By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I would say position on the list matters more than actual score, since the position is due to the score. Also, if you have quality brands A, B, and C. Why go to companies X, Y, and/or Z if they are lower on the list; regardless of their score. Why wouldn't you want the "BEST" product for your money?
Actually, I didn't justify anything. I simply explained why Toyota fell, which I though was fairly clear in the article.
The original (and as yet unanswered) question is what caused GM models to fall.
At the end of the day, however, if you have a choice between 2 manufacturer's models, and one has a score of 50 and the second has a score of 100, the choice of which one to buy is fairly simple (given all else being equal).
But, change the scenario a bit, to where one car has a score of 100 and the second one has a score of 110. Gets a bit more difficult to decide now, because you have a 10% higher chance of a problem in the second car. Its really difficult if the 2 models come in at 111 and 113. And, the problems may not be evenly distributed (one particular option set within a model may indeed be the cause of a large % of the problems).
And, since its not reality to expect 2 models to be identical in every respect, its pretty easy to select the car with the higher number, if it happens to be a nicer looking car, with more options, etc.
So, a model with 100 problems per 100 vehicles compared to a model with 110, 115 or even 120 problems per 100 cars may be statistically significant, but in the operational world be insignificant. Of course, the range can be exceeded....think Yugo.
The proof is evident. These ranges exist, yet the manufacturers remain in business. The Big-3 certainly have taken a beating over quality issues (and, IMO, rightfully so), but what bankrupted them was unrealistic labor union contracts, unfunded liabilities and piss-poor management.
Toyota and Honda are suffering from excess and bloat, as well as stagnant designs and philosophies, So their quality is dropping. A good example of this was Mercedes in the 90s/early 2000s. They hit their peak and found it hard to move forward. So they kept adding more options and more tweaks and "refinements" but really stopped innovating. They got caught having to make more and more of the same thing in order to try to stay on top. And it failed, as it always does. Mercedes is still a fine company, to be sure, but it's a shadow of its former self. Toyota is going down this path and while it still will be a decent enough choice for many, there is no shortage of perfectly viable alternatives.
Case in point - my sister three years ago was looking for a new car. She had it narrowed down to a Corolla, a Civic, and a Mazda 3. The differences on paper as well as functions, options, power, and so on were literally less than ten items different between all three.(body panel styling aside) While Toyota has been trying to stay on top of the heap, others have been moving forward to match them. And, there's really no problem as I see it, either. If Toyota loses some market share, Mazda and Nissan and Honda offer nearly identical alternatives.
GM - yeah, they have a ways to go. But I think they can do it. It's easier to move up when you are near the bottom than to try to fend off all of the people trying to take your position at the top. GM can take risks without really losing anything. Toyota really can't.
It should be interesting to see where both companies are in a decade.
I do agree with you that GM has a long way to go.
If the Corolla ceases to exist, there are other alternatives for economy transportation.
On the other hand, you have Chrysler, an example of history repeating itself. Bailed out late in the 20th Century, they are now being bailed out again for the 2nd time early in the 21st Century.
History will repeat itself with GM, but hopefully, we won't bail them out a second time and let them die in shame as it should be. I don't think we'll bailout Chrysler 3 times, how long until that is required?
This is true for this year's first three months of ownership when many Toyotas were recalled. It is most likely that these same recalled Toyotas will be very reliable in the long range, which has a different J.D power survey. Unless Toyota goes through another wave of recalls next year, it will mostly likely be back near the top in next year's report.
I do agree that GM shouldn't get any more bailout money. Chrysler shouldn't have gotten a second bite at the apple either, but take a good look at Cerberus and I think you'll find a lot of movers and shakers in both political parties (in fact, IIRC they are based in the DC area).
I hope you're wrong about GM because if they can turn it around that is good for our country and economy.
OK, even I hope there is a U.S. car company that provides the best cars in the world. That is good for our country and economy.
Now, comment on the report card of GM. Then Chrysler. Then Ford. It was the end of the school year in June 2009 for GM an C and they got left back.
Unless a management capable of leading a company to "Best in Class Global" status sits at the helm, failure will re-deploy at some point. Please hold back the "never gonna happen" comments at this point. Even the economic recovery is tentative at best.
So, as I've said before, a few good products from GM is a start. That's all there is at this point.
I will wait to see when all the stars align and currently, that is NOT happening at GM. Chrysler? Ahem... Ford...B+.
Regards,
OW
Some of the more vulnerable companies I'm thinking include Mazda, Suzuki, Peugeot/Citroen, Saab, Volvo, Land Rover and maybe even Fiat (despite the giveaway of Chrysler). These firms may shut or pieces may merge with others in the event of a prolonged slump. GM could end up telling Germany to buy them out or otherwise close Opel if the economy doesn't improve because Opel is not profitable and actually hinders GM longer term despite its engineering and development of global platforms like the new Regal. I understand why GM chose to keep them shorter term, but Germany may be over playing their hand longer term. It may get interesting!
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/06/detroits-pickups-fl- unk-toyota-soars-on-american-made-list/1
So for our $60B+ in bailout per the GM bankruptcy, I'd guess we good 'ol suckers-of-taxpayers got to save quite a few foreign jobs!
Is it better for the US for a buyer to purchase a Chevy Aveo made in Korea or a Hyundai made in Georgia?
Why support incompetents? They are companies that have proven they won't make any profits and just suck the tax payers dry. The quicker they vanish, the better off we'll all be I say!
The NUUMI plant in Fremont, CA, for instance, contributed 1 billion a year to the California economy. This was the largest example of such a foreign plant that I know of, and it was a real hit to the economy when it closed this year.
So the real answer is to figure out what plants are in the U.S., then buy one of the vehicles that is made there. For example, GM only makes about half a dozen vehicles any more in the U.S. - most are now made in Canada or Mexico.
And, yes, the window sticker says "North American Content" for that reason. They changed it a few years ago, so that content made in Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. is all considered the same. But the VIN doesn't lie.
I can vouch that the Honda's we've bought that were made in Japan were better built and put together than the Accord I had from Ohio.
The Civics have been downright flawless (always VIN starting with a J was sought out), whereas I was forced to buy an Accord that had a VIN starting with a 1 (don't think any coupes are imported from Japan).
The American built Honda was reliable and dependable, but I had probably 5 or 6 issues that I took it in for "warranty" work on. Most little ticky tack annoying little things, but still, it had it's share of issues on quality, fit & finish, and build.
The '05 and '07 Civics built in Japan have combined for only 1 warranty visit COMBINED, compared to a half dozen or so for the single American built one.
My brother can probably vouch that his Japanese built Toyota's are flawless. If Toyota is having problems, I'd wager it's mostly with the American built one's and parts (see CTS throttles made in America).
You see, those Japanese factory workers have been all-stars doing this for decades now. They are experienced and proven all-stars when it comes to building vehicles. Americans are proven failures, mediocrities, and INEXPERIENCED when it comes to putting cars together. It seems that if you give them good parts, and good design and engineering though, it helps a lot, which is something the Big 3 never did.
That said, yes, the new Acura TSX is stunning. It is an absolute steal for the money and looks as well put together as a Mercedes. That's a good example of when you want it to be made in Japan.
Humm.. maybe it should be only buy "U.S. and Japanese" made vehicles? Heh.
Of course, a 60k+ Porsche is a whole other story... no issues with quality there.
The NUUMI plant in Fremont, CA, for instance, contributed 1 billion a year to the California economy. This was the largest example of such a foreign plant that I know of, and it was a real hit to the economy when it closed this year.
So the real answer is to figure out what plants are in the U.S., then buy one of the vehicles that is made there. For example, GM only makes about half a dozen vehicles any more in the U.S. - most are now made in Canada or Mexico.
And, yes, the window sticker says "North American Content" for that reason. They changed it a few years ago, so that content made in Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. is all considered the same. But the VIN doesn't lie.
For the most part, I'm in agreement with you on this one. As I type this, BMW is finishing it $500 million plant expansion at its SC plant, not too far from where I live. Its been a BIG PLUS for the local (and state) economy.
Money spent in wages and on plant in production in the US are definitely an asset to the US economy, whereas any potential profits gained by the Big-3 on products made off-shore may or may not remain in the US.
But, I would also be well-served to make sure the quality, even on a "foreign" make being made here, was up to par.
The average manufacturer makes a thousand or two on each car in profit. And the vast vast majority of the rest of its value - goes into constructing it and paying to run the plant to do that. That 20K car costs GM 10K-12K on average(the rest is advertising, R&D, and so on which may or may not be in the U.S.). But too many people think about where the profit goes (corporation) but not enough where the 10-12K to make it goes.
Where it's made is really important. Especially if the company is losing money - because that "profit" actually is zero. But the plant still pays its workers - that's how the money gets into the economy, no matter what the state of the economy is.
Can a pushrod 5.3 or 6.2 be refined enough for Luxury duty? In my opinion, the units I've sampled are not. That doesn't mean it can't be done, the new Bentley sedan uses a big OHV v8.
Give me a break, the only time I seen one is on TV. I can only recall seeing one late model CTS-V over the last year. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the v8 Genesis's I've seen on the road. I'm not knocking the CTS-V, as it's a very cool car, but if the superchared 6.2 was ready for luxury duty, why wasn't it used instead of the late supercharged northstar for use in the XLR-V and STS-V?.
Plus, with gas mileage of 14/19 in a CTS it will never be in anything mainstream. Hyundai's 4.6 already spanks a n/a Northstar and I guarantee the current 6.2's aren't in the ball park with HVH.
My point is the competition is continuing to develop v8 engines and for luxury use. An OHV 6.2 out of a pickup truck isn't going to win over MB/BMW/Lexus buyers. I've driven several 6.2's and IMO it's no where near good enough for Luxury duty. Maybe it can be revised to do so.
Now diesel, you just don't get it. Don't you like raw coarse power? That's a hallmark of American muscle cars! Certainly those refined MB or BMW or Audi engines don't show enough macho characteristics!
Hey, I like all kinds of different cars and I do love raw HP. Nothing like listening to 400+HP big block powered boats run down the lake. It sends chills down my spine. At the same time, that doesn't mean I want the BB in my refined luxury sedan or sports car.
Oh, God! We're back to the stupid OHV vs OHC argument again!
Oh, God! We're back to the stupid OHV vs OHC argument again!
I see one every day as my neighbor down the road from me dumped his Cadillac for one. I see several running around here in central Illinois.
No, I'm not trying to start an OHV vs OHC debate. My point is, do you think something like the 5.3 is good enough for top end Cadillac duty. When all of the competition has v8s with more power and more refinement.
Lemko, are you telling me you don't appreciate the performance and smoothness of your Northstar powered DTS vs, the 3800? Would you care if your DTS was powered by something like a 3.9v6 or the 5.3?
I can live with a V-6 in something like my wife's LaCrosse or an everyday beater like my Park Ave. My true, honest-to-God luxury car, however DEMANDS a V-8. I don't care if it's a pushrod or a DOHC like the Northstar. Personally, I think the Northstar is too smooth. I miss that sudden "throw you back into your seat" feel of a pushrod V-8 when the secondaries of that four barrel carb kick in! :shades: Dang, those old Mopar V-8s like the 426 and 440 have an exhaust note that is second to none! They even sound awesome when the car is parked and idling.
So does that mean if the new XTS is only offered with a 3.6 variation it's off your shopping list?
I'd imagine if GM finished development on the Northstar replacement, better gearing, improved variable valve timing, and direct injection, would vastly improve off the line performance.
But sadly the days of the big block are over. I still am around them in the boat world. I just love to listen to a 454 or 8.1L with open exhaust idling out and running full throttle down the lake.
Oh, good! Then we can move on to horsepower vs. torque!
Yes! If that's the case, I'll be keeping my DTS for the next 20+ years like the Brougham. A 3.6 is fine for the wife's car, but doesn't make the cut for my next ride.
The 454 is an old Chevy block. It was recently used in the Chevy 454 SS pickup truck. 8.1 litre? What would that translate to in cubic inches? I believe the 472 V-8 that was in the 1969 Cadillac translated to 7.7 litre. I had a 1975 Cadillac with an 8.2 lite (500 cid) V-8. Too bad by that time it was choked down by so much anti-smog crap it only put out a lousy 190 hp. :sick:
The 454 hasn't been available for a long time even in boats, but there are still a lot of them running around.
On a trip to the Kohler factory in WI I actually saw an 8.1 that blew a couple pistons out the side of the block :surprise: Workers assembled it into the genset, fired it up on the line and over-revved it - :sick:
That can happen. I've seen them and other marine engines die a quick death. I know a few years ago, Mercury Marine and Volvo Penta had some head gasket issues with the marinized 8.1. But overall they have a reputation for being durable. Like anything else abuse and poor maintenance is what kills them. You just can't run them up and down the lake wide open all day, but some people due.
What's shocking is how much they charge for these engines from the boat builders. It can easily cost over $6k to upgrade from a 350 to a base 375hp 8.1. Go to the 420HP version and it can be over $10k more.
May the best Car Win.
The new engine is expected to arrive in early 2011 in the 2012 models, replacing the current 375-horsepower 4.6-liter V-8, which will no longer be offered. While the new 5.0-liter engine shares the same architecture with the current mill, its direct-injection technology, a bore increase, and a compression ratio bumped to 11.5:1 all help account for the estimated performance advantage. An eight-speed automatic that was designed and built in-house at Hyundai will be paired to the engine for maximum efficiency, helping to bump fuel economy roughly 1 mpg to just over 26 mpg (8.9 liters/100km) despite the new engine's increased power.
Notice how quickly the improvements are integrated compare with the New GM.
Regards,
OW
Oh, that's right, they're already paying (some) of it back ta Uncle Sam, huh.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Whether people can afford a vehicle is not a determinant of the validity of using the 3.9 second 0-60 time of a Cadilac in advertising.
Just because you don't see them, they don't exist?
I checked an '07 CTS-V specs:
YOU lie!!!!!
Fuel Data
Fuel
Fuel Tank Capacity: 17 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway/Combined)
Manual: 14 mpg / 22 mpg / 16 mpg
Range in Miles:
Manual: 238 mi. / 374 mi. / 272 mi.
I know some people getting 26, 27, and sometimes even 28 or 29 on trips in their 6 liter vettes. It has something to do with 70 mph at 1600 rpm.
YOU lie!!!!!
Fuel Data
Fuel
Fuel Tank Capacity: 17 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway/Combined)
Manual: 14 mpg / 22 mpg / 16 mpg
Range in Miles:
Manual: 238 mi. / 374 mi. / 272 mi.
BS I lie. The 2007 was the non supercharged 6.0L version. Check the 2010 model at Cadillac's website. I'll post it for you just in case you can't figure out how to get there!
CTS-V
BTW, a ZR1 Corvette is rated for 14/20hwy according to Chevy's website. Yes the standard 6.2 powered Corvette is rated for 26hwy. Not shabby at all, but it is a sleek 3200+lb car with a tall 6th gear.
Yeah, I remember reading that when it was first introduced.
Just because you don't see them, they don't exist?
In 2009, 2,847 CTS-V's were sold, more than I would have guessed. But none were sold in 2008.
Case in point - the best car GM made in the last decade in terms of performance vs MPG (despite the styling being a total "meh") was the 2004 GTO. Why? Because it has a *smaller* LS1 V8. With manual, it gets a legitimate 30mpg highway AND has 350HP.
I'd love to have more of that. :shades: But what we get is heavier, nastier(looks even MORE like a Transformers toy - and not in a good way), more powerful, and maybe 20mpg.
What I want GM to do is come out with a 3.0L V8 with a supercharger on it. Get something like 35mpg highway and still get 300+HP. And, yes, that's possible. Ferrari and others specialized in 2.0L V8s for decades. Highway MPG is very closely related to displacement, so small as possible should be the new rule.
http://www.h1v8.com/page/page/1562069.htm
Small V8s can still be horrendously powerful. 400HP out of a mere 200lbs. GM could obviously make something larger with less compression and still hit 250+ HP and 30-35mpg.
As Lutz already said in 2007:
"If the government wants a 30-percent improvement in fuel economy for each size class, I can't get Zeta 30 percent more efficient," Lutz said. "It would be like going from 20 mpg to 30 mpg. We don't know how to do it."
Although they have improved, the B.S. they send regarding highest fuel economy in every class is a lie that will keep their market share low.
The problem is they really believe the garbage they express! You know where that will lead! :lemon:
Regards,
OW
As Lutz already said in 2007:
"If the government wants a 30-percent improvement in fuel economy for each size class, I can't get Zeta 30 percent more efficient," Lutz said. "It would be like going from 20 mpg to 30 mpg. We don't know how to do it."
Although they have improved, the B.S. they send regarding highest fuel economy in every class is a lie that will keep their market share low.
The problem is they really believe the garbage they express! You know where that will lead! :lemon:
Regards,
OW
The Pontiac/GM buffs & other experts and PUNDITS prefer the 05/06 LS2 GTO, thank you. Many GTOs are especially bargain-priced on the used-market now - I thnk there is one out there for you, LS1 or LS2!
nobody's getting any 30 mpg with any year GTO.
Camaros couldn't get 30 mpg with LS1 or any other V8,
and GTO is a much heavier car.
While I like that idea, small v8's aren't known for their fuel economy. Sure Ferrari gets big power out of their v8's, but they spin 9k rpm too, and their fuel economy is horrible. Then again, Ferrari doesn't have to worry to much about that, they want max performance.
Ford's Ecoboost 3.5 v6 is putting out over 350hp and 350ft/lbs of torque. It gets similar fuel economy to a n/a 3.5 in a Taurus. So maybe it would get the same mileage as the 3.7 v6 in the Mustang. No it's not a v8, but it seems a v8 under 4 liters runs into having to many moving parts vs a v6 of similar displacement. I've sampled Fords 3.4L v8 in the late 90's SHO. It sounded sweet, had decent power, but fuel efficiency was basically the same as a 4.6 powered mustang.
Small V8s can still be horrendously powerful. 400HP out of a mere 200lbs. GM could obviously make something larger with less compression and still hit 250+ HP and 30-35mpg.
Better be putting something like that in a very light vehicle, 245ft-lbs of torque at 7500rpm isn't going to work in something like a large Cadillac or Buick. It would be fun as hell in something like a Lotus Elise though:)
The engine isn't the only factor. Weight, drag, and gearing. These cars are getting seriously heavy. That's one reason the vette does well, it's fairly light.
Camaros couldn't get 30 mpg with LS1 or any other V8,
No doubt, it probably can be done driving 40 mph all day. Ford got something like 47mpg out of the 300hp v6 Mustang, but they averaged like 43mph on an oval track.