Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Does America Even Need Its Own Automakers?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
So in other words, since they pay MORE for an equivalent foreign car, they will pay MORE for an equivalent used one.
Bt when looking at reliability, rather than comparing just the models and saying Toyota Camry is more reliable than Ford Taurus, the age of the car that you can get for a given price ought to be considered. If, for example, a 2005 Taurus ($11,600 on CarMax) with 20,000 miles is compared to a 2001 Camry with 70 K mi (also $11,600 on CarMax), which would be more reliable is certainly less clear.
Now to look at your example from the previous post:
2005 Taurus ($11,600 on CarMax) with 20,000 miles - I don't think there is really any argument here, the Taurus would be a better buy for the same amount of money as the Camery. For starters you are in a 3, almost 4 year old car with 50,000 fewer miles on it. Just to start the conversation. Even with alot of the preventative work not having been done on the Taurus, it still has alot of its life left in it. You can still have a large bearing on how long the car will last,if you decide to take care of the preventative maintenance. This is because you are getting behind the wheel of a car that really isn't too old, and with 20,000 miles on it really hasn't seen much use.
2001 Camery with 70 K mi (also $11,600 on CarMax) - The Camery on the other hand is 8 almost a 9 years old. It also has 50,000 more miles on it. 50,000 miles is equal to 2 trips around the world. Besides, how good a condition is the Camery? Has some teeneager been driving it frequently at 90mph going on road trips? did the previous owner hardly ever change the oil? Has the transmission fluid been changed at 50,000 miles? Has the previous owner change the break fluid every couple years or so? how many electronic goodies are on the Camery? Electrical problems seem to catch up the vehicles over time, the Camery if it has alot of electrical stuff might have more electrial problems since it is 8 almost 9 years old.
You can certainly make the Camery last with the maintance it needs but if alot of these things listed above were not done in regular intervals, you don't have as much bearing on longevity as you would with the Taurus without spending lots and lots of money.
Conclusion: The Camery is 4 years older. It has 50,000 miles more of wear and tear on it than the Taurus. I will admit the reliability of the Camery is better than the Taurus. That being said, I wouldn't say the reliability of the Taurus is really all that bad. I will argue however that the reliability of a 4 year old Taurus with 50,000 fewer miles on it will be more reliabile than an 8 year old Camery with 70,000 on the odometer. The reason why the Camery is selling for as much as the Taurus is because the CarMax can get the $11,600 for the Camery, even with it being 8 almost 9 years old with as many miles on it as it does. The Toyota Camery has a better perception for quality and reliability than does the Taurus. The average person out there is aware of this and believes it with all the fiber of his being. Because so many people believe so strongly in this concept of reliability and quality people are willing to spend more for a car even if its older and has many more miles on it. Even with the Taurus having a rough life during its first 3 years and 20,000 miles of life. you can make a better case for the Taurus being a better buy because even with being as well built as the Camery maybe, it has a lot to prove to me with its 8 year old parts and its nearly 3 trips around the world. Even if the Camery had beeen well taken care of and had no potential problems that could be noticed by a repair facility, if you get 100,000 miles more out of the vehicle before serious problems arise you are doing well but before that mileage happens most people will have some sort of repair that will be costly especially on a car that is almost 9 years old to start with. The Taurus will have 120,000 miles on the car and there are many Taurus that I have personal experience in dealing with are running fine with over 120,000 miles and more on the odometers. Another thing to consider is that if it took the Camery 8 years to go 70,000 miles, at that same pace it would take roughly 8 more years to get to 150,000 miles - so you are saying the car would be 16 years old by that time. The great majority of people are not driving cars that are 16 years old. What would the Camery look like after 16 years provided typical care had been used in its life? I would bet it would look pretty crappy. Take the Taurus and be done with it, you'll be glad you did.
I was admiring my renters Accord wagon in Hawaii. It looked like new. It is a 1991. Small problem. The engine blew up. It will cost at about 3 times what the car is worth to get it fixed. It seems that was some special year of engine that is a lot more expensive than later models. So she is NO LONGER a Honda fan. She is driving a Ford Focus that she loves.
When one of my kids was looking for a cheap used car, a dealer suggested a rusting away Corolla wagon with 350,000 miles on it. The salesman said it's a Toyota, it'll last forever...to which the correct response is: "I think it already has"
Because her Accord lasted only 17 years :confuse: What were her expectations?
Apparently our hypothetical marketplace finds them of equal value, so you could probably make a convincing argument that either is a slightly better deal than the other.
BTW, my Wildcat has lasted 43 years, w/ no restoration.
We are talking rural Hawaii man. This is where they drive their wagons until they literally rust apart. It had under 100k miles which is common where gas has been expensive forever. This wagon looked real good. So what was so special about the 1991 Accord that they are so much more to repair as the dealer was telling her?
PS
She is your typical, environmentalist, Vegan high school teacher. I did not ask how long she owned the car.
Cars are not built to last that long. That was never the engineers' intention. About 9 years and 175,000 miles is as natural a life span for a car as 15 years is for a dog. Any expectation beyond that is simply not realistic.
Nooooooo! Say it ain't so! I've got 145K on my '03, and there's nothing new that I like.... my plan is finding a "lightly used" E39 M5, or another 540, or maybe an E34, or even an E28. All of those are going to be past the 9 year mark in a year or two, if they are not already way past that! I'll just have to keep proving you wrong.
Heck, the Celica I just bought is a 99 with 120K....
Of course, given a sufficient amount of time, money and skill, one can keep ANY car ever built running FOREVER. The statistics are meant to show what is most likely to happen without unusual intervention---the "natural" lifespan of the "typical" car. This includes, neglect, war, collision, you name it, all thrown into the pot.
I've run cars to 250K and also had them self-destruct at 100K, so that's how you get a predicted lifespan---from lots of averaging.
My point was that anyone driving a 17 year old car that suddenly dies has nothing to complain about.
The ideal car would have all its components fail at about the same time. When automakers found that most junked cars had perfectly good differentials, they built them cheaper.
I had a van like that. Only had about 85K though.
My brother to this day has some ancient Volvo 240 wagon that he just keeps fixing whatever is wrong with it. It's down to being the third car his son uses but last I looked it was still going. If he waits for the body to die it'll outlive him.
I get what you're saying however and don't argue with it.
I always wonder when someone talks about the integrity of a classic car that has had a full frame off restoration, including replacing body panels, engine rebuild/ replacement etc. Is that still my "original" 1949 Ford or not??
Since '82, I've only had 4 cars, and traded one in at 10 years of age - it was tired at 90k. The '82 lasted 17 years/112k+ miles and may still be going, but it didn't make a move south with us back in '00.
They all still have/had the original ax heads and handles (if you remember that old saw....). Three of the four were assembled in the US, but only one was pure Big 3.
Cerberus is doing a real good job so far of bringing our total down to 2....
Then if GM and Ford could just agree on a merger of equals....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Tracinda Kerkorian, not the Dr. Death guy with the similar name. :shades:
It sounds like the Ford family is wealthy enough to shut Kerkorian out of their little car business anyway. There was a rumor late last year that if Ford's prospects got any worse, they would just take the company private and tell all the shareholders to hit the highway.
That would make Kerkorian a perfect 0 for 3. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It is also only right for executives to be paid based on their performance.
Thank you for your input.
"All the excuses and finger pointing given by dill do not hide the facts that those executives did negotiate and were in agreement with the union".
My response -
True, and if you bothered to take the time to read my post more thoroughly you would have realized I stated that the executives wer partially to blame for the Big 3's ills.
cwzyx377 -
"By the way, it is only right for workers to have somekind of benefits including health benefit from the company they work for." Unreasonable benefits must be denied. – Benefits at the expense of the entire auto industry isn’t what I would consider fair compensation for union employees’ efforts.
Whether cwzyx377 wants to deal with reality of the situation or not. It is clear to those who have economic and political knowledge as well as some knowledge of capitalism and the corporate environment that corporate boards and stockholders determine executive pay and compensation. It is ridiculous to think it is good or right for the government to step in and change executive compensation. Get the government out of things like this. sounds a little like communism to me having to abide by the wishes of the central government, Right Commadant? I DID NOT say in my initial statement that workers weren’t entitled to some form of compensation. I believe they are at present and just as in the past, entitled to some level of justifiable compensation package. That being said, I don’t believe they are entitled to as much as they were getting in the 1970’s and most of the 1980’s. I do have a problem when UAW workers are in a position to never have to pay for any doctor visits, or prescriptions or major operations from the moment many of those contracts were signed back in the past. Most workers do not get anything close to the compensation packages many former UAW employees receive to this day even when the former workers are far into their retirement years. Besides, those in the three branches of our federal government (legislative, executive and judicial branches) I don’t know of any other group of people that have as expensive a healthcare plan. I blame Douglas Frasier and his cronies for negotiating as much as the Big 3 for being so short sighted and selfish with regard to putting lucrative contracts together that would help bring the big 3 to their knees. For those of you who don’t know and it’s evident that cwzyx377 is the principle one I’m talking to. The UAW was much bigger and much more powerful than they are today. They were the big 800lb gorilla in the room that was very good at manipulating things to suit their needs. That is what a union should do. I realize that, but a union isn’t in theory supposed to be so strong that it hurts an industry.
This alleged finger pointing I’m being accused of by cwzyx377, is even handed with its blame. I stated in my initial posting that both the UAW and the Big 3 were both to blame for the mess the Big 3 are in today. That being said, I feel the UAW deserves more blame than does the Big 3. I realize this might not be popular among some of you but that is what makes the bulletin board work. Different people, expressing different perspectives. My hope is that as much of the info and views being expressed is as factually accurate as possible.
All America needs is McDonalds, Wal~Mart, McMansions far into the suburbs, gas guzzling trucks and SUVs, a poor infrastructure with worn-out roads and collapsing bridges, ghetto inner cities, cheap never-ending credit, and massive government bailouts paid for by the 77 Americans still employed (for now)... and a country run by crooks, thieves and liars, like the current administration.
I had a 1977 Ford V8 engine blow at 77K mi in 1985. While our next car was a Plymouth, this was only because we were pretty much looking for the cheapest acceptable car and the Horizon was cheaper than the Escort. Went back to Ford in 1997 had major engine repairs on a V6 required after 9 years and 95K mi. Yet I'd still buy a Ford, if there were one I wanted...I did decide no more V-whatever engines though.
With the 1997 purchase, I guessed at the time that a comparable Honda or Toyota minivan would have cost maybe $3-5K more, so even with the Ford needing $3000 in repairs 9 years later we still came out ahead.
OK, I realize that I took one sentence out of your extensive post, and I hope that I am not taking it out of context, however I do have a question...
Why do you say that the UAW was more to blame? I've been on both sides of the table (Union rep for CWA in the '80s, "Management slime" in telecom for 20 yrs), and we always thought that the union made "demands" however management decided whether to accept, counter-offer, or reject. I think that one of the big issues was always that the big unions were led by professional union folk - they knew there stuff inside and out, while for many managers in labor relations, there was no history - the job was just a pit stop on the rotating assignment list. Many times the union had a strategy that was played out over 2 or 3 contract periods, while management wanted to solve the crisis of the day.
I hope you do not interpret this as a personal attack, I'm simply curious as to your point of view.
It isn't...as powerful as a union might be, the "industry" always has the option to say "no" and take their business elsewhere. The Big 3 have done so, as a matter of fact...it just took them way too long. Bottom line, their decisions, including their decisions to accept the details of the agreements made by the UAW, are what got them into the mess.
Thing is, the UAW was taking a very long view of things. American corporate culture, on the other hand, emphasizes short-term thinking, since the long term stuff can be left to the next guy. Well, that's where we are now...the "next guy" is now the CEO, and is left to clean up the mess his predecessors left him in.
It is unreasonable to expect things to go like:
Union: We want $40 per hour and guaranteed employment.
Management: Okay.
Union: Huh, what? Really? Ummm are you sure, don't you think that is too much? Tell you what, lets make it $30 per hour and no job guarantees.
That is exactly what happened to us on one contract. We told the company what we wanted and the general manager said OK. After several more rounds of talk we agreed to a lesser amount. The Union boss told us that if he let that wage stand he would be in real trouble with some of the other contracts. Ours was always first and then AT&T bargaining unit, the much bigger contract, would use ours to negotiate their contract. We still ended up with more than the others, just not as much as the company was willing to pay. Some of our members were ticked off. They just did not look at the big picture.
While not absolving the UAW excesses, you have to look at the past 30+ years of American car building and you will see horrible product (not all of it but tons of it for a long time) and management that completely ignored things while the Japanese ate their lunch. Despite everything there is still nothing wrong with the Big 3 that good product will not cure.
This has been shown numerous times of late. What's doing best at GM now? The Malibu, the Enclave (Acadia and Outlook) - vehicles that everyone is looking at and saying "Wow! They finally get it!"
Because factories cost so much to build and maintain, the UAW can essentially hold them hostage, and it knows this full well. In a global economy, the UAW will just drive all the jobs offshore with the strategy it employs.
The only reason the same thing hasn't killed Boeing is that there so few commercial aircraft companies globally to compete with it that are on its level in terms of size.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I will not blame GM one bit if they source all of that elsewhere which is what they seem intent on doing. I suspect all your future axles on these vehicles will be Mexican.
I personally think most of the Big 3 problems are management. They control what the design and content will be of their vehicles. My issue with the UAW is their part in jobs going to Canada, Mexico and offshore. There is a mentality and as you stated it was best shown in this AA strike that they deserve to make more money for a given job than the guy across the street. We as a country gave up sole sourcing after WW2. When was the first Mercedes, VW or Datsun brought into our market. That was the beginning. Some people seem to think that it is just in the last 15 or 20 years. That is not the case. After WW2 we set up Japan as an industrial powerhouse. We started buying goods shortly thereafter. The UAW is just the last to feel the pinch of world wide competition. It is not like they have not had decades of warning.
All I can say is, WOW!
Building a dealership before having a car to sell?
Preston Tucker must be smiling in his grave.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The parallels to Tucker are quite amazing---he also opened dealerships before he had cars, as you noted, and also had plenty of advanced orders; but he also had transmission problems, with his newly designed automatic, and, like Tesla, had to fall back on something older in technology.
You really have to be nuts to enter the US auto market as an independent American company.
I don't think anyone has successfully done this since Walter Chrysler in 1924. To say the survival rate is low would be an understatement.
Again, that's one Wildcat out of thousands that never made it to 90,000 miles, so the statistics are probably even WORSE for older cars than newer ones.
Kinda like life---depends who your parents are
As far as never making it to 90K miles, the nailhead was one of the most reliable engines Buick ever built. An old friend of mine had a mid '50's Buick w/ the 322 and he said they could coax 22 mpg out of it on a long trip, and it lasted over 300,000 miles. Plenty of people at V8 Buick.com have nailheads w/ over 100,000 on them. Any that didn't make it to 90,000 was probably due to the piss poor oils of the day.
My question is why does Tesla need a dealership if they have all their cars pre-sold? Or is that just cheap talk?
I wish them much luck. Apparently they are going to open a second dealership next to their offices here in the bay. And they are planning a much cheaper sedan to follow the roadster. I wouldn't mind checking that out...
220 mile range, using no $4 ($5 $6 $7) gas? Sounds pretty darn good!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)