier first cars were not great). GM's problem is that is dropped the ball and it is very very hard to get people to swicth products. What amazes me is the fact that we are having this conversation in 2007. In the 80ies the domestic slide began and they have been unable to correct it since!
Whether Hyundai or Kia can ever drop their warranties depends directly upon the reliability and dependability of their vehicles, and the owners' experiences with them.
People don't really give a damn that Toyota and Honda have minimalist warranties because they can trust that they won't need to use the warranty anyway. With other brands, not nearly so.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Vue's history is bad. CVT gave up. V6 gave up and later on replaced with Honda V6. Edmunds ranks the vehicle lowly for reliability, quality and interior (especially the driver's seat). Edmunds called Hybrid Vue "dangerously slow". So, VUE won't help. Need a better Equinox. Period.
Rocky, do you have facts - along with citations to credible sources - to back up those assertions? (And the UAW publication Solidarity is not a credible source.)
My source was a study not by the UAW but rather by the IUE. It was a study done by the U.S. department of labor from the mid 90's.
The American complaint used to be that the Japanese - both white- and blue-collar employees - worked TOO hard and were burying us because of their work ethic. Has this suddenly changed in the last 10-15 years?
We used to be out worked by the Japanese in the 70's (I think) and if you read articles like I have from various news publications only New Zeeland is more productive than the U.S. The Europeans per labor hour are the most productive and can do as much work in a 35 hour work week as americans can in 40 hours. One proposal I read was a 6 hour workday with no lunch and pay the people for 40 hours. Some employers do this and find a lot of benefits and happier employees.
So it's all speculation as nothing new has been released yet ? I've haven't read squat about the auto-industry for about 8 or 9 days because of computer virus. YUK !!!! ....... :surprise:
Yes, you have a good point with the warranty. But do people buy a car, or a warranty? I guess 'cause I like cars, I try to balance buying domestic (shame on me for thinking that in the big picture, it helps), price, quality, looks, and (even though this hasn't been a problem for me ever), a make with many dealers including in the small rural areas....for service and parts availability everywhere...which companies like Hyundai and Kia cannot touch.
I believe GM's warranty is the next-best after Hyundai and Kia. I guess all I was saying in the first place, was that people forgave them when the Big 3 haven't gotten a similar shake. Would you buy from a company that had a bad rep for quality, only because they now have a good warranty?
Bill
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I thought GM already was offering a 10-year/100K mile warranty? Certainly, the generous warranty did help Hyundai-Kia. They'd have probably disappeared long ago without it.
No... GM doesn't offer 10 year. GM doesn't need to. GM is not Hyundai.
But 5 year/ 100K powertrain is no good. Only 5% Americans drive more than 16,000 miles a year (i.e. 80,000 miles in 5 years). Probably, just 1% drive 100,000 miles in 5 years. Something like 7 year/ 100K on powertrain will help.
Still, the real problem is not warranty. The real problem is the Chevy line. Cobalt, Malibu, Equinox, Uplander and TrailBlazer are still no match for Corolla/ Civic/ Mazda3, Camry/ Accord/ Altima, Rav4/ CR-V, Sienna/ Odyssey/ T&C and Highlander/ 4Runner/ Pilot. Only Tahoe and Silverado are hot. GM needs to fix the Chevy line. Chevy needs to be the focus. Only Chevy can hold off Toyota/ Honda. Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, GMC can't.
"Chevy needs to be the focus. Only Chevy can hold off Toyota/ Honda. Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, GMC can't."
Yes, yes and yes! I grew up a Chevy kid. My dad's 72 Impala with the 350 V8 was about as good as it got. (Though I did get a strange kick from mom's 72 Corolla.) GM - and Chevy in particular - still has that memory factor for older folks. For those under 40 there is not much memory of them having the best stuff. Back in the 70s I would compare steering of that Impala (nice!), the equivalent Ford (awful) and Plymouth (in between the two).
On the warranties. First, for me whether it 5 yr/100K or 10 years 100K is pretty much irrelevant but I know there's loads of folks that's not true for.
Indeed the 100k warranties are what allowed Hyundai and Kia to hang around. Now they've established themselves. Perhaps the GM warranty will buy time in which case it's a good thing.
My youngest brother bought a Kia Sportage about 5 years ago and has made little use of teh warranty which is now up due to mileage. He says the only time it was in the shop were for externally caused problems - like a kid tossing a rock at it while he was driving it. Mechanically it's been solid. He's tough on cars so this impresses me.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
My wife drug me shopping last night so I picked up the new Consumer Reports. I didn't think it was unfair towards GM at all. Nor was it all roses and candy for Toyota. Much of what CR said matched what has been said in this board fairly closely.
They actually had a quite a bit of good to say about GM. If anyone got the shaft, I think it was VW and Chrystler.
I think the beef that some have with the report is that peoples lists of most important differ. Consumer reports ratings mirror what they think MOST drivers want: "reliability, braking, handling, and fuel economy". If you lease your vehicle, prefer smooth ride over crisp handling, and want lots of power, You're "best in class" will be much different from what CR comes up with.
Also, CR didn't paint GM as being unreliable across the board, it said they are hit and miss across models. Some models are reliable, some aren't. If you buy one of those reliable models, you'd come to the conclusion that GM is as good/better than the Hondas and Toyotas. If you bought one of those unreliable models, you'd likely be singing a different tune.
Which is why people are always agitating for GM to reduce the number of brands. It's not JUST because there is redundancy between brands (although there is still too much of that, and it's hard to see how much more GM can reduce it), but because R&D dollars get too diluted when you're trying to establish really great products for five or six different brands. Toyota has 2/3 of the retail sales GM has from one brand alone, the Toyota brand. GM COULD do that with Chevy, if it focused all its energies on Chevy, there's no doubt in my mind. Now hopefully it will be able to do exactly that if it starts bringing in all its Saturn and Pontiac models from foreign subsidiaries.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think the quickest way that GM could improve it's reliability is to axe all of the older designs from their lineup. Looking over CR, they have many vehicles that are very competative in terms of reliability and test scores but their corporate average is dragged down by lots of vehicles that are near the bottom of the pack (like their minivans, aveo, etc). Interestingly, the vehicles that are most likely to win converts, are also the ones that are have the worst reliability and design quality.
I think GM's best chances to win brand loyalty are in the young driver market who buys one for their first car and has a good experience, grows up with one in the parents garage and remembers how trouble free it was, or gets roped in by cutting edge styling and has a great experience. Cars that fit those scenarios are some of the worst they have to offer.
First cars: Chevy Aveo and Cobalt are both way below Honda's competition in terms of reliability and design.
Family cars: Uplander (minivan) and Trailblazer/Envoy/H3 are also near/at the bottom of the pack.
Heart throbs:Pontiac Solstice (again near the bottom)
For example: Jane falls in love with the great looks of the Solstice and buys one. It gives her years of trouble free drving. Jane meets John and gets married and starts a family. The Solstice has to go, but her first stop is the Chevy dealer to look at small SUV's/minivans/wagons. If, however, that Solstice gives her problems, leaves her stranded on the side of the road one night, her first stop will likely be Toyota or Honda.
For me, my first car was a Chevy (celebrity). It gave me nothing but problems after 50K miles, left me stranded on the interstate a couple of hundred miles from home several times, and had so many problems it became a decision on what to fix and what to live with. It'll be difficult to get me in another GM.
I am not saying that GM should reduce number of brands (i.e. drop Pontiac, Buick, etc.). Malibu, TrailBlazer, Equinox, Uplander, etc. all need redesigns. Even new Cobalt is no match for Civic. If GM can't redesign all its brands, then GM should focus on redesigning Chevy --- that's all I was trying to say. Neglecting Chevy is a BAD idea. Chevy is to GM what Toyota is to Toyota.
On CSPAN this morning, it was mentioned that one advantage that Toyota might have over GM is that it has and is putting in more facilities in many states. That translates into Congress persons and Senators possibly giving support to Toyota initiatives because of the boost in economics it gives to their states. Don't know to what extent this might be true, but it was nonetheless mentioned. GM closing plants/facilities in states does not help their image, help relationships with Congress or help economics in those states obviously.
>. GM closing plants/facilities in states does not help their image, help relationships with Congress
Aren't you getting the wagon before the horse. Congress and the states could have done something to help insure the viability of plants in their states starting decades ago. Equalizing the yen value would have been a good start 10-12 years ago. Don't blame the loser because the deck is stacked with the refs.
Neglecting Chevy is a BAD idea. Chevy is to GM what Toyota is to Toyota.
Agree. The Chevrolet brand is "THE" franchise for GM. GM has squandered the years of positives of years past of this brand. This brand name has been tarnished with mediocre offerings for too long. As has been mentioned on many boards of Edmunds in the past, GM should get rid of some brands and concentrate on Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC. But, alas, the business arrangements they have with Pontiac/Buick dealers probably prevents this.
Perhaps they could at least get rid of Saab and Buick for starters. Maybe Saab could be sold back to Europeans. Lucerne could be top end Chevy that would be priced to compete with Toyota Avalon. Buick Enclave could be GMC Arcadia. Don't need Enclave. Lacrosse just disappears.
Congress and the states could have done something to help insure the viability of plants in their states starting decades ago.
Viability of plants and workers' jobs should have been assured by GM producing excellent designs and reliability of vehicles. There does not seem to be any problem of plant viability of plants such as Honda in Marysville or in Toyota plants around the US.
Early warnings of GM losing share because of superior offerings from Toyota and Honda started in early 80's. Perhaps GM high management was asleep back then and through 90's and did not right their own ship. Why should Congress rescue or reward poor management decisions?
I'm sure that Congress could have started a stampede of buyers demanding J-Cars instead of Civics, or caused buyers to line up with cash in hand for the 1986 downsized Seville, Eldorado, Toronado and Riviera, or made the Pontiac Aztek the biggest hit since the original Mustang...
It's a matter of helping companies. It's similar to the help given to companies for moving plants offshore and the taxbreaks from which they benefited. This would have been benefits for keeping plants on shore.
In the 80s the incursion of the little, econoboxes didn't look like a segment of the market that would last. Obviously it did. And the companies selling the cars made lots of friends. It's easier in retrospect to second guess how the cars should have redesigned. A problem is the small cars would have been money losers because of unions and the requirements. There also is a factor of not trying hard enough and thinking they would go away-they didn't.
Have you driven a 78 CVCC Honda? A friend had one in South Carolina. They ended up walking as much as driving when it rained. I wouldn't have bought one.
Have you driven a 78 CVCC Honda? A friend had one in South Carolina. They ended up walking as much as driving when it rained. I wouldn't have bought one.
First Honda was an 84 Prelude which I drove to 195,000 miles and sold it as "predriven" to private party in 1998. There were not enough Hondas to go around back then. I had to wait four months to take delivery of that Prelude.
I remember test driving 4-cylinder various GM brands of "sporty" models at the time and Toyota as well. The Honda was significantly better than anything from GM - smoothness of engine, very smooth shifting manual trans, very nice interior, handling, brakes, fit and finish, exterior paint was flawless, etc. Could go on and on. The Toyota test drives were nice too, but liked Honda better.
It was easy for me to see that back in 1984, Honda and Toyota, were well ahead of GM. What is truly amazing is that GM did not apparently benchmark these vehicles, or if they did, they were incapable of emulating much less beating.
I have heard that early Hondas of 70's had problems. And, so did early Toyotas. But, what is important and significant is how quickly Honda and Toyota improved their designs/quality/reliability and overtook GM in these regards in early 80's.
The Honda jumped sideways when accelerating. It was a manual transmission, yuck. It required premium gas. It was rough on any but smoothest roads. It quit running when driving in the rain stranding them to take the bus, call someone to pick them up (no cell phones remember), or walk to Mt. Pleasant across the bridge. And it started rusting after a year or so. It was traded for a Ford pickup.
In that era I clearly could see that my Oldsmobiles from GM were superior in every way for a comfortable car to commute as well as to for travel hundreds of miles on trips. I needed dependability, quality, and cars that didn't rust.
Wow, 1978... My buddy is on his second Lemon GMC truck, looking to buy a new Tundra to replace it even though he is a Service manager for a GMC/P/B dealer.
It's a 2006. I see where you are coming from with your reasoning and I wouldn't buy one of those either.
Well, I rode in enough of them. Back then it seemed half my co-workers were driving them.
I bought an 80 Accord with 39K on it in March of 1982. CVCC engine. That was an insanely trouble free car. I drove it around the country the first year I had it. Parted company at 167K because those early Hondas had rust issues, To be fair I lived on a barrier island the whole time I had it so it inhaled salt every day.
Back to GM - a killer for them is that Buick seems to have the reliability numbers Chevy needs. Now maybe that is because the median age of a Buick owner is so much higher or because they put a premium on the name and thus take better care of it. Could be a factory thing. Assuming the latter they need that factory to teach the Chevy factory a thing or two.
I know GM is going out of the minivan business. I wish that were not so - not because I think they have a great product but because there's a decent segment of teh market that needs a minivan. I'm one of them. A family of 6 doesn't ride well and cheaply in anything else. I've had a Ford Windstall (early model - huge mistake!) and am just into my second Odyssey, which is oddly enough my first USA built van. Both the Windstall and the first Ody were built in Ontario.
I would love to see Chevy concentrate on a few high volume segments for starters and build them very well.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Yes, I had a 1977 Civic CVCC with the Hondamatic. And it was superior in every way but two - rust resistance and crash protection - to a comparable GM small car from that time. (The Chevette had good crash test scores, if I recall correctly.)
My parents drove a 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale hardtop sedan, which was a good, comfortable reliable car, although it was bog-slow (350 V-8) and handled like the Titanic. But most young men did not want Oldsmobile Delta 88s, and the Cutlass Supreme cost too much money.
As for government help - GM has received tax breaks and assistance (infrastructure upgrades) from state and local governments when it has upgraded an existing plant or built a new one. People also forget the bidding circus among states that came after GM announced the project that would ultimately become Saturn.
GM (and Ford and Chrysler) has received help from state and local governments, just as the transplants have.
GM is going out of minivan business because GM can't build a nicely equipped one for about $25K. GM wants us to buy expensive crossovers like Acadia that start from $30K. The sad thing is even the $30K Acadia doesn't have a remote start standard. It won't be long before the overpriced and underequipped Acadia sinks just like the minivans did.
Our government shouldn't help foreign business with our tax dollars until they hold their feet to the fire on currency manipulation. Giving them money on top of the currency manipulation issue is dirty money. BTW- When was the last time the Japanese government do anything of significance for the U.S. Government or it buisness ?????
I can't believe some peoples comments :confuse: It's like some are okay with handing over our whole country to foreign owners. These same people will curse everytime they want to use a Chinese owned highway to travel to their destination and have to pay the Chinese a road toll. Some here in Texas have said they expect it to cost them $400+ a year for a yearly pass just to use the highway.
I think some of you because you bought a import and proud of your decision go off the deep-end and then say it's okay the big 3 are getting hosed on the currency issue which is a $2-13K difference in profit. It's one thing to like your product you bought but I think it's ashame that you think the company you bought it from has to cheat. The Japanese say their current value of their currency is still too high and they want to correct it in a article 62vetteefp, posted a few weeks ago. Yeah, we manipulate our currency to the Europeans but 2 wrongs don't make it a right and if we can cheat against them as an american you one can say good for us. It's not like we are dumping our products on to their market to the degree the Asians are here.
So no GM, can't hold on to the #1 spot with all these domestic issues. Currency manipulation, Healthcare, and current trade policy's will not allow that to happen. :sick:
If Detroit were to be bailed out again, and took that as an opportunity to focus on their product development, I think it might allow them to bounce back. Unfortunatly, the last time the taxpayers bailed them out, they squandered the opportunity and continued to let Honda/Toyota pass them up.
And whether you feel GM should be saved (rather than forced to pull themselves up by their bootstraps) is a function of how important you think they are for the economy. I think their economic relevence is slipping. While Detroit is still home to the execs, an ever increasing number of their parts and assembly lines are located in Canada, Mexico, Korea, etc. The Japanese are assembling and designing ever-more vehicles here in the US (though much fewer of their parts are made here).
I'd like to see a study on how much economic benefit the economy gets on an average American car vs a Foreign one.
This currency whining thing is really getting old - and it's wrong.
If 70 percent of Japanese cars are built here and largely
from U.S. sourced parts - where does your pet currency problem come into play. No currency imbalance on 30 percent of vehicles is going to make up for 70 percent cars being built "on an even playing field".
" With 12 assembly plants and 13 parts plants in the U.S. Today 67 percent of Japanese vehicles sold in America are produced in North America, mostly in the U.S. and largely with U.S. produced parts. In 2004 JAMA members purchased $45.24 billion of U.S. parts."
Note that this didn't include the Toyota Truck Factory in Texas.
So:
Honda has six facilities in Ohio -- including plants in Anna, East Liberty and Marysville. The Accord, Civic and Element SUV sold here are built stateside -- not somewhere in the Pacific Rim.
Camrys in Kentucky
Subarus in Indiana Maximas in Tennessee Tundras in Texas
Ford's best-selling F-Series pickup, meanwhile, is built at a plant in Cuautitlán Izcalli, Mexico, as well as in other plants throughout North America.
• GM's popular Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon SUVs are also assembled south of the border -- at GM's Toluca, Mexico, plant.
You can argue Canada any way you like - their currency is worth less than ours. Many U.S. cars are built there... but if you want to consider Canada as Domestic - then don't forget the Acura's and Lexus built there.
In short - your currency argument is too weak to play any more. Put it to bed.
Would you buy from a company that had a bad rep for quality, only because they now have a good warranty?
I'm not sure I would even with a great warranty, but, I'd certainly "consider" it if it had a great warranty. If not, then it won't even get the time of day from me. Consider means plenty though, because if the company seems serious about improving quality and has shown some progress, and looks like they will continue to do so, I might consider it; especially if the vehicle is the "best" in class otherwise.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Thanks for the link. Good info there. I'll have to take a look at their methodology once I get back from my trip.
One thing it doesn't seem to answer is the overall impact to the economy. Jobs are only a portion of the impact. It may be in there, but don't have time atm to really scope the article out thouroughly.
My current vehicle (Ford) was purchased only because I could purchase an extended warranty and the Japanese didn't make a comparable car. So warranties will make people take the gamble since they're only out use during shop visits rather than big repair bills.
Of course the company I purchased my extended warranty went bankrupt and now I'm stuck paying the repairs, so far all of which have been because of poor design. So far, other than a tensioner/AC problem, it's all been just poorly designed body/trim stuff. Most of which seems to have been designed to fail right after the standard warranty ran out. It has only reinforced my car buying mantra "buy a Honda or Toyota unless they don't make what I'm looking for".
Comments
Bill
All they have to do is continue to improve quality and get some really good designers. GM (and the rest of detroit) can roll out some real winners, but it's hit or miss. For every good looking car, they roll out several boring to downright homely ones. G
M (and the rest of detroit) also need to focus on the bread and butter cars that 70+% of us buy rather than try to wow us with cars with production concept cars that are either poorly produced (SSR), meet no ones needs (Blackwood), or are so pricey that only the ultra rich will buy them (Ford GT, Viper).
Mercedes is getting a free ride from years of good cars but sooner or later that has to end. To a degree a lot of their target audience has moved to BMW and for good reason.
Meanwhile, also correct is the fact that GM has to take dead aim on the Camcord segment of teh market where so many cars are sold, That is why the Aura is encouraging. I would be very pleased if before they set the 08 Malibu in stone that they take the reviews of the Aura to heart. It is very much in GM's interest to not just save Chevrolet but to make it thrive!
Also, I'd venture most of the original owners don't keep them around long enough for the real problems to start showing. Most probably either lease or trade in for something more stylish/new every few years.
I think fewer are bailing ship to BMW that are going to Lexus. Lexus has pretty much copied the Mercedes models. BMW's models haven't been doing so well lately other than the always amazing 3 series.
Yeah, you could put me in a 3 series almost any time. Tough to admit I'm going around in an Ody......
Warranties speak louder than promises or words.
People don't really give a damn that Toyota and Honda have minimalist warranties because they can trust that they won't need to use the warranty anyway. With other brands, not nearly so.
My source was a study not by the UAW but rather by the IUE. It was a study done by the U.S. department of labor from the mid 90's.
The American complaint used to be that the Japanese - both white- and blue-collar employees - worked TOO hard and were burying us because of their work ethic. Has this suddenly changed in the last 10-15 years?
We used to be out worked by the Japanese in the 70's
(I think) and if you read articles like I have from various news publications only New Zeeland is more productive than the U.S. The Europeans per labor hour are the most productive and can do as much work in a 35 hour work week as americans can in 40 hours. One proposal I read was a 6 hour workday with no lunch and pay the people for 40 hours. Some employers do this and find a lot of benefits and happier employees.
So it's all speculation as nothing new has been released yet ? I've haven't read squat about the auto-industry for about 8 or 9 days because of computer virus. YUK !!!! ....... :surprise:
Rocky
Maybe Magna bought out this company also named Gentex ?
http://www.gentexcorp.com/
-My mother never made a reference to her company making military equipment so their has to be 2 different company's with like names.
Rocky
I believe GM's warranty is the next-best after Hyundai and Kia. I guess all I was saying in the first place, was that people forgave them when the Big 3 haven't gotten a similar shake. Would you buy from a company that had a bad rep for quality, only because they now have a good warranty?
Bill
But 5 year/ 100K powertrain is no good. Only 5% Americans drive more than 16,000 miles a year (i.e. 80,000 miles in 5 years). Probably, just 1% drive 100,000 miles in 5 years. Something like 7 year/ 100K on powertrain will help.
Still, the real problem is not warranty. The real problem is the Chevy line. Cobalt, Malibu, Equinox, Uplander and TrailBlazer are still no match for Corolla/ Civic/ Mazda3, Camry/ Accord/ Altima, Rav4/ CR-V, Sienna/ Odyssey/ T&C and Highlander/ 4Runner/ Pilot. Only Tahoe and Silverado are hot. GM needs to fix the Chevy line. Chevy needs to be the focus. Only Chevy can hold off Toyota/ Honda. Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, GMC can't.
Yes, yes and yes! I grew up a Chevy kid. My dad's 72 Impala with the 350 V8 was about as good as it got. (Though I did get a strange kick from mom's 72 Corolla.) GM - and Chevy in particular - still has that memory factor for older folks. For those under 40 there is not much memory of them having the best stuff. Back in the 70s I would compare steering of that Impala (nice!), the equivalent Ford (awful) and Plymouth (in between the two).
On the warranties. First, for me whether it 5 yr/100K or 10 years 100K is pretty much irrelevant but I know there's loads of folks that's not true for.
Indeed the 100k warranties are what allowed Hyundai and Kia to hang around. Now they've established themselves. Perhaps the GM warranty will buy time in which case it's a good thing.
My youngest brother bought a Kia Sportage about 5 years ago and has made little use of teh warranty which is now up due to mileage. He says the only time it was in the shop were for externally caused problems - like a kid tossing a rock at it while he was driving it. Mechanically it's been solid. He's tough on cars so this impresses me.
They actually had a quite a bit of good to say about GM. If anyone got the shaft, I think it was VW and Chrystler.
I think the beef that some have with the report is that peoples lists of most important differ. Consumer reports ratings mirror what they think MOST drivers want: "reliability, braking, handling, and fuel economy". If you lease your vehicle, prefer smooth ride over crisp handling, and want lots of power, You're "best in class" will be much different from what CR comes up with.
Also, CR didn't paint GM as being unreliable across the board, it said they are hit and miss across models. Some models are reliable, some aren't. If you buy one of those reliable models, you'd come to the conclusion that GM is as good/better than the Hondas and Toyotas. If you bought one of those unreliable models, you'd likely be singing a different tune.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think GM's best chances to win brand loyalty are in the young driver market who buys one for their first car and has a good experience, grows up with one in the parents garage and remembers how trouble free it was, or gets roped in by cutting edge styling and has a great experience. Cars that fit those scenarios are some of the worst they have to offer.
First cars: Chevy Aveo and Cobalt are both way below Honda's competition in terms of reliability and design.
Family cars: Uplander (minivan) and Trailblazer/Envoy/H3 are also near/at the bottom of the pack.
Heart throbs:Pontiac Solstice (again near the bottom)
For example: Jane falls in love with the great looks of the Solstice and buys one. It gives her years of trouble free drving. Jane meets John and gets married and starts a family. The Solstice has to go, but her first stop is the Chevy dealer to look at small SUV's/minivans/wagons. If, however, that Solstice gives her problems, leaves her stranded on the side of the road one night, her first stop will likely be Toyota or Honda.
For me, my first car was a Chevy (celebrity). It gave me nothing but problems after 50K miles, left me stranded on the interstate a couple of hundred miles from home several times, and had so many problems it became a decision on what to fix and what to live with. It'll be difficult to get me in another GM.
Aren't you getting the wagon before the horse. Congress and the states could have done something to help insure the viability of plants in their states starting decades ago. Equalizing the yen value would have been a good start 10-12 years ago. Don't blame the loser because the deck is stacked with the refs.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Agree. The Chevrolet brand is "THE" franchise for GM. GM has squandered the years of positives of years past of this brand. This brand name has been tarnished with mediocre offerings for too long. As has been mentioned on many boards of Edmunds in the past, GM should get rid of some brands and concentrate on Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC. But, alas, the business arrangements they have with Pontiac/Buick dealers probably prevents this.
Perhaps they could at least get rid of Saab and Buick for starters. Maybe Saab could be sold back to Europeans. Lucerne could be top end Chevy that would be priced to compete with Toyota Avalon. Buick Enclave could be GMC Arcadia. Don't need Enclave. Lacrosse just disappears.
Viability of plants and workers' jobs should have been assured by GM producing excellent designs and reliability of vehicles. There does not seem to be any problem of plant viability of plants such as Honda in Marysville or in Toyota plants around the US.
Early warnings of GM losing share because of superior offerings from Toyota and Honda started in early 80's. Perhaps GM high management was asleep back then and through 90's and did not right their own ship. Why should Congress rescue or reward poor management decisions?
In the 80s the incursion of the little, econoboxes didn't look like a segment of the market that would last. Obviously it did. And the companies selling the cars made lots of friends. It's easier in retrospect to second guess how the cars should have redesigned. A problem is the small cars would have been money losers because of unions and the requirements. There also is a factor of not trying hard enough and thinking they would go away-they didn't.
Have you driven a 78 CVCC Honda? A friend had one in South Carolina. They ended up walking as much as driving when it rained. I wouldn't have bought one.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
First Honda was an 84 Prelude which I drove to 195,000 miles and sold it as "predriven" to private party in 1998. There were not enough Hondas to go around back then. I had to wait four months to take delivery of that Prelude.
I remember test driving 4-cylinder various GM brands of "sporty" models at the time and Toyota as well. The Honda was significantly better than anything from GM - smoothness of engine, very smooth shifting manual trans, very nice interior, handling, brakes, fit and finish, exterior paint was flawless, etc. Could go on and on. The Toyota test drives were nice too, but liked Honda better.
It was easy for me to see that back in 1984, Honda and Toyota, were well ahead of GM. What is truly amazing is that GM did not apparently benchmark these vehicles, or if they did, they were incapable of emulating much less beating.
I have heard that early Hondas of 70's had problems. And, so did early Toyotas. But, what is important and significant is how quickly Honda and Toyota improved their designs/quality/reliability and overtook GM in these regards in early 80's.
In that era I clearly could see that my Oldsmobiles from GM were superior in every way for a comfortable car to commute as well as to for travel hundreds of miles on trips. I needed dependability, quality, and cars that didn't rust.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It's a 2006. I see where you are coming from with your reasoning and I wouldn't buy one of those either.
I bought an 80 Accord with 39K on it in March of 1982. CVCC engine. That was an insanely trouble free car. I drove it around the country the first year I had it. Parted company at 167K because those early Hondas had rust issues, To be fair I lived on a barrier island the whole time I had it so it inhaled salt every day.
Back to GM - a killer for them is that Buick seems to have the reliability numbers Chevy needs. Now maybe that is because the median age of a Buick owner is so much higher or because they put a premium on the name and thus take better care of it. Could be a factory thing. Assuming the latter they need that factory to teach the Chevy factory a thing or two.
I know GM is going out of the minivan business. I wish that were not so - not because I think they have a great product but because there's a decent segment of teh market that needs a minivan. I'm one of them. A family of 6 doesn't ride well and cheaply in anything else. I've had a Ford Windstall (early model - huge mistake!) and am just into my second Odyssey, which is oddly enough my first USA built van. Both the Windstall and the first Ody were built in Ontario.
I would love to see Chevy concentrate on a few high volume segments for starters and build them very well.
My parents drove a 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale hardtop sedan, which was a good, comfortable reliable car, although it was bog-slow (350 V-8) and handled like the Titanic. But most young men did not want Oldsmobile Delta 88s, and the Cutlass Supreme cost too much money.
As for government help - GM has received tax breaks and assistance (infrastructure upgrades) from state and local governments when it has upgraded an existing plant or built a new one. People also forget the bidding circus among states that came after GM announced the project that would ultimately become Saturn.
GM (and Ford and Chrysler) has received help from state and local governments, just as the transplants have.
Rocky
Our government shouldn't help foreign business with our tax dollars until they hold their feet to the fire on currency manipulation. Giving them money on top of the currency manipulation issue is dirty money. BTW- When was the last time the Japanese government do anything of significance for the U.S. Government or it buisness ?????
I can't believe some peoples comments :confuse: It's like some are okay with handing over our whole country to foreign owners. These same people will curse everytime they want to use a Chinese owned highway to travel to their destination and have to pay the Chinese a road toll. Some here in Texas have said they expect it to cost them $400+ a year for a yearly pass just to use the highway.
I think some of you because you bought a import and proud of your decision go off the deep-end and then say it's okay the big 3 are getting hosed on the currency issue which is a $2-13K difference in profit. It's one thing to like your product you bought but I think it's ashame that you think the company you bought it from has to cheat. The Japanese say their current value of their currency is still too high and they want to correct it in a article 62vetteefp, posted a few weeks ago. Yeah, we manipulate our currency to the Europeans but 2 wrongs don't make it a right and if we can cheat against them as an american you one can say good for us. It's not like we are dumping our products on to their market to the degree the Asians are here.
So no GM, can't hold on to the #1 spot with all these domestic issues. Currency manipulation, Healthcare, and current trade policy's will not allow that to happen. :sick:
Rocky
And whether you feel GM should be saved (rather than forced to pull themselves up by their bootstraps) is a function of how important you think they are for the economy. I think their economic relevence is slipping. While Detroit is still home to the execs, an ever increasing number of their parts and assembly lines are located in Canada, Mexico, Korea, etc. The Japanese are assembling and designing ever-more vehicles here in the US (though much fewer of their parts are made here).
I'd like to see a study on how much economic benefit the economy gets on an average American car vs a Foreign one.
Rocky
http://www.levelfieldinstitute.org/
You might just learn something.
Rocky
The Cutlass was about $6,000 in 1978
The Honda Civic was arnd $3,000 that year.
Civic comparables were
Chevrolet Chevette
Ford Pinto
The Civic was a better car than either of those..
The Cutlass' competition came from the Honda Accord
This currency whining thing is really getting old - and it's wrong.
If 70 percent of Japanese cars are built here and largely
from U.S. sourced parts - where does your pet currency problem come into play. No currency imbalance on 30 percent of vehicles is going to make up for 70 percent cars being built "on an even playing field".
You really need to pick a new pet.
JAMA
" With 12 assembly plants and 13 parts plants in the U.S. Today 67 percent of Japanese vehicles sold in America are produced in North America, mostly in the U.S. and largely with U.S. produced parts. In 2004 JAMA members purchased $45.24 billion of U.S. parts."
http://www.jama.org/
Note that this didn't include the Toyota Truck Factory in Texas.
So:
Honda has six facilities in Ohio -- including plants in Anna, East Liberty and Marysville. The Accord, Civic and Element SUV sold here are built stateside -- not somewhere in the Pacific Rim.
Camrys in Kentucky
Subarus in Indiana
Maximas in Tennessee
Tundras in Texas
Ford's best-selling F-Series pickup, meanwhile, is built at a plant in Cuautitlán Izcalli, Mexico, as well as in other plants throughout North America.
• GM's popular Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon SUVs are also assembled south of the border -- at GM's Toluca, Mexico, plant.
And our Canadian Brothers - let's not forget them
Proudly Made in Canada
You can argue Canada any way you like - their currency is worth less than ours. Many U.S. cars are built there... but if you want to consider Canada as Domestic - then don't forget the Acura's and Lexus built there.
In short - your currency argument is too weak to play any more. Put it to bed.
I'm not sure I would even with a great warranty, but, I'd certainly "consider" it if it had a great warranty. If not, then it won't even get the time of day from me. Consider means plenty though, because if the company seems serious about improving quality and has shown some progress, and looks like they will continue to do so, I might consider it; especially if the vehicle is the "best" in class otherwise.
One thing it doesn't seem to answer is the overall impact to the economy. Jobs are only a portion of the impact. It may be in there, but don't have time atm to really scope the article out thouroughly.
Of course the company I purchased my extended warranty went bankrupt and now I'm stuck paying the repairs, so far all of which have been because of poor design. So far, other than a tensioner/AC problem, it's all been just poorly designed body/trim stuff. Most of which seems to have been designed to fail right after the standard warranty ran out. It has only reinforced my car buying mantra "buy a Honda or Toyota unless they don't make what I'm looking for".
Besides, if a GMC service manager can't get his truck fixed properly, what hope do the rest of us have?