Most of my intense hatred lies with the Chrysler arm of the Big 3 in the US. And rightfully so, because they hated on me first by selling me something that should have gone to the car crushing metal recycling plant before going into any car dealer lots.
I bet a lot of people here could name several GM models that should have done the same..... Aztek anyone?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Here is a link about double wishbone suspension. Honda Accord has it and trust me, it is good. And yes, it doesn't mean other cars are not capable of achieving similar or in rare cases better results with other setups. It is simply an excellent way to do a suspension system. Have you driven the V6 Accord, Aura V6, Altima, and Fusion? I did not test drive the Mazda6 after seeing the huge discounts at a local dealership, yet the cars still sitting, I figured the resale was going to pretty much suck. Looks like people are waiting for the new Mazda6. And reliability was not as good as the rest.
Anyway, when you do your test driving, jump into a used car if possible, so you can push it a bit more throttle wise, and take it around some corners, then some corners with irregular surface, and see how you like the different cars. If you like in flat country, with no curvy roads, that's a problem, I guess. And you may want to see how the cars handle dips and rough roads on the straights too. Hit a few smaller pot holes, and you start to see flaws of a Sonata. It is like a good car vs. a great one. Loren
They won't list spring load rates and other trivia. Stabilizer bar size will make a difference. Basically, all Accords, with double wishbone suspension are sport. Perhaps not rock hard like a Porsche, or a Buick but sporty nonetheless. Loren
You have to make yourself different the competition. That was an American car was years ago. You can't forget your root. Not every car in their lineup should be RWD just a couple.
your commentary really exposes your ignorance about quality and statistics. Even CR shows you (if you bother to look) than the quality gap has closed. Hell, they even tell you that in their annual auto issue.
Too soon to tell if gap has closed.
April 2007 issue of CR page 23 shows reliability trends over last 10 years. Reliability of Toyota and Honda vehicles that are 2 to 10 years old is better than GM by wide margin. We will not know whether or not GM closed the gap with their 2007 models with Toyota and Honda until perhaps 2009.
American cars today are as reliable as "reliable" Japanses cars of a few years back but CR moves the bar up each year so that the same low problem rate that got you a red circle 10 years ago gets your a clear circle now.
Question is whether Japanese are advancing their quality/reliability at same, faster or slower rate than GM. If Japanese are slowing down, then perhaps GM can catch them. Again, won't see any clear indicators of 2007 vehicles until 2009, 2010.
To suggest that we are still waiting for the day when GM can field reliable vehicles is absurd and totally contradictory to the data we have from JD power and CR, not to mention anecdotal experiences mentioned here.
It is the degree of reliability. When April issue of CR shows graph, like page 23, in 5-10 years, that shows slope of GM at same or lower level than Toyota or Honda, then we will know that GM has caught up or passed Toyota or Honda.
Its time to join up with reality and stop living in the past.
According to CR April page 23, "reality" is that if you have a 3-10 year old GM, you are likely to have more problems than a similar aged Toyota or Honda. Don't know about "Joining up", but if one were looking for a 3-10 year old used vehicle, they would be wise to check out April 2007 issue of CR for reliability ratings, used cars to avoid, used cars that are good bets, etc.
Yet in the same post you say the gap has closed? How can you say both with a straight face?
There is some support to say the gap is shrinking. There is no evidence (especially from CR) that the gap has closed. And the evidence it is shrinking is only for a few spare and rare models, mainly the Fusion. With the Big 3, it's hit and miss with reliablity, and that is a huge problem.
Again...2 problems in 100K miles might not seem like a lot, but if those two problems cost you $1,500 each, your out 3K and probably several days of rental car costs, not to mention wasted time.
And yes, if you read the inside cover letter from the chief of CR in their annual issue, you'll know they directly respond to the critics at least once every year regarding their philosophies, methodologies, and such. Their explanation MORE than satisfied me. I do read the details of CR's numbers, and nowhere do I find the differences to be "minimal" between solid black and solid red.
I think as the bar is raised over the years, there is nothing wrong with CR raising their own bar of standards. I wouldn't want my new microwave to be "good" compared to the first one ever built, would you? Therefore, I don't want my new Corvette to not be any better than the first one ever built either. I sure hope the TV I bought last year is better than the one I had in the 80's! If you domestic fanboy's want to live in the past, have at it, but continual improvement is where the Japanese are headed (and Germans too) Except for maybe Mercedes, but that's probably Chrysler's fault.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Well as roots go, that would be mostly RWD, though 1968 ushered in the FWD large cars, Toronado and Eldorado. Of course you can go way back, pre-GM, and there was the beginnings of the electric car. Nothing modern about an electric, it was around before the gas cars.
Should GM be getting into RWD? Seems like a good plan to me. Since they have so many different divisions, they can be both FWD , RWD, AWD, electric car, hybrid car, heck whatever car company. Pontiac, to become an all performance division, getting those Holden cars kinda makes sense. And Cadillac should be mostly or all RWD. Only problem would come if Buick some day was RWD and thus not upper class in FWD available to those with such a need, or desire.
Going back in my time machine, I did like the handling and looks of my Opel Manta Rallyee. There has been much talk about space utilization, though I did not see it as any problem and the car was light and small. Well, it was a coupe. For the family car, I can see the benefits to FWD. If you drive a FWD all your life, or even a good long time, you kinda forget the RWD car feel, from steering to launching the car off the line, and nice little push as you round the corner. Guess I am old, but smokin' tire up front to me looks more like my engine is on fire. Guess it was driving a Miata in 2002 which brought back the desire to own RWD again. No, I wasn't smokin' tires though I did try, you know on gravel. I presently have a FWD car with all that electronic jazz. I must admitt, it drives well - handles well. Still thinking of getting a true sports car again. It just gets in you. And yes, FWD and AWD handle great with new car setups. Some will still long for the RWD. Maybe it is a third or the cars, or even half of the line, but at least some of the cars should be RWD. One final note: Add a roll bar to the Solstice and Sky or at the very least some way to have one attached. Loren
And so what I say? If more import subscribers belong to CR than Domestic, they won't post data unless there is a sufficient sample size. The imports may have MORE than a sufficient sample size, but that doesn't mean the domestic numbers are invalid, because they get plenty of results there too, and if they don't, they will say "not enough data to report on" or something along those lines.
Do you honestly think that a bunch of Toyota/Honda fanatics conspired to create CR and only accept "biased" subscribers' money?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
First of all, I don't understand his irrational hatred of GM. He was burned by a Dodge Neon. Last time I looked, Dodge wasn't part of GM.
Part of it probably comes from seeing some GM cars on the same "don't/avoid lists" as the Dodge Neon. I saw some GM cars get the same slew of black dots as the Dodge Neon. I saw Ford do the same too.
I got upset with the Big 3 for making cars like the Dodge Neon, that got similar results, with similar outcomes.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Well, if you owned a 1970's Zenith TV, it may still be working
Yes, I would not be impressed with black dots showing up on a report of my car, be it in the past or into the future. I do see however how the distance between saint and sinner has shortened. To that end both sides here are correct. I am thinking that hate, being a strong motivator, though a nonproductive motivator, may be blinding you from seeing progress by GM and hearing what others have to say in support of their views. While I had some silly things happen to my '76 car, with a good sense of humor about the whole affair, and a feeling of learning something, I went on with life. And in looking back now, I see all the fun I had with that technically terrible car, and smile. I bought some strange cars, no doubt, and my Dad seemed to have found more good one's of GM brand than I, but it was not all bad.
I kid those on the board here about having the perfect cars. Of course it is possible to have perfect anything, while someone else buys a lemon. So what. It is all good debate as to what is better in the market place. Rather than us vs. them for judging cars, I wish it all could just get back to the basics, as in building the better car. Still believe in the case for GM, it is the cars which Japan and Europe do not build, and in some cases would have trouble building. Ya know a BMW El Camino would seem a little silly. What a BMW truck? Next thing ya know people will be telling me Porsche and Cadillac sell SUVs.
Life is good, ease up on the hate and chill, Loren
I meant that the media never mentions Tundra sales in relation to Prius sales when they are praising Toyota for being a green company. its a total contradiction to praise them for making inroads into the truck market and for being a green company that doesnt rely on gas guzzlers for profit like the big 3. My guess is the Tundra is far more profitable than the Prius.
"1487 reference the 300/Charger to support GM so I guess that the inverse is OK as well. "
reading is fundamential. Why not attack things I actually said in the correct context instead of making things up? I know its much easier to play dumb. I mentioned the 300/Charger in response to a comment about domestic cars lacking value compared to comparable imports- I never said they were GM products. The 300/Charger and many GM vehicles are examples of how customers typically get more for their money with domestics.
on olympic promotional rights...now that seems like a good move...chrysler had something to do with mercedes quality?...i highly doubt it, daimler runs their own show in germany..they owned chrysler, not the other way around
"Most of my intense hatred lies with the Chrysler arm of the Big 3 in the US. And rightfully so, because they hated on me first by selling me something that should have gone to the car crushing metal recycling plant before going into any car dealer lots.
I bet a lot of people here could name several GM models that should have done the same..... "
If you hate chrysler so much why are you here bashing GM daily? I'm confused. GM is guilt by association?
The Aztec wasnt pretty but that doesnt mean it was unreliable.
Imports never bring duds to market, except for MR2, Echo, Accord Hybrid, 240SX, Previa, Celica, XG300, Ridgeline, etc. Everything they come out with is HOT right from the door.
How long ago did you buy this Chrysler? mid 80s is my guess, that is typically the most recent experience of "experts" on Big 3 products like yourself. Its kind of like talking to an import fanboy about the crapiness of american cars when he brings up the cimarron. I thik I was in diapers when the Cimarron was on sale but it doesnt stop people from acting like its an example of current Detroit product.
big 3 products arent overpriced, that is for sure...i dont think you could go wrong w/ any small car or midsize sedan on market today foreign or domestic..but you will usually pay more for that sombrero or H on front, w/o the 100k powertrain warranty on GM, Dodge or some ford cars..hyundai ahs a 100k warranty too
you (and other import people) continue to ignore actual problem rates when talking about CR results. They do not tell us precise problem rates so its impossible to tell the difference between "good", "average"or "poor" reliability rankings in CR. As for 10 years- who cares? You cannot judge the reliability of current domestic products on 10 year old models that were on different platforms and are totally different from the current models. The reliability data is only relevant as long as a particular model (or a very similar predecessor) has been on sale. For example- what good would 10 year old reliability data on the Grand Am be if you are looking at a G6? It would be useless.
If I was buying a 10 year old car I might go Japanese. I didnt know we were talking about who made better cars a decade ago or 2 decades ago for that matter. Regardless of what YOU say, CR says the quality gap is shrinking (read the annual car issue) and US brands and Asian brands are far closer than they used to be.
Since you mentioned them, those are pretty cool cars: MR2 (needed roll bar and trunk space) Celica (needed more HP and lower price, but cool car) Echo (you gain but a couple MPG over Corolla-silly buy) Accord Hybrid (hybrids are not fashionable for the V6 crowd) 240SX (excellent, a RWD sports car with an i4 engine, got slightly too pricey, but handled excellent) Previa (does this lower cholesterol?) Ridegline (neighbor has one, and it seems practical for his family, and as an urban car/truck - kinda cool) XG300 (was in search of a name, please find some for Cadillac too) etc. ( wasn't that an Eldorado? )
Funny how the good, as well as the not so good, seem to enter and leave unceremoniously when buyers can not be found. That's life. Loren
" There is some support to say the gap is shrinking. There is no evidence (especially from CR) that the gap has closed. And the evidence it is shrinking is only for a few spare and rare models, mainly the Fusion. With the Big 3, it's hit and miss with reliablity, and that is a huge problem.
Again...2 problems in 100K miles might not seem like a lot, but if those two problems cost you $1,500 each, your out 3K and probably several days of rental car costs, not to mention wasted time.
And yes, if you read the inside cover letter from the chief of CR in their annual issue, you'll know they directly respond to the critics at least once every year regarding their philosophies, methodologies, and such. Their explanation MORE than satisfied me. I do read the details of CR's numbers, and nowhere do I find the differences to be "minimal" between solid black and solid red. "
You are totally uninformed about CR's testing. Its hard to explain this when the other person has no basic understanding of what is being discussed.
CR clearly explains that the "average" rating is not that bad because quality has been improving across the board for years. Teh fact that a car is average or gets a half black circle doesnt mean much without knowing what the problem rate is for that vehicle. They dont give you that info. CR also explains that for components that arent very problematic the "average" rate might be quite low and based on that average they determine a threshold for good, excellent, below average and poor. If the average for tranny problems is 7% a vehicle with a 10% problem rate could be rated poor while a vehicle with a 4% problem rate could be rated excellent. read it for yourself. Hald dark circles or even dark circles do not mean a vehicle is poorly made, in fact that vehicle may have a problem rate under 10% which I would say is good.
Furthermore JD Power (which you conveniently dont trust) clearly shows that domestics have made serious ground in initial and long term quality rankings and unlike CR they actually show you problems per 100 vehicles.
CR has no response to its critics that goes beyond saying they dont take ads and they have millions of subscribers. Those two facts dont address the primary criticisms of CR but they have no choice but to ignore those criticisms.
CR has a right to raise the standards as quality increases as long as you realize that something without the top rating isnt unreliable. CR needs to dump the stupid circles and just show you the numbers, its that simple. They wont do that because that would show the average and below average vehicles arent really that bad. You have to remember CR's claim to fame is pointing out bad products, if they dont consistently identify bad cars their relevance is decreased. As Karl here at Edmunds often says- There arent any really bad cars anymore. Everyone except CR seems to get this.
"Biased"? Of course, you have facts and sources to back that up."
Yes, the fact that people who subscribe to CR like the cars that CR likes. Its kind of like surveying C&D readers about BMWs or Porsches. The subscribers largely share the biases of the editors and thus they are on the same page. CR tell import drivers what they want to hear and then those owners use CR to justify their buying preferences. If CR is interested in genuine results they would abandon the non random sampling- its that simple. Problem is CR isnt concerned about most accurate data, they are concerned about remaining relevant to their readers. I bet they would lose a lot of support if they started showing that auto quality is evening out across the board. What import lover wants to read that?
You cannot judge the reliability of current domestic products on 10 year old models that were on different platforms and are totally different from the current models.
That's right. But, you also cannot know how good 2007 GM vehicles are compared to Honda and Toyota when all will be 3,4,5,6, etc years old. You have to wait and see what the data will show in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, etc.
For example- what good would 10 year old reliability data on the Grand Am be if you are looking at a G6?
There are people in lower income levels who can only afford a 10 year old vehicle. Reliability data of 1997 brands (GM, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc) can help guide them to a decision. April 2007 CR pages 60-82 lists cars going back to 1997 that are good bets, reliable cars as well as lists bad bets and vehicles to avoid.
I suppose dyed in the wool GM followers that do not trust CR should advise their friends/neighbors/relatives looking for "used" to buy GM car from list of BAD BETS on page 81. This list has models from Chevy, GMC, Oldsmobile and Pontiac. The advice they give will solidify their relationships.
"I mentioned the 300/Charger in response to a comment about domestic cars lacking value compared to comparable imports- I never said they were GM products."
(cough) liar (cough)
When I indicated that GM needs to make a better car for the same money or a comparable car for less money in order to lure shoppers back, you responded with an inane list of your perceived comparables and included the 300/Charger. My post said GM, not domestic.
Then again since your opinion is not relevant to the current GM offensive since you'll buy them no matter what, the point is moot.
Sounds like GM had a perfect life before Toyota and Consumer Reports came along.
May as well accept the fact that both will be around for a long - long time.
Maybe GM products should do some talking on their own?
"A company is most clearly defined neither by its people nor by its history, but by its products. Our products will speak the truth about Honda." Soichiro Honda.
Well you could buy the recommended domestics used, as parts are cheap and the cars are less expensive in most cases. If it has lower miles on it, has a low enough price, and is a good straight car, perhaps the Japan car is not too expensive used. Off the lots, most seem too high as used cars. IMHO. Loren
What I am saying is that a statistically valid survey of a manufacturers production is not the same thing as a data dump from subscribers. I am not saying that anyone at CR or their subscribers are making up data. What I am saying is that Consumers Reports gets a data dump from their readers and they have to compile that data into something useful. J. D. Powers does not get a data dump. J. D. Powers figures out before hand how many vehicles of each manufacturer/make is needed to get a statistical sample that will allow them to figure out the quality for each make and be able to rank the makes in order of best to worst. I don't think that Consumers Reports gets the kind of data they need to do that.
You really need to understand what is needed for a scientific statistical analysis of a problem.
Honda 4 dr accord 2.4 i4 gets EPA 34 hwy Aura 4 dr V6 3.5 gets EPA 30 hwy both with auto Aura is few hundred lbs heavier based on 15,000 miles a year at today's $2.75 a gallon locally, driving 65 miles a day therefore using hwy mpg #'s, 34 mpg needs $5.26 a day and 30 mpg needs $5.96 a day.
That's $3.50 a week difference. 1 more mpg is 17 less cents a day for either car. Remember this is American V6 vs Honda i4. 3500 lb car vs 3200 lb car.
If we were comparing 14 vs 15 mpg it would be a bigger difference. If we were going to only drive 10,000 miles a year it would be about 10 cents a day per mpg.
If gas doubles to $5.50 a gallon, the $3.50 a week goes to $7 a week. I don't see these figures as a reason to put a big black mark next to the Aura on weight or mileage.
A 1% difference in interest rate on a loan of $25k is $4.82 a week. That's about the gas cost difference of the i4 vs the V6 for someone driving 20k miles a year.
I don't think that Consumers Reports gets the kind of data they need to do that.
Are you saying that CR does not get a large enough sample size? Or, are you saying the size is too big? Doesn't minimum sample size for validity have more to do with economics? The cost of sampling?
When looking at April issue, a number of models for certain years have no dots because there is a statement: "Insufficient data". This seems to infer that CR knows what the minimum sample size should be.
I don't think Consumers Reports makes an attempt to rank makes from best to worst. I think that their sample sizes of each make vary significantly and are not consistant. So I think that this limits what they can say. I think what they report is supported by their data, but does their data show that Lexus is better than Honda for example? Or can they only say that both are above average? And if they have 1 Lexus for 10 Hondas, what does that mean?
April 2007 issue of CR page 23 shows reliability trends over last 10 years. Reliability of Toyota and Honda vehicles that are 2 to 10 years old is better than GM by wide margin. We will not know whether or not GM closed the gap with their 2007 models with Toyota and Honda until perhaps 2009.
We already know that the Buick's and Cadillac's have already closed the gap with Lexus at the 3 year mark. The quantitative data, broken down by each incident, which is available to all the OEM's, is good data. Otherwize theree would be hell to pay. If you do not want to believe it, fine.
You don't think owning/having/shouldering/associating with a cancer on your side or back would affect you?
That is like Mercedes with the cancer (Chrysler) on them. Maybe ran their own show, but the cancer rubbed off on them. I think the hoped/desire/dream was that Daimler might rub of on Chrysler in a good way, but the opposite happened and Chrysler rubbed off it's traits on Mercedes.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
This particular import fan got his first vehicle (which was derived from the braintrust at Chrysler) in 1994, a 1995!!!! model!!! Hardly ancient history. And I don't believe you were in diapers at that time.
So you we're wrong about guessing my lemon was from the 80's.
You're also wrong about all those cars being duds. By what standards we're they duds? I know lots of people who liked the MR2, the Echo (sort of), the Accord Hybrid was fast and quick with slightly better than 4 cylinder economy!, the 240SX was sporty, the Previa was probably reliable, the Celica was beloved by many, Ridgeline was MT TRUCK of the YEAR right?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
If your weeks are but 5 days long. Just looking at your math here. Must be nice to have cheaper gas prices. We pay around $3.30
Overall a V6 will cost more. There is simply more everything. More repair cost, more spark plugs, most cases larger wheels, and well just more. And that power though is fun and when required very useful. I had lived without the power too long, so this time I went for the power, all 244 Horses. Yep, a V6 is nice. Practical? Well an i4 is plenty power and is likely the most logical, if living your life based only by the penny. Anyway the V6 is more costly in terms of gas and repairs / upkeep. When I looked at my package with the SE, it added stability control and other things added or improved with a V6 model so I considered it to be a best deal. The SE i4 is not a bad deal in a Honda. Doesn't make the Aura a bad car. People here, claiming to be very interested in GM cars, seem to bring up every other car on the planet which are as good or better, then work backwards as they claim to be picked on unfairly. Hummm? I think instead it would be easier to shoot for emphasizing what is going to be the better product or is something now which will bring them out of the hole and into the prosperous years again. An Aura XE is a good car, as in treading water. The XR is kicker, somehow lost in the mix. Make the XR the model and drop the price a couple thousand, then put base models, which are very nicely equipped on the lots. It is NOT so much a case of XR is as good or better than say the SE Accord, it is how the car is priced and presented. The base Aura should be an i4 Malibu. While the XE is good, it is a reminder of the base Buick classes of days-gone-bye. Perhaps if it was base Chevy? Too much competition amongst their own brands, IMHO.
For example- what good would 10 year old reliability data on the Grand Am be if you are looking at a G6? It would be useless.
I completely disagree. Past performance is the #1 indicator of future performance. There is no reason to believe that what Pontiac has done in the past (poor performance) will be improved whatsoever. Unless they fired all of the management, engineers, and assembly line workers, and hired all of Toyota's workers, I don't see any reason to believe improvements will be made by poor performing workers and management. So unless they've hired a whole "new" team, I'd continue to bet that Micheal Jordan is still a better basketball player than Joe Schmoe(assuming he's still in-shape and the same age as Joe Schmoe).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
That is the nature of world trade- why keep bringing it up?
Larry, I think it's GREAT that your company is able to sell billions to Japan. I think our problem is the glaring trade deficit we have with Japan, China, and others. Unfortunately, with a car purchase being such a huge personal purchase (I suppose your software gets sold to companies, even if the price of the software is greater than that of a car???) it gets the bulk of the trade deficit talk.
I think the problem most of us GM lovers have is that going back 20-30 yrs to today, we feel that the restrictions in place in Japan don't allow the Japanese consumers a fair chance to compare our products to theirs, and the same could be said for the English, Germans, and Italians.
30 years ago, you were allowed to shop FREELY for the import car of your chioce, and make a decision. Japanese have never had that choice. I'll grant you this, most American brands may have been dismissed out of hand due to the lack of LHD. However, if the Japanese (or English, for that matter) had showed enough interest in them, you might very well have seen them made w/ LHD.
You have to give the Chinese this: Even though they require a partnership w/ a Chinese auto mfr., their auto market is FAR MORE OPEN than the Japanese.
I for one, am one of those import lovers that wants to read about the domestics getting just as many red dots as the Japanese. If the domestics got better, then the Japanese cars would start to have more white/black dots since everyone would be average, and no one would be better nor worse.
Sorry, but that's a fantasy world and I don't think you'll ever have more than about 3 or 4 companies that can maintain a high standard of quality (meaning the highest) for years and years consistantly. But I'd love to see MORE competition, as that tends to drive down prices and increase choices, and improve product all at the same time (just look at electronics and dropping HDTV prices).
10% problem rates might be OK to you, but it's not to me if I can stick with companies with 4% problem rates consistently. 10% is good when everyone is around 10%. 10% is bad if Honda and Toyota are at 1%...... makes everyone else look bad.... and I love it as a consumer. Why can't GM make Honda and Toyota look bad and get them to get all of the half black dots? GM should be trying to steal away all the red dots.
Why can't GM fans subscribe to CR. I'm sure if you paid, even YOU could get a subscription too, that is, if you aren't already black listed on their conspiracy theory website! :P
If GM fans subscribe to CR, wouldn't that change the sway of the votes?
I am not against the domestics scoring better, I'm actually against anyone that does not score better. I think most CR readers are this way. Just the facts please.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
This particular import fan got his first vehicle (which was derived from the braintrust at Chrysler) in 1994, a 1995!!!! model!!! Hardly ancient history. And I don't believe you were in diapers at that time.
So you we're wrong about guessing my lemon was from the 80's.
Heck, you might have actually been BETTER OFF with most of Chrysler's lineup from the mid 80's, compared to an early 1995 Neon! :lemon: Chrysler's FWD models weren't TOO bad, although the turbos and Mistubishi engines (2.6, 3.0) could be troublesome. Equivalent Japanese models did tend to be more reliable, but I'd imagine that the reliability gap between a 1985 Civic and a 1985 Horizon was closer than a 1995 Civic versus a 1995 Neon. And Chrysler's few remaining RWD models by 1985 earned a reliability record that other domestics could only dream about..."Average"
So your basically making an argument that it comes down to two things:
Do you want to give your money to shark-like terrorist Oil Company tycoons selling gas for $4 a gallon by buying an Aura.
Or do you want to give your extra money (from saved gas expense) to innovative, smart, intelligent engineer's and workers at Honda and Toyota? All the while helping the environment and polluting less while doing it.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
it's more like they have 100,000 Hondas, and 10,000 Lexus.
If there were 1,000 Honda problems reported, and 100 Lexus problems reported, then you could infer that Honda and Lexus have identical reliability (assuming the problems were similar in cost to repair).
I don't see what is wrong about this. If your odds are 50% when you flip a coin 1,000 times, don't you think it'll be pretty darn close when you flip it 10,000 times?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Chet Huber faces an enviable dilemma. As president of OnStar, Huber holds the reigns to one of the industry’s most coveted technologies, a gee-whiz vehicle communications system combining safety, security and personalized conveniences into a single package activated with the touch of a button.
He just wishes more of its users knew this, too.
“There is still more than a casual number of folks that, when they decide not to renew OnStar and you go back afterwards and talk to them, (give) answers that absolutely convince you they did not completely understand what they had,” Huber tells Ward’s during a recent tour of its facilities inside parent company General Motors Corp.’s world headquarters
About 65% of GM customers choose to keep OnStar after the first year, Huber says.
Phil Magney, principal analyst at Telematic Research Inc. Magney says by 2012 the world’s top 10 automotive brands, including Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd., will offer telematics systems of their own.
45% of consumers choosing a GM vehicle with OnStar say the system influenced their purchasing decision. “Three or four years ago, that number would have been a lot lower.”
Toyota Motor Corp. is on track to sell 200,000 of its new Tundra pickup trucks in the United States despite an overall decline in the segment, Toyota's North American sales chief Jim Lentz said on Wednesday.
But the Japanese automaker, which saw sales fall 3.5 percent in July, is unlikely to exceed that target, Lentz said on the sidelines of an industry conference.
Sales of the revamped Tundra more than doubled in July from a year earlier, partly because of aggressive consumer incentives. On a combined basis, General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group control more than 90 percent of the U.S. full-size pickup truck market. Lentz declined to detail the current incentives on the Tundra but industry-tracking firm Edmunds.com estimates that the pickup truck carries incentives worth $6,861 on average, the highest of any full-size pickup truck.
the restrictions in place in Japan don't allow the Japanese consumers a fair chance to compare our products to theirs,
What products? GM doesn't build anything here suited to the hyperdensity of the Japanese market. The Japanese makers do build cars suited to the US market, and even put the steering wheel where Americans expect it to be.
Comments
I bet a lot of people here could name several GM models that should have done the same..... Aztek anyone?
And yes, it doesn't mean other cars are not capable of achieving similar or in rare cases better results with other setups. It is simply an excellent way to do a suspension system. Have you driven the V6 Accord, Aura V6, Altima, and Fusion? I did not test drive the Mazda6 after seeing the huge discounts at a local dealership, yet the cars still sitting, I figured the resale was going to pretty much suck. Looks like people are waiting for the new Mazda6. And reliability was not as good as the rest.
Anyway, when you do your test driving, jump into a used car if possible, so you can push it a bit more throttle wise, and take it around some corners, then some corners with irregular surface, and see how you like the different cars.
If you like in flat country, with no curvy roads, that's a problem, I guess. And you may want to see how the cars handle dips and rough roads on the straights too. Hit a few smaller pot holes, and you start to see flaws of a Sonata. It is like a good car vs. a great one.
Loren
Loren
Too soon to tell if gap has closed.
April 2007 issue of CR page 23 shows reliability trends over last 10 years. Reliability of Toyota and Honda vehicles that are 2 to 10 years old is better than GM by wide margin. We will not know whether or not GM closed the gap with their 2007 models with Toyota and Honda until perhaps 2009.
American cars today are as reliable as "reliable" Japanses cars of a few years back but CR moves the bar up each year so that the same low problem rate that got you a red circle 10 years ago gets your a clear circle now.
Question is whether Japanese are advancing their quality/reliability at same, faster or slower rate than GM. If Japanese are slowing down, then perhaps GM can catch them. Again, won't see any clear indicators of 2007 vehicles until 2009, 2010.
To suggest that we are still waiting for the day when GM can field reliable vehicles is absurd and totally contradictory to the data we have from JD power and CR, not to mention anecdotal experiences mentioned here.
It is the degree of reliability. When April issue of CR shows graph, like page 23, in 5-10 years, that shows slope of GM at same or lower level than Toyota or Honda, then we will know that GM has caught up or passed Toyota or Honda.
Its time to join up with reality and stop living in the past.
According to CR April page 23, "reality" is that if you have a 3-10 year old GM, you are likely to have more problems than a similar aged Toyota or Honda. Don't know about "Joining up", but if one were looking for a 3-10 year old used vehicle, they would be wise to check out April 2007 issue of CR for reliability ratings, used cars to avoid, used cars that are good bets, etc.
Yet in the same post you say the gap has closed? How can you say both with a straight face?
There is some support to say the gap is shrinking. There is no evidence (especially from CR) that the gap has closed. And the evidence it is shrinking is only for a few spare and rare models, mainly the Fusion. With the Big 3, it's hit and miss with reliablity, and that is a huge problem.
Again...2 problems in 100K miles might not seem like a lot, but if those two problems cost you $1,500 each, your out 3K and probably several days of rental car costs, not to mention wasted time.
And yes, if you read the inside cover letter from the chief of CR in their annual issue, you'll know they directly respond to the critics at least once every year regarding their philosophies, methodologies, and such. Their explanation MORE than satisfied me. I do read the details of CR's numbers, and nowhere do I find the differences to be "minimal" between solid black and solid red.
I think as the bar is raised over the years, there is nothing wrong with CR raising their own bar of standards. I wouldn't want my new microwave to be "good" compared to the first one ever built, would you? Therefore, I don't want my new Corvette to not be any better than the first one ever built either. I sure hope the TV I bought last year is better than the one I had in the 80's! If you domestic fanboy's want to live in the past, have at it, but continual improvement is where the Japanese are headed (and Germans too) Except for maybe Mercedes, but that's probably Chrysler's fault.
"Biased"? Of course, you have facts and sources to back that up.
Should GM be getting into RWD? Seems like a good plan to me. Since they have so many different divisions, they can be both FWD , RWD, AWD, electric car, hybrid car, heck whatever car company. Pontiac, to become an all performance division, getting those Holden cars kinda makes sense. And Cadillac should be mostly or all RWD. Only problem would come if Buick some day was RWD and thus not upper class in FWD available to those with such a need, or desire.
Going back in my time machine, I did like the handling and looks of my Opel Manta Rallyee. There has been much talk about space utilization, though I did not see it as any problem and the car was light and small. Well, it was a coupe. For the family car, I can see the benefits to FWD. If you drive a FWD all your life, or even a good long time, you kinda forget the RWD car feel, from steering to launching the car off the line, and nice little push as you round the corner. Guess I am old, but smokin' tire up front to me looks more like my engine is on fire. Guess it was driving a Miata in 2002 which brought back the desire to own RWD again. No, I wasn't smokin' tires
Loren
Do you honestly think that a bunch of Toyota/Honda fanatics conspired to create CR and only accept "biased" subscribers' money?
Part of it probably comes from seeing some GM cars on the same "don't/avoid lists" as the Dodge Neon. I saw some GM cars get the same slew of black dots as the Dodge Neon. I saw Ford do the same too.
I got upset with the Big 3 for making cars like the Dodge Neon, that got similar results, with similar outcomes.
Yes, I would not be impressed with black dots showing up on a report of my car, be it in the past or into the future. I do see however how the distance between saint and sinner has shortened. To that end both sides here are correct. I am thinking that hate, being a strong motivator, though a nonproductive motivator, may be blinding you from seeing progress by GM and hearing what others have to say in support of their views. While I had some silly things happen to my '76 car, with a good sense of humor about the whole affair, and a feeling of learning something, I went on with life. And in looking back now, I see all the fun I had with that technically terrible car, and smile. I bought some strange cars, no doubt, and my Dad seemed to have found more good one's of GM brand than I, but it was not all bad.
I kid those on the board here about having the perfect cars. Of course it is possible to have perfect anything, while someone else buys a lemon. So what. It is all good debate as to what is better in the market place. Rather than us vs. them for judging cars, I wish it all could just get back to the basics, as in building the better car. Still believe in the case for GM, it is the cars which Japan and Europe do not build, and in some cases would have trouble building. Ya know a BMW El Camino would seem a little silly. What a BMW truck? Next thing ya know people will be telling me Porsche and Cadillac sell SUVs.
Life is good, ease up on the hate and chill,
Loren
reading is fundamential. Why not attack things I actually said in the correct context instead of making things up? I know its much easier to play dumb. I mentioned the 300/Charger in response to a comment about domestic cars lacking value compared to comparable imports- I never said they were GM products. The 300/Charger and many GM vehicles are examples of how customers typically get more for their money with domestics.
I bet a lot of people here could name several GM models that should have done the same..... "
If you hate chrysler so much why are you here bashing GM daily? I'm confused. GM is guilt by association?
The Aztec wasnt pretty but that doesnt mean it was unreliable.
Imports never bring duds to market, except for MR2, Echo, Accord Hybrid, 240SX, Previa, Celica, XG300, Ridgeline, etc. Everything they come out with is HOT right from the door.
How long ago did you buy this Chrysler? mid 80s is my guess, that is typically the most recent experience of "experts" on Big 3 products like yourself. Its kind of like talking to an import fanboy about the crapiness of american cars when he brings up the cimarron. I thik I was in diapers when the Cimarron was on sale but it doesnt stop people from acting like its an example of current Detroit product.
If I was buying a 10 year old car I might go Japanese. I didnt know we were talking about who made better cars a decade ago or 2 decades ago for that matter. Regardless of what YOU say, CR says the quality gap is shrinking (read the annual car issue) and US brands and Asian brands are far closer than they used to be.
Um, how do the sports cars qualify as duds?
MR2 (needed roll bar and trunk space)
Celica (needed more HP and lower price, but cool car)
Echo (you gain but a couple MPG over Corolla-silly buy)
Accord Hybrid (hybrids are not fashionable for the V6 crowd)
240SX (excellent, a RWD sports car with an i4 engine, got slightly too pricey, but handled excellent)
Previa (does this lower cholesterol?)
Ridegline (neighbor has one, and it seems practical for his family, and as an urban car/truck - kinda cool)
XG300 (was in search of a name, please find some for Cadillac too)
etc. ( wasn't that an Eldorado? )
Funny how the good, as well as the not so good, seem to enter and leave unceremoniously when buyers can not be found.
That's life.
Loren
Again...2 problems in 100K miles might not seem like a lot, but if those two problems cost you $1,500 each, your out 3K and probably several days of rental car costs, not to mention wasted time.
And yes, if you read the inside cover letter from the chief of CR in their annual issue, you'll know they directly respond to the critics at least once every year regarding their philosophies, methodologies, and such. Their explanation MORE than satisfied me. I do read the details of CR's numbers, and nowhere do I find the differences to be "minimal" between solid black and solid red. "
You are totally uninformed about CR's testing. Its hard to explain this when the other person has no basic understanding of what is being discussed.
CR clearly explains that the "average" rating is not that bad because quality has been improving across the board for years. Teh fact that a car is average or gets a half black circle doesnt mean much without knowing what the problem rate is for that vehicle. They dont give you that info. CR also explains that for components that arent very problematic the "average" rate might be quite low and based on that average they determine a threshold for good, excellent, below average and poor. If the average for tranny problems is 7% a vehicle with a 10% problem rate could be rated poor while a vehicle with a 4% problem rate could be rated excellent. read it for yourself. Hald dark circles or even dark circles do not mean a vehicle is poorly made, in fact that vehicle may have a problem rate under 10% which I would say is good.
Furthermore JD Power (which you conveniently dont trust) clearly shows that domestics have made serious ground in initial and long term quality rankings and unlike CR they actually show you problems per 100 vehicles.
CR has no response to its critics that goes beyond saying they dont take ads and they have millions of subscribers. Those two facts dont address the primary criticisms of CR but they have no choice but to ignore those criticisms.
CR has a right to raise the standards as quality increases as long as you realize that something without the top rating isnt unreliable. CR needs to dump the stupid circles and just show you the numbers, its that simple. They wont do that because that would show the average and below average vehicles arent really that bad. You have to remember CR's claim to fame is pointing out bad products, if they dont consistently identify bad cars their relevance is decreased. As Karl here at Edmunds often says- There arent any really bad cars anymore. Everyone except CR seems to get this.
Yes, the fact that people who subscribe to CR like the cars that CR likes. Its kind of like surveying C&D readers about BMWs or Porsches. The subscribers largely share the biases of the editors and thus they are on the same page. CR tell import drivers what they want to hear and then those owners use CR to justify their buying preferences. If CR is interested in genuine results they would abandon the non random sampling- its that simple. Problem is CR isnt concerned about most accurate data, they are concerned about remaining relevant to their readers. I bet they would lose a lot of support if they started showing that auto quality is evening out across the board. What import lover wants to read that?
:confuse:
That's right. But, you also cannot know how good 2007 GM vehicles are compared to Honda and Toyota when all will be 3,4,5,6, etc years old. You have to wait and see what the data will show in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, etc.
For example- what good would 10 year old reliability data on the Grand Am be if you are looking at a G6?
There are people in lower income levels who can only afford a 10 year old vehicle. Reliability data of 1997 brands (GM, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc) can help guide them to a decision. April 2007 CR pages 60-82 lists cars going back to 1997 that are good bets, reliable cars as well as lists bad bets and vehicles to avoid.
I suppose dyed in the wool GM followers that do not trust CR should advise their friends/neighbors/relatives looking for "used" to buy GM car from list of BAD BETS on page 81. This list has models from Chevy, GMC, Oldsmobile and Pontiac. The advice they give will solidify their relationships.
(cough) liar (cough)
When I indicated that GM needs to make a better car for the same money or a comparable car for less money in order to lure shoppers back, you responded with an inane list of your perceived comparables and included the 300/Charger. My post said GM, not domestic.
Then again since your opinion is not relevant to the current GM offensive since you'll buy them no matter what, the point is moot.
May as well accept the fact that both will be around for a long - long time.
Maybe GM products should do some talking on their own?
"A company is most clearly defined neither by its people nor by its history, but by its products. Our products will speak the truth about Honda." Soichiro Honda.
Just trying to be helpful,
Loren
"Biased"? Of course, you have facts and sources to back that up."
1487:
CR tell import drivers what they want to hear and then those owners use CR to justify their buying preferences.
No facts here. Just silly talk. One could use material from parts of this board on a new Monty Python series.
Loren
You really need to understand what is needed for a scientific statistical analysis of a problem.
Aura 4 dr V6 3.5 gets EPA 30 hwy
both with auto
Aura is few hundred lbs heavier
based on 15,000 miles a year at today's $2.75 a gallon locally, driving 65 miles a day therefore using hwy mpg #'s, 34 mpg needs $5.26 a day and 30 mpg needs $5.96 a day.
That's $3.50 a week difference.
1 more mpg is 17 less cents a day for either car.
Remember this is American V6 vs Honda i4.
3500 lb car vs 3200 lb car.
If we were comparing 14 vs 15 mpg it would be a bigger difference.
If we were going to only drive 10,000 miles a year it would be about 10 cents a day per mpg.
If gas doubles to $5.50 a gallon, the $3.50 a week goes to $7 a week. I don't see these figures as a reason to put a big black mark next to the Aura on weight or mileage.
A 1% difference in interest rate on a loan of $25k is $4.82 a week. That's about the gas cost difference of the i4 vs the V6 for someone driving 20k miles a year.
Are you saying that CR does not get a large enough sample size? Or, are you saying the size is too big? Doesn't minimum sample size for validity have more to do with economics? The cost of sampling?
When looking at April issue, a number of models for certain years have no dots because there is a statement: "Insufficient data". This seems to infer that CR knows what the minimum sample size should be.
We already know that the Buick's and Cadillac's have already closed the gap with Lexus at the 3 year mark. The quantitative data, broken down by each incident, which is available to all the OEM's, is good data. Otherwize theree would be hell to pay. If you do not want to believe it, fine.
That is like Mercedes with the cancer (Chrysler) on them. Maybe ran their own show, but the cancer rubbed off on them. I think the hoped/desire/dream was that Daimler might rub of on Chrysler in a good way, but the opposite happened and Chrysler rubbed off it's traits on Mercedes.
So you we're wrong about guessing my lemon was from the 80's.
You're also wrong about all those cars being duds. By what standards we're they duds? I know lots of people who liked the MR2, the Echo (sort of), the Accord Hybrid was fast and quick with slightly better than 4 cylinder economy!, the 240SX was sporty, the Previa was probably reliable, the Celica was beloved by many, Ridgeline was MT TRUCK of the YEAR right?
Must be nice to have cheaper gas prices. We pay around $3.30
Overall a V6 will cost more. There is simply more everything. More repair cost, more spark plugs, most cases larger wheels, and well just more. And that power though is fun and when required very useful. I had lived without the power too long, so this time I went for the power, all 244 Horses. Yep, a V6 is nice. Practical? Well an i4 is plenty power and is likely the most logical, if living your life based only by the penny. Anyway the V6 is more costly in terms of gas and repairs / upkeep. When I looked at my package with the SE, it added stability control and other things added or improved with a V6 model so I considered it to be a best deal. The SE i4 is not a bad deal in a Honda. Doesn't make the Aura a bad car. People here, claiming to be very interested in GM cars, seem to bring up every other car on the planet which are as good or better, then work backwards as they claim to be picked on unfairly. Hummm? I think instead it would be easier to shoot for emphasizing what is going to be the better product or is something now which will bring them out of the hole and into the prosperous years again. An Aura XE is a good car, as in treading water. The XR is kicker, somehow lost in the mix. Make the XR the model and drop the price a couple thousand, then put base models, which are very nicely equipped on the lots. It is NOT so much a case of XR is as good or better than say the SE Accord, it is how the car is priced and presented. The base Aura should be an i4 Malibu. While the XE is good, it is a reminder of the base Buick classes of days-gone-bye. Perhaps if it was base Chevy? Too much competition amongst their own brands, IMHO.
Loren
I completely disagree. Past performance is the #1 indicator of future performance. There is no reason to believe that what Pontiac has done in the past (poor performance) will be improved whatsoever. Unless they fired all of the management, engineers, and assembly line workers, and hired all of Toyota's workers, I don't see any reason to believe improvements will be made by poor performing workers and management. So unless they've hired a whole "new" team, I'd continue to bet that Micheal Jordan is still a better basketball player than Joe Schmoe(assuming he's still in-shape and the same age as Joe Schmoe).
Larry, I think it's GREAT that your company is able to sell billions to Japan. I think our problem is the glaring trade deficit we have with Japan, China, and others. Unfortunately, with a car purchase being such a huge personal purchase (I suppose your software gets sold to companies, even if the price of the software is greater than that of a car???) it gets the bulk of the trade deficit talk.
I think the problem most of us GM lovers have is that going back 20-30 yrs to today, we feel that the restrictions in place in Japan don't allow the Japanese consumers a fair chance to compare our products to theirs, and the same could be said for the English, Germans, and Italians.
30 years ago, you were allowed to shop FREELY for the import car of your chioce, and make a decision. Japanese have never had that choice. I'll grant you this, most American brands may have been dismissed out of hand due to the lack of LHD. However, if the Japanese (or English, for that matter) had showed enough interest in them, you might very well have seen them made w/ LHD.
You have to give the Chinese this:
Even though they require a partnership w/ a Chinese auto mfr., their auto market is FAR MORE OPEN than the Japanese.
I for one, am one of those import lovers that wants to read about the domestics getting just as many red dots as the Japanese. If the domestics got better, then the Japanese cars would start to have more white/black dots since everyone would be average, and no one would be better nor worse.
Sorry, but that's a fantasy world and I don't think you'll ever have more than about 3 or 4 companies that can maintain a high standard of quality (meaning the highest) for years and years consistantly. But I'd love to see MORE competition, as that tends to drive down prices and increase choices, and improve product all at the same time (just look at electronics and dropping HDTV prices).
10% problem rates might be OK to you, but it's not to me if I can stick with companies with 4% problem rates consistently. 10% is good when everyone is around 10%. 10% is bad if Honda and Toyota are at 1%...... makes everyone else look bad.... and I love it as a consumer. Why can't GM make Honda and Toyota look bad and get them to get all of the half black dots? GM should be trying to steal away all the red dots.
Why can't GM fans subscribe to CR. I'm sure if you paid, even YOU could get a subscription too, that is, if you aren't already black listed on their conspiracy theory website! :P
If GM fans subscribe to CR, wouldn't that change the sway of the votes?
I am not against the domestics scoring better, I'm actually against anyone that does not score better. I think most CR readers are this way. Just the facts please.
So you we're wrong about guessing my lemon was from the 80's.
Heck, you might have actually been BETTER OFF with most of Chrysler's lineup from the mid 80's, compared to an early 1995 Neon! :lemon: Chrysler's FWD models weren't TOO bad, although the turbos and Mistubishi engines (2.6, 3.0) could be troublesome. Equivalent Japanese models did tend to be more reliable, but I'd imagine that the reliability gap between a 1985 Civic and a 1985 Horizon was closer than a 1995 Civic versus a 1995 Neon. And Chrysler's few remaining RWD models by 1985 earned a reliability record that other domestics could only dream about..."Average"
Do you want to give your money to shark-like terrorist Oil Company tycoons selling gas for $4 a gallon by buying an Aura.
Or do you want to give your extra money (from saved gas expense) to innovative, smart, intelligent engineer's and workers at Honda and Toyota? All the while helping the environment and polluting less while doing it.
If there were 1,000 Honda problems reported, and 100 Lexus problems reported, then you could infer that Honda and Lexus have identical reliability (assuming the problems were similar in cost to repair).
I don't see what is wrong about this. If your odds are 50% when you flip a coin 1,000 times, don't you think it'll be pretty darn close when you flip it 10,000 times?
J. D. Powers ranks makes from best to worst.
Consumers Reports (last time I looked at one) doesn't.
J. D. Powers has the data to back up their ranking.
Huber holds the reigns to one of the industry’s most coveted technologies,
a gee-whiz vehicle communications system combining safety, security and
personalized conveniences into a single package activated with the touch of
a button.
He just wishes more of its users knew this, too.
“There is still more than a casual number of folks that, when they decide
not to renew OnStar and you go back afterwards and talk to them, (give)
answers that absolutely convince you they did not completely understand
what they had,” Huber tells Ward’s during a recent tour of its facilities
inside parent company General Motors Corp.’s world headquarters
About 65% of GM customers choose to keep OnStar after the first year, Huber
says.
Phil Magney, principal analyst at Telematic
Research Inc. Magney says by 2012 the world’s top 10 automotive brands,
including Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd., will offer telematics systems of their
own.
45% of consumers choosing a GM vehicle
with OnStar say the system influenced their purchasing decision. “Three or
four years ago, that number would have been a lot lower.”
Tundra pickup trucks in the United States despite an overall decline in
the segment, Toyota's North American sales chief Jim Lentz said on
Wednesday.
But the Japanese automaker, which saw sales fall 3.5 percent in July, is
unlikely to exceed that target, Lentz said on the sidelines of an industry
conference.
Sales of the revamped Tundra more than doubled in July from a year
earlier, partly because of aggressive consumer incentives.
On a combined basis, General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler
Group control more than 90 percent of the U.S. full-size pickup truck
market.
Lentz declined to detail the current incentives on the Tundra but
industry-tracking firm Edmunds.com estimates that the pickup truck carries
incentives worth $6,861 on average, the highest of any full-size pickup
truck.
What products? GM doesn't build anything here suited to the hyperdensity of the Japanese market. The Japanese makers do build cars suited to the US market, and even put the steering wheel where Americans expect it to be.
An actual comparison is: 2.3% with problems is the best and 2.5% with problems is mid-pack.