But that isn't applicable to the new (and used) vehicle market. People have been migrating to Honda and Toyota, even though their vehicles typically go out the door for MORE than a competitive domestic model. Why? Because their products have a reputation for quality...
I'd say it's specifically "reliability" rather than "quality" that results in large numbers of people paying a premium for Honda and Toyota. I think reliability can be considered to be one aspect of quality, but you can also have high quality with low reliability (VW is probably the poster child for that) and only a small percentage of people are willing to pay a premium for that.
VW quality and Toyota reliability at existing VW prices. OMG, they would own 1/3 of the market. They would still miss all the truck buyers, the "patriots", and the hypermilers....but they would get darn near everyone else.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Hey YEAH!! Why can't somebody make a car like that? With farvegnuggets or whatever that was you were supposed to feel when you drove it, combined with that crisp and starchy German styling, AND as a capper the immortality of a vampire Corolla. (the undead car).
You'll all laugh your heads off and wheeze until you are hurting, but I thought the '65 Corvair could have been that very car, had GM ever bothered to develop it.
Well, I might laugh at that particular one but I remember driving one of those once and I actually agree.
What happened to the Corvair was a crime. By the time it became the focus of Nader's crusade the problems he complained about were already addressed. Besides, if you wanted tendency to flip in those days you couldn't beat a VW Beetle.
When I was maybe in my early teens my dad was a passenger in a Corvair that flipped but he walked away from it.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I wonder about that. I don't know what vehicles VW makes their money on.
I suspect their attempts at going higher scale probably lose them money. They don't sell enough to justify making them.
I would not think that reliability should be expensive to produce. I mean even very cheap Hondas and Toyotas are reliable. There is a mindset in some of this. VW doesn't really "get" that people will pay for reliability and perceived quality. They don't "get" that the cars should have the same quality whether they are built in Germany, China, Brazil or Mexico. Mexican Corollas work fine (as do Mexican Fusions). Mexican Jettas are nothing but trouble.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Well they would get some of the hypermilers from he TDIs which can get better gas mileage then hybrids in certain conditions. I think VW is in the process of developing some smallish trucks which would pick up some of that market. You are right in that they would never get the buy American ant any cost people though. Not even a new assembly plant in the US would do that.
With Porsche buying up so much VW stock maybe they will be able to get their reliability up. Porsche has the money to invest in it and the know how to do it as well. With the exception of the Cayenne, which is really a VW anyway, Porsches are fairly reliable just expensive to maintain because of the high end performance features. If you pull those features out like you would on a mass market VW...
Mexican Corollas work fine (as do Mexican Fusions). Mexican Jettas are nothing but trouble.
US-market Corollas are made in Japan, Canada, and California. While there may be some Mexicans making Corollas, especially at the NUMMI plant, Corollas aren't made Mexico.
You say that, but I read an article by the editor of Hemmings classic car, and he believes that if GM put the time and effort into engineering this car, it could've been a rival to the 911 today, as the engine in the 911 of the early '60's was no more technilogically advanced than the Spyder engine.
Again, don't equate a '65 Corvair w/ a brand new 911, but you could see how it could EVOLVE over 43 years into something real special
I thought the 1965 Corvair was a very attractive car and all the problems Nader complained about were fixed. The Corvair platform was also pretty versatile as Chevrolet made the Corvan and Rampside pickup using it, not to mention a neat little station wagon.
Don't mention US made VWs! I had one. Sigh. 80 Rabbit made in Pennsylvania. It's why I haven't had a VW since.
Mexican Corllas - no, they don't import them here but they exist in teh greater world.
My only real experience in a Mexican built car was when I had my 98 Sebring convertible. It was fine. No trouble at all. Its only downside was it was a perfectly ordinary car when the top was up. Hardly a crime.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Toyota is forecasting a double barrel of bad news this fiscal year: its first year-on-year sales slide in nine years and first profit slip in seven years.
Toyota projects this fiscal year's profit will tumble 27 percent to $12 billion, while annual sales are seen falling 4.9 percent to $240.4 billion.
IIRC, prior to 1965 and "the book", Chevrolet sold almost 1.5 MILLION Corvairs, and yes, the "tuck under" problem was fixed by late '63. But, thanks to the D*&%$#@d and his book, sales PLUMMETED from over 235,000 units in 1965 to just under 104,000 in 1966. When I see a Gen 2 Corvair today, it STILL looks modern and fresh. What a shame. If the corporate bigwigs had any balls they would've stood up to Nader and pressed on with it. Instead, all we got for 1970 was the Vega. Today, Chevy enthusiasts treat the Corvair like a Red-headed [non-permissible content removed] child.
The corporate bigwigs sicced a private investigator on Nader, tapped his phones and tried to compromise him by hiring prostitutes to entrap him. All Nader did was write a book based on the material in 100 lawsuits filed against GM for spin and rollover accidents. At least per Wiki.
GM is lucky the whole company didn't plummet out of business for the way that handled that one.
True. Today their would've been just lawsuits filed against Nader, publicity spin, rebates, etc.
It IS understandible that w/ the success of the Mustang that GM would turn their attention to that, hence the money flowing into the Camaro/ Firebird. But for all it's quirks the Corvair deserved a better fate. It probably would've done great if they continued w/ things like turbocharging, using a Bosch K fi system. Continue to give all those customers who wanted an Americanized European sports coupe what they wanted. It is AMAZING how, as the book gained popularity, and GM stopped all support for it how sales plummeted. They sold MORE Corvairs in 1965 than 1966-1969 COMBINED!!!!
John Fitch the race driver took ordinary '65 Corvairs and for less than a thousand dollars modified the cars with better springs, shocks, radial tires, a short shifter and quicker steering--all of which GM could easily have done---and the "Fitch Corvair" would give a '65 Porsche 911 fits on a race course.
The Corvair is only one of countless "foot-shootings" by GM. Thankfully, they do not blunder like they used to.
My two cents is that American automakers will not regain a reputation for quality until everyone who bought a domestic car between 1975 and 1995 and regretted it, is dead. :P ("dead men tell no tales", etc etc)
One cannot underestimate the long-term effect of bad product on the buying public. Americans might have short political memories and shorter financial ones, but for smoe reason their opinions of cars stick to them for a long, long time.
If you're told something over and over and over again (even if it's not entirely accurate or if it's old information), most people will begin considering it as fact. I think entire books have been written on that subject. For years all we've heard from the mainstream media, neighbors, etc, is how the Big 3 can't build a good car (which was partially true , on and off, through history). People who have probably never even owned a car made by the Big 3 believe that they're junk, and will never go and look at them, even though they have no idea what they're really like now. Most of the newer, mainstream models from Detroit are actually competitive again. Trying to convey that to the average car buying public is going to be insanely difficult though, because of people's preconceived notion that they're getting no value whatsoever out of a Chevy or a Ford.
It's funny, I work with this guy who owned a 2000 Regal - it had some problems with the power windows (I think), and he swears up and down that he'll never buy another GM car again. I'm not one to argue with co-workers, so I just sit back and listen to him rant about how he got screwed by GM, etc, etc. When I tell him that the newer Malibu has received rave reviews, and that most of the new Buicks rank up there in quality with Lexus and Infiniti, he acts as if it's completely impossible, and comments about how crappy GM cars still are, without even knowing that there was a new Malibu based off the Opel (in Houston, we don't see too many of the new Malibus on the roads quite frankly). That is from one bad experience with a car built 8 years ago. So yes, a bad car experience can be detrimental to a brand or company. Cars are expensive, and beyond people like us who would even be reading or writing on a board like this, most of the motoring public looks at their automobile the same way I look at my washer and dryer. It gets them around, and gets them to work. Period. If it has problems, they write them off as junk (even if its something not so major).
I've owned GM, Ford and Nissan products, and I'd say they're all about the same from a maintenance standpoint. Actually, my wife's old IS300 Sportcross was an expensive car to fix when something did go wrong. We replaced about 2 or 3 O2 sensors on it, and those were very expensive repairs. Lets just say that it was more to fix the O2 sensor on her Lexus, than it was to replace the radiator on my GMC Jimmy. (I will admit that this Jimmy has probably been the worst vehicle I've owned in terms of how many times of I'd to fix something, but my other GM cars have been a lot better).
The problem is that in the public arena of perception, it is hard to fight statistical evidence with anecdotal evidence. It's a case of Consumer Reports says that 50% of Car X owners don't like their car, versus John P. of Omaha saying he likes his.
If you're told something over and over and over again (even if it's not entirely accurate or if it's old information), most people will begin considering it as fact.
This is true, however you also need to add that if someof the "telling" is either done, or implied by the manufacturer, then your readiness to believe is intensified.... anyone remember the Lincoln ad campaign that compared the Lincoln LS (I think) to the BMW 5 series? I've never seen a BMW ad that says "just as good as a Lincoln," so for me, it implies where the quality experience lies.
I've also owned several GM products, all the way from 1980 to 1998 or so, and my quality issues were myriad. Not sure how often one can expect to say "trust me" to a buyer...
John Fitch the race driver took ordinary '65 Corvairs and for less than a thousand dollars modified the cars with better springs, shocks, radial tires, a short shifter and quicker steering--all of which GM could easily have done---and the "Fitch Corvair" would give a '65 Porsche 911 fits on a race course.
The Corvair is only one of countless "foot-shootings" by GM. Thankfully, they do not blunder like they used to.
In reading an American car encyclopedia, a secret corporate memo came down in April, 1965 to stop ALL work on the Corvair, except for modifications to meet federal guidelines. Ironically, Nader was WRONG about the Corvair. The biggest problem with the early Corvairs was people ignoring the recommended tire pressures, which was 15 psi front, and 26 psi rear. There was a Congressional investigation on the "tuck under" issue in 1972, and Congress exonerated the Corvair, finding nothing inherently wrong with the design.
Now, ultimately, the Corvair's demise was multi-faceted. Chevy started design work on it in 1956. The engine weighed 376 lbs, about 76 MORE than they wanted, but they left it. (Ironically the 215 Buick V-8 weighed LESS, and had over twice the HP). How you can be given 4 yrs to build a car and still have the engine weigh that much more is beyond me. They chose NOT to put a sway bar in the rear (at a cost of $4) to keep the cost down. This was a VERY expensive project, compared w/ the competition, as they were all conventional BOF,RWD cars that were shrunk. Still they sold over 250,000 in 1960.
In 1961 the Monza was introduced, and it was all the rave. Still, the competition was making money hand over fist w/ their compacts, hence the Nova was born.
But the Monza was SO sucessful as a compact sports car, the others took notice. Good 'ol boy Lee Iacocca said "I've got an idea", and Voila, the Falcon based Mustang was born.
That was 1964. Now, enter Nader. In the meantime, Corvair engineers had a project dubbed XP-849, also dubbed "Corvair 2" meant to replace the Corvair after the second style. One version was RE, RWD, the other was FWD. but then came "No more development". In 1967 we get the Camaro, and the rest is history.
Somehow that doesn't give me a whole lot of comfort. :P
For the extra $1,000 to get the Corvair "Fitched" you could just pay $2,000 and get a new VW Bug. And lots and lots of people did. They had a little roll-over problem themselves though.
I think Nader was essentially correct--in the sense that flipping over is too great a punishment for a consumer who forgets to put air in his tires.
They also flipped on the GM test track.
The rear axle swing limiter that would have corrected the Corvair's "axle tuck" costs $15. I know because I bought one for a '64 coupe I owned many years ago.
$15 bucks!
Early Corvair test mules had Porsche engines in them. The early Corvairs WERE treacherous, but so is a 1965 Porsche 911, and an old VW bug is a death trap par excellence.
So bad PR + a marginal product = disaster.
Isn't it interesting (well it is to me) that America's best loved cars are generally also the good ones? Nobody writes songs about Fieros and you rarely see a Vega T-shirt.
If I were CEO of GM or Ford or Chrysler I'd take the entire upper management team to a car show where crowds were going nuts over a '57 Chevy or a 65 Mustang or a a '67 GTO or a even a base engine Road Runner, and tell them:
If I were CEO of GM or Ford or Chrysler I'd take the entire upper management team to a car show where crowds were going nuts over a '57 Chevy or a 65 Mustang or a a '67 GTO or a even a base engine Road Runner, and tell them:
You also have to bear in mind the context of the times. Back then gas was nearly free, the economy was strong, Americans owned the world, the only problem was the Soviet Union. We were striving to land on the moon.
In 2008, gas is $4/gallon, the economy is in recession, credit is much harder to get in a time when Americans rely on credit to buy EVERYTHING, and we are stuck in an oil war halfway around the world, with another about to start and allies few and far between.
The Challenger is an anachronism: the top version makes 425 hp (!!) and gets worse fuel economy than the full-size SUVs nobody is buying any more. Even the cheapest version will only make around 22 mpg combined. Autoweek tested one and gave it faint praise, saying too many things about the handling were reminscent of the 70s.
To me the Challenger is a perfect example of how the domestics continue to fail to understand what kinds of cars the American consumers want. Even the 300C would have had a hard time launching now - Chrysler was just lucky that it got that model to market a couple of years ahead of the major crises in gas prices and the economy at large.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
To me the Challenger is a perfect example of how the domestics continue to fail to understand what kinds of cars the American consumers want. Even the 300C would have had a hard time launching now - Chrysler was just lucky that it got that model to market a couple of years ahead of the major crises in gas prices and the economy at large.
I agree with this completely.
Funny thing is, I actually like the Charger, Challenger, at least in concept. 425 HP is a hoot to rent - I drove one briefly at a dealer, and I love the "boy racer/retro" looks of the cars. Would I buy one? No. More importantly, would the young buyer migrate from a Civic/Mitsu Evo/Subie Sti to one of these? Probably not. Folks who like cars like handling, along with brute force.
Mr_Shiftright: Early Corvair test mules had Porsche engines in them. The early Corvairs WERE treacherous, but so is a 1965 Porsche 911, and an old VW bug is a death trap par excellence.
Part of the Corvair's problem was the people who bought it. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, enthusiasts were more likely to buy imports, and they were more likely to pay attention to things like tire pressure.
The Corvair was sold to people who might have otherwise bought a Bel Air or Impala, and they treated it like they would a Bel Air or Impala - namely, the car was made to run with a minimum of muss and fuss. Your typical American car buyer wasn't going to periodically check the tire pressure - let alone read the owner's manual to discover the correct tire pressure in the first place. GM and its defenders can say that customers OUGHT to read the owner's manual, and I would agree, but car makers need to live in the world as it really is, not as it ideally should be.
GM could have saved itself - and the auto industry in general - a world of grief by spending that extra $15 per car to install the sway bar on the rear suspension. Using tire pressure to mask the strange handling characteristics, and then leaving it up to the customer to both discover this and then regularly check it, was a cop out.
In the end, I can't blame Nader for the Corvair's demise. By the mid-1960s, the bean counters were out in full force at GM, and its other interesting, unorthodox ideas - the Pontiac Tempest transaxle, the Buick aluminum V-8, the Pontiac OHC I-6 - were also dead by 1970, as GM refused to spend the money to develop them further, preferring to stick with tried-and-true (and less expensive) technology. Nader had never attacked any of the cars with those features.
In the long run, this really hurt the domestic industry, as the Clean Air Act standards and fuel crunches required new technology and new thinking, and Detroit was bereft of both by the mid-1970s. The industry has never recovered.
RE: 2009 Challenger: Ah, that's not what I meant at all. Retro is DEAD. I meant create a *new* car that generated the excitement equivalent to the cars I mentioned---not actually try to remake the old glories.
The problem with Retro is that there is no place to go after Model #1. What are you going to do? Retro-retro? 2nd generation Retro? All New Retro?
It's a dead end.
Toyota and BMW are not making their 1968 models all over again.
Toyota and BMW are not making their 1968 models all over again.
Nope they aren't although BMW is trying to do what you suggest with the 1-Series. The 1-Series isn't a retro designed car based on the old 2002 but it is inspired by the 2002.
Its the same idea and I think in general they did ok. The car is too heavy and too expensive but this is BMW so I kind of figured they would flub those two things. If the 1-series was just a little lighter, light enough maybe that a four cylinder would be adequate for the US market, and a little cheaper then I would probably buy one. I think BMW could generate a lot more volume by doing that and in turn generate greater profits through better economies of scale.
I guess they figure they don't need to do that with the European market more then willing to buy up the less powerful, really underpowered at its current weight, 1-Series models.
Toyota is doing a similar thing with the FJ Cruiser.
Not all roads are as crowded as the ones in the Bay Area. There are plenty of places around here to drive and enjoy a Challenger.
Although someone must like big vehicles. When I visited the Bay Area in the summer of 2003 I was astounded at the number of large SUVs and pickups on the road. Apparently lots of Bay Area residents like big vehicles just fine.
It was the same when I visted Southern California in early 2006. Big pickups and SUVs galore...
bah. that's a mistake. No need for another RWD coupe from nissan. What they need is a compact RWD sedan! heck, that's what honda, toyota, nissan, chevy, ford, and chrysler ALL need, IMHO. Why do they all think RWD needs to either be a sportscar/coupe or a luxo-barge?
'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
"Not all roads are as crowded as the ones in the Bay Area."
No, but they are in all the major metro markets where 80% of all the people in the country live, which also happen to be the higher-income areas where people might have more discretionary money to spend on an automobile. Statistically that's not a good thing for Chrysler.
GM may install the 4-cylinder turbo in the new Camaro as a (sort-of) gas-saver option. It will also have the larger engine options to go head to head with the Mustang and Challenger. I honestly wonder how sales will be for the Challenger between the new competition from GM, the old competition from Ford, the lousy economy, and the gas prices. Needless to say, not all of those factors were predictable when development of the Challenger began, but the economy was the only true surprise of the lot.
and qbrozen: "bah. that's a mistake. No need for another RWD coupe from nissan. What they need is a compact RWD sedan! heck, that's what honda, toyota, nissan, chevy, ford, and chrysler ALL need, IMHO."
Amen brother! It would have been so cool if BMW had built a lighter 1-series and brought it to the USA with 4-cylinder engines in 4-door and 5-door trims. I can only salivate over how good a Honda compact sedan with rear wheel drive and a potent little 4-cylinder engine would be.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I had always read that Chevrolet corrected the problem by 1964, and offered a retrofit for earlier models, and the article I just read said that the Monza version was what forced ford to do something to combat it, hence the Mustang.
Well BMW takes styling CUES from the old days, and you can still see the genetic code, but they don't try to make a 2008 BMW 3-series LOOK like a BMW 2002.
A 'new' BMW 2002 in the same proportions would look very strange indeed to modern eyes---like a narrow toaster on stilts.
One of Mercedes SUVS is rather retro and it gets the worst reviews I've ever read. The G-wagon or whatever it is.
The G isn't retro, it is simply ancient. It isn't a re-hash of an old style, it is a 1979 design that has only been updated in very minor details (and under the hood of course).
I wonder how long it will take for stylists to get so desperate that tailfins come back. Most automotive designers are lemmings.
Ah, so it's "real retro"? Good grief, satire is now dead! I thought only Morgan lived in the past these days, after Rolls Royce, the other real retro, entered the 20th century when the Germans bought them.
Well you can buy entire Chevelle bodies now brand new so I suspect if americans continue to be disappointed in modern American cars, someone is going to start selling 69 Camaro Z-28s in kit form, delivered in boxes to your house.
I wonder if the big 2.5 have any old body dies sitting around in some old warehouse. They could do it the G-wagen way and just make an old body with a new powertrain. It would be a lot cheaper than designing a new car, and people might really like it.
Just buy a body kit and stick it on an old VW bug pan. :shades:
I would buy a G wagon if they came in diesel for the US market. Oprah drives ones so it must by nice. I considered a barely used one when we bought the Sequoia. The premium gas turned me off.
Comments
I'd say it's specifically "reliability" rather than "quality" that results in large numbers of people paying a premium for Honda and Toyota. I think reliability can be considered to be one aspect of quality, but you can also have high quality with low reliability (VW is probably the poster child for that) and only a small percentage of people are willing to pay a premium for that.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You'll all laugh your heads off and wheeze until you are hurting, but I thought the '65 Corvair could have been that very car, had GM ever bothered to develop it.
What happened to the Corvair was a crime. By the time it became the focus of Nader's crusade the problems he complained about were already addressed. Besides, if you wanted tendency to flip in those days you couldn't beat a VW Beetle.
When I was maybe in my early teens my dad was a passenger in a Corvair that flipped but he walked away from it.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I suspect their attempts at going higher scale probably lose them money. They don't sell enough to justify making them.
I would not think that reliability should be expensive to produce. I mean even very cheap Hondas and Toyotas are reliable. There is a mindset in some of this. VW doesn't really "get" that people will pay for reliability and perceived quality. They don't "get" that the cars should have the same quality whether they are built in Germany, China, Brazil or Mexico. Mexican Corollas work fine (as do Mexican Fusions). Mexican Jettas are nothing but trouble.
With Porsche buying up so much VW stock maybe they will be able to get their reliability up. Porsche has the money to invest in it and the know how to do it as well. With the exception of the Cayenne, which is really a VW anyway, Porsches are fairly reliable just expensive to maintain because of the high end performance features. If you pull those features out like you would on a mass market VW...
US-market Corollas are made in Japan, Canada, and California. While there may be some Mexicans making Corollas, especially at the NUMMI plant, Corollas aren't made Mexico.
Again, don't equate a '65 Corvair w/ a brand new 911, but you could see how it could EVOLVE over 43 years into something real special
Mexican Corllas - no, they don't import them here but they exist in teh greater world.
My only real experience in a Mexican built car was when I had my 98 Sebring convertible. It was fine. No trouble at all. Its only downside was it was a perfectly ordinary car when the top was up. Hardly a crime.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-toyota0908may09,0,1057740.story
Toyota is forecasting a double barrel of bad news this fiscal year: its first year-on-year sales slide in nine years and first profit slip in seven years.
Toyota projects this fiscal year's profit will tumble 27 percent to $12 billion, while annual sales are seen falling 4.9 percent to $240.4 billion.
Toyota makes Tacomas in Mexico, but not Corollas.
Right you are.
GM is lucky the whole company didn't plummet out of business for the way that handled that one.
It IS understandible that w/ the success of the Mustang that GM would turn their attention to that, hence the money flowing into the Camaro/ Firebird. But for all it's quirks the Corvair deserved a better fate. It probably would've done great if they continued w/ things like turbocharging, using a Bosch K fi system. Continue to give all those customers who wanted an Americanized European sports coupe what they wanted. It is AMAZING how, as the book gained popularity, and GM stopped all support for it how sales plummeted. They sold MORE Corvairs in 1965 than 1966-1969 COMBINED!!!!
The Corvair is only one of countless "foot-shootings" by GM. Thankfully, they do not blunder like they used to.
My two cents is that American automakers will not regain a reputation for quality until everyone who bought a domestic car between 1975 and 1995 and regretted it, is dead. :P ("dead men tell no tales", etc etc)
One cannot underestimate the long-term effect of bad product on the buying public. Americans might have short political memories and shorter financial ones, but for smoe reason their opinions of cars stick to them for a long, long time.
It's funny, I work with this guy who owned a 2000 Regal - it had some problems with the power windows (I think), and he swears up and down that he'll never buy another GM car again. I'm not one to argue with co-workers, so I just sit back and listen to him rant about how he got screwed by GM, etc, etc. When I tell him that the newer Malibu has received rave reviews, and that most of the new Buicks rank up there in quality with Lexus and Infiniti, he acts as if it's completely impossible, and comments about how crappy GM cars still are, without even knowing that there was a new Malibu based off the Opel (in Houston, we don't see too many of the new Malibus on the roads quite frankly). That is from one bad experience with a car built 8 years ago. So yes, a bad car experience can be detrimental to a brand or company. Cars are expensive, and beyond people like us who would even be reading or writing on a board like this, most of the motoring public looks at their automobile the same way I look at my washer and dryer. It gets them around, and gets them to work. Period. If it has problems, they write them off as junk (even if its something not so major).
I've owned GM, Ford and Nissan products, and I'd say they're all about the same from a maintenance standpoint. Actually, my wife's old IS300 Sportcross was an expensive car to fix when something did go wrong. We replaced about 2 or 3 O2 sensors on it, and those were very expensive repairs. Lets just say that it was more to fix the O2 sensor on her Lexus, than it was to replace the radiator on my GMC Jimmy. (I will admit that this Jimmy has probably been the worst vehicle I've owned in terms of how many times of I'd to fix something, but my other GM cars have been a lot better).
This is true, however you also need to add that if someof the "telling" is either done, or implied by the manufacturer, then your readiness to believe is intensified.... anyone remember the Lincoln ad campaign that compared the Lincoln LS (I think) to the BMW 5 series? I've never seen a BMW ad that says "just as good as a Lincoln," so for me, it implies where the quality experience lies.
I've also owned several GM products, all the way from 1980 to 1998 or so, and my quality issues were myriad. Not sure how often one can expect to say "trust me" to a buyer...
The Corvair is only one of countless "foot-shootings" by GM. Thankfully, they do not blunder like they used to.
In reading an American car encyclopedia, a secret corporate memo came down in April, 1965 to stop ALL work on the Corvair, except for modifications to meet federal guidelines. Ironically, Nader was WRONG about the Corvair. The biggest problem with the early Corvairs was people ignoring the recommended tire pressures, which was 15 psi front, and 26 psi rear. There was a Congressional investigation on the "tuck under" issue in 1972, and Congress exonerated the Corvair, finding nothing inherently wrong with the design.
Now, ultimately, the Corvair's demise was multi-faceted. Chevy started design work on it in 1956. The engine weighed 376 lbs, about 76 MORE than they wanted, but they left it. (Ironically the 215 Buick V-8 weighed LESS, and had over twice the HP). How you can be given 4 yrs to build a car and still have the engine weigh that much more is beyond me. They chose NOT to put a sway bar in the rear (at a cost of $4) to keep the cost down. This was a VERY expensive project, compared w/ the competition, as they were all conventional BOF,RWD cars that were shrunk. Still they sold over 250,000 in 1960.
In 1961 the Monza was introduced, and it was all the rave. Still, the competition was making money hand over fist w/ their compacts, hence the Nova was born.
But the Monza was SO sucessful as a compact sports car, the others took notice. Good 'ol boy Lee Iacocca said "I've got an idea", and Voila, the Falcon based Mustang was born.
That was 1964. Now, enter Nader. In the meantime, Corvair engineers had a project dubbed XP-849, also dubbed "Corvair 2" meant to replace the Corvair after the second style. One version was RE, RWD, the other was FWD. but then came "No more development". In 1967 we get the Camaro, and the rest is history.
Somehow that doesn't give me a whole lot of comfort. :P
For the extra $1,000 to get the Corvair "Fitched" you could just pay $2,000 and get a new VW Bug. And lots and lots of people did. They had a little roll-over problem themselves though.
They also flipped on the GM test track.
The rear axle swing limiter that would have corrected the Corvair's "axle tuck" costs $15. I know because I bought one for a '64 coupe I owned many years ago.
$15 bucks!
Early Corvair test mules had Porsche engines in them. The early Corvairs WERE treacherous, but so is a 1965 Porsche 911, and an old VW bug is a death trap par excellence.
So bad PR + a marginal product = disaster.
Isn't it interesting (well it is to me) that America's best loved cars are generally also the good ones? Nobody writes songs about Fieros and you rarely see a Vega T-shirt.
If I were CEO of GM or Ford or Chrysler I'd take the entire upper management team to a car show where crowds were going nuts over a '57 Chevy or a 65 Mustang or a a '67 GTO or a even a base engine Road Runner, and tell them:
Do THAT!
Do THAT!
2009 Dodge Challenger
In 2008, gas is $4/gallon, the economy is in recession, credit is much harder to get in a time when Americans rely on credit to buy EVERYTHING, and we are stuck in an oil war halfway around the world, with another about to start and allies few and far between.
The Challenger is an anachronism: the top version makes 425 hp (!!) and gets worse fuel economy than the full-size SUVs nobody is buying any more. Even the cheapest version will only make around 22 mpg combined. Autoweek tested one and gave it faint praise, saying too many things about the handling were reminscent of the 70s.
To me the Challenger is a perfect example of how the domestics continue to fail to understand what kinds of cars the American consumers want. Even the 300C would have had a hard time launching now - Chrysler was just lucky that it got that model to market a couple of years ahead of the major crises in gas prices and the economy at large.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Falcon, Valiant and Ramblers were all unibody construction, not body-on-frame. The Studebaker Lark did use body-on-frame construction.
I agree with this completely.
Funny thing is, I actually like the Charger, Challenger, at least in concept. 425 HP is a hoot to rent - I drove one briefly at a dealer, and I love the "boy racer/retro" looks of the cars. Would I buy one? No. More importantly, would the young buyer migrate from a Civic/Mitsu Evo/Subie Sti to one of these? Probably not. Folks who like cars like handling, along with brute force.
Part of the Corvair's problem was the people who bought it. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, enthusiasts were more likely to buy imports, and they were more likely to pay attention to things like tire pressure.
The Corvair was sold to people who might have otherwise bought a Bel Air or Impala, and they treated it like they would a Bel Air or Impala - namely, the car was made to run with a minimum of muss and fuss. Your typical American car buyer wasn't going to periodically check the tire pressure - let alone read the owner's manual to discover the correct tire pressure in the first place. GM and its defenders can say that customers OUGHT to read the owner's manual, and I would agree, but car makers need to live in the world as it really is, not as it ideally should be.
GM could have saved itself - and the auto industry in general - a world of grief by spending that extra $15 per car to install the sway bar on the rear suspension. Using tire pressure to mask the strange handling characteristics, and then leaving it up to the customer to both discover this and then regularly check it, was a cop out.
In the end, I can't blame Nader for the Corvair's demise. By the mid-1960s, the bean counters were out in full force at GM, and its other interesting, unorthodox ideas - the Pontiac Tempest transaxle, the Buick aluminum V-8, the Pontiac OHC I-6 - were also dead by 1970, as GM refused to spend the money to develop them further, preferring to stick with tried-and-true (and less expensive) technology. Nader had never attacked any of the cars with those features.
In the long run, this really hurt the domestic industry, as the Clean Air Act standards and fuel crunches required new technology and new thinking, and Detroit was bereft of both by the mid-1970s. The industry has never recovered.
Yes.
2009 Challenger.
Weight: two tons
Understeer: massive
Turning: body roll, then more body roll.
400+ hp and 15 mpg in a street car with minimal trackability and streets as crowded as ours? Who's the buyer, exactly??
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The problem with Retro is that there is no place to go after Model #1. What are you going to do? Retro-retro? 2nd generation Retro? All New Retro?
It's a dead end.
Toyota and BMW are not making their 1968 models all over again.
We could wish for worse things.
Nope they aren't although BMW is trying to do what you suggest with the 1-Series. The 1-Series isn't a retro designed car based on the old 2002 but it is inspired by the 2002.
Its the same idea and I think in general they did ok. The car is too heavy and too expensive but this is BMW so I kind of figured they would flub those two things. If the 1-series was just a little lighter, light enough maybe that a four cylinder would be adequate for the US market, and a little cheaper then I would probably buy one. I think BMW could generate a lot more volume by doing that and in turn generate greater profits through better economies of scale.
I guess they figure they don't need to do that with the European market more then willing to buy up the less powerful, really underpowered at its current weight, 1-Series models.
Toyota is doing a similar thing with the FJ Cruiser.
Nissan 4 cylinder RWD coupe rumor
But it will probably be too heavy as well even if it is the right price.
Maybe Hyundai will get it right?
Although someone must like big vehicles. When I visited the Bay Area in the summer of 2003 I was astounded at the number of large SUVs and pickups on the road. Apparently lots of Bay Area residents like big vehicles just fine.
It was the same when I visted Southern California in early 2006. Big pickups and SUVs galore...
'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
No, but they are in all the major metro markets where 80% of all the people in the country live, which also happen to be the higher-income areas where people might have more discretionary money to spend on an automobile. Statistically that's not a good thing for Chrysler.
GM may install the 4-cylinder turbo in the new Camaro as a (sort-of) gas-saver option. It will also have the larger engine options to go head to head with the Mustang and Challenger. I honestly wonder how sales will be for the Challenger between the new competition from GM, the old competition from Ford, the lousy economy, and the gas prices. Needless to say, not all of those factors were predictable when development of the Challenger began, but the economy was the only true surprise of the lot.
and qbrozen: "bah. that's a mistake. No need for another RWD coupe from nissan. What they need is a compact RWD sedan! heck, that's what honda, toyota, nissan, chevy, ford, and chrysler ALL need, IMHO."
Amen brother! It would have been so cool if BMW had built a lighter 1-series and brought it to the USA with 4-cylinder engines in 4-door and 5-door trims. I can only salivate over how good a Honda compact sedan with rear wheel drive and a potent little 4-cylinder engine would be.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well BMW takes styling CUES from the old days, and you can still see the genetic code, but they don't try to make a 2008 BMW 3-series LOOK like a BMW 2002.
A 'new' BMW 2002 in the same proportions would look very strange indeed to modern eyes---like a narrow toaster on stilts.
One of Mercedes SUVS is rather retro and it gets the worst reviews I've ever read. The G-wagon or whatever it is.
Let's face it---retro is...well...retro.
I wonder how long it will take for stylists to get so desperate that tailfins come back. Most automotive designers are lemmings.
Well you can buy entire Chevelle bodies now brand new so I suspect if americans continue to be disappointed in modern American cars, someone is going to start selling 69 Camaro Z-28s in kit form, delivered in boxes to your house.
I would buy a G wagon if they came in diesel for the US market. Oprah drives ones so it must by nice. I considered a barely used one when we bought the Sequoia. The premium gas turned me off.
With $4 per gallon gas, American's idea of "adequate" is, I suspect, rapidly changing.