Are recalls a sign of quality? I think so. I know a lot of people say so when GM has a recall. 700K Toyotas recalled just last week...and no, that's not a post from three years ago that I'm palming off as a new recall.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
You should care about experiences like his with vehicles other than GM in this GM thread, because if more people have experiences like him (which they do)_ we are looking at another bailout of GM in the near future, or this thread will cease to exist soon.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
No disrespect intended, but you sort-of danced around the question. Does an issue with body integrity, like a rattle, count as one 'problem', like a transmission failure would count as one 'problem'?
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
You don't think the installer of the radios could have changed from one year to the next, from incompetent to competent and vice versa? If a machine/robot installed them, you don't think the robot could have been replaced for the better or worse?
LOL.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I think that's a real stretch, andres3. I believe compared to the old days, most stuff is meant to be installed one way...the easiest way. If the componentry didn't change, it's the old sample error thing again. Again, that's OK, but it's also OK for them to admit it happens.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Let me address this in several short points. Technology/design. After WWII, the U.S. was 5 steps ahead of everyone else. My point is the U.S. companies should hve advanced at the same rate as the competition, and kept 5 steps ahead. Instead they were lazy, or gave away their technology, and then let the foreign companies match or exceed them.
No legacy costs to deal with.
And why did the Big 3 have such high legacy costs? Because when they had a monopoly on the market, they could get enough $ to make all those promises. And when they did see competition from foreigners, what did they do. They continued their relatively high pay and added to their legacy costs. EVEN TODAY, you see GM and the others paying out bonuses (many thousands to each employee)!
Open market here; closed markets there.
As I said before it is very stupid of our industry leaders and government. They think short-term and maximum short-term profits. If they thought long-term they would not have shared technology, and they would not have allowed countries that directly subsidized their industries to sell here. It's good for GM's bottom line to make and sell vehicles in China isn't it? Do you think it's good for this country?
Make a better car, for a lower cost and I'll buy GM.
I must just have good eyes. I found a better car for lower cost. And it was a GM.
gets mid 30's on the highway, over 500 mile range, and it beat all others on cost. Very smooth and quiet and helps workers in the Warren MI and KC area make a good paycheck.
GM sells well enough in China, but how long will it last? Seeing as virtually every venture there is just a form of technology transfer, eventually the locals will catch up and make something comparable, then not needing the imported talent. And then we'll let em in over here too.
I found a better car for lower cost. And it was a GM.
It's not lower cost on its own merit. The way GM is run they would have to charge much more, if they didn't have any government subsidies - bailout + no income tax.
So yes I can open a restauarant and sell $10 T-Bone dinners, and pay the cooks $20/hr + benefits; if the U.S. government gives me $$, and doesn't tax me!
helps workers in the Warren MI and KC area make a good paycheck.
I'm not against the people of MI and KC making a good wage - IF they deserve it. Making autos is a commodity since our industries and governement have allowed the technology to be spread worldwide. The people assembling vehicles in MI and KC are competing against other people world-wide who have those same skills. So if your skills are no better than someone in China, I don't see where you can expect to earn a good-wage. It's nothing but welfare to corporations. And yes Europe is guilty of subsidizing their industry and it has caught up to most of them. Government after government, and economy after economy is going to go down.
The U.S. is headed towards that same brickwall. We're robbing from the future, to keep most people happy now. Artificial "Good paychecks" is not a good thing, when it is borrowed $ they are spending! :mad:
I know 2 things that China is doing besides hurting our economy. Their government sponsors cyber-attacks and cyber-terrorism, and they are using their technology to build a powerful military aimed mainly at the U.S.
It's fairly stupid for GM and the U.S. to transfer technology, train their students, and build heavy industry in China.
I must just have good eyes. I found a better car for lower cost. And it was a GM.
Me too. Wife loves her Aura. My 2006 Silverado is beginning to feel like some of my old F-150s...like it will run forever.... and while there are more and more internet reports of premature frame rust on late model (2005 and newer) Toyota Tacomas and Tundras my frame has virtually none.
If and when Toyota ends their truck frame buyback/replacement policy there will be a ton of uhappy Toyota owners.
It's not lower cost on its own merit. The way GM is run they would have to charge much more, if they didn't have any government subsidies - bailout + no income tax.
Can you please provide proof that GM lost money selling me my car. And also provide proof that after March 1, 2012, they were reimbursed for these losses by the gov. (The day after I bought my Chev). Until such proof is provided, your statement is bogus.
Exactly. Bending over for the technology transfer, and allowing the "most favored" status is suicidal. But nobody can accuse the political and corporate elite of having any foresight - they won't need it when they've already stolen a mountain of gold. We're being looted like the defeated party in a war, with no battle being fought.
And also provide proof that after March 1, 2012, they were reimbursed for these losses by the gov. (The day after I bought my Chev).
You know the government doesn't give GM $ everyday or every car they sell. The $60B in bailouts a couple of years ago holds them over nicely for awhile. Oh and April 15th is coming soon. You personally will probably pay more income tax than all of GM! (maybe I'm exaggerating a little there).
GM once had 50% market-share and a large amount of assets and cash back in that day. The decades that followed saw GM workers destroy that. They ran the company into the ground, taking out of it more than they were putting in. This is nothing new, and what leads to BK.
Here is the profit/vehicle in 2010: Profit per unit is interesting because it tells us something about the demand for a manufacturer's automobiles, and about how well that manufacturer is controlling its costs. The ones with the highest unit profit are obviously doing things better since, as I said at the top of this piece, their Number One reason for existing is to make money.
The numbers for 2010 shake out like this.
Daimler (Mercedes-Benz) is #1 with $3316 profit per unit. BMW is second with an average profit of $3000 per unit. In third place is the French automaker, Renault, with $1741 per unit. Here's the complete list:
Daimler 3316 BMW 3000 Renault 1741 Nissan 1500 Ford 1320 VW 1288 Honda 833 Hyundai 810 GM 553 PSA 417 Tata 400 Toyota 349 Fiat 292 Mazda 154 Chrysler -438
I suspect GM is doing better at the moment but as you pointed out, it's real nice evaporating all of the debt from years of mismanagement and greed.
I buy local when the local people make something better or at lower cost. I don't buy local because they are local. It's not my problem that UAW workers think they are entitled to more $, more benefits, or better pensions that others they are competing with. Same goes for GM's white collar workers. Make a better car, for a lower cost and I'll buy GM.
Strongly agree.
American brand buyers have the Japanese to thank for the improvements in quality/reliability in recent years.
We can also thank the millions of Americans, who starting back in 80's, had an open mind and looked at, test drove and bought Japanese brands. I was one who was a long time GM brand buyer that looked at GM and other American brands in 1984, then test drove 3 different Japanese brands. My eyes were opened at the superiority in every respect of the Honda I bought over test drives and looks at equivalent size/segment cars of the American brands.
American people with open minds looked at, test drove and bought Japanese brands to such an extent that the American brands, eventually, got a clue. But, they would have not done that absent the threat of Japanese brands taking away market share.
GM once had 50% market-share and a large amount of assets and cash back in that day. The decades that followed saw GM workers destroy that. They ran the company into the ground, taking out of it more than they were putting in. This is nothing new, and what leads to BK.
Strongly disagree. Workers (assembly and similar) were not the cause of GM bankruptcy. If they had too generous of wages, benefits, it was top management that caved in.
Top management is ultimately responsible for failure, bankruptcy of a company such as GM. Workers such as assembly can only put together the parts and pieces that engineers and accountants have specified as per the goals, policies and directives established by top management.
Like when you could get the same model of car in a 2 door post, 2 door HT, 4 door post, 4 door HT, wagon, and convertible, with maybe 6 powertrain choices and 15 color choices. Now, 6 colors, 3 interior colors, 2 engines, 1 or 2 bodies.
By saying "workers" I meant ALL GM personnel - Board, execs, white collar, and UAW. All "work" even if it is a round of golf. If I meant to say assemblers and similar ONLY, I would have said that or UAW, or hourly-workers.
I'm not saying what % each contributed to the downfall; that's another topic.
Basically what happened is that GM became weaker and weaker thru the mid-70's until 2008. It acquired more legacy costs, had acquired and added divisions that weren't doing well, paid some of the best wages in the world, and basically alienated a lot of former customers. They were Weak. When a crisis hit, and they always will in the future, GM did not have enough cash to run its business. The government poured $$ in numerous ways into the auto industry, and then helped GM thru BK.
The government helped clear the old debt, and gave GM large sums of cash, by issuing themselves stock, which allowed GM to keep their development of new models and other operations going. If the government hadn't stepped in, GM was paying out more $ than they were taking in. The only way for GM to break even would have been to increase prices, to bring in more $$. With the government providing the $60B or so, they kept GM from having to increase each vehicle they sold by many thousands of $$. So yes each and every vehicle you see being sold by GM, or each and every bonus GM hands out is subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer.
GM received their welfare all at once during 2008-09, as it was deeemed politically safer. It would not have been palatable to many politicians and the public if the government made the bailout $500M/month for the next 10 years, as they would keep popping up on peoples' radar. GM is a welfare-case whether you want to hear it or not. The stigma of that is why Ford wanted no part of it, and Chrysler and GM were reluctant at first, though they were in such bad shape that they had to take it. Ford was much happier hocking-everything, than having to go on U.S. welfare.
At $550 a year gas difference, that's 9 years to break even and the Civic has no battery pack to deal with. If you calculate it into the equation, you get four more years for the battery pack, or 13 years total to break even
But if the battery pack lasts 12 years, and it under warranty for 10, you come out slightly ahead.
The 2nd battery pack last far longer than the 13th year.
Also, uplanderguy says buy local, well, that extra $550 in gas ends up being imported. Over the 12 year life span of the battery that's $6600 total, most of which probably ends up in Russia.
Don't the batteries come from Canada? That's what Top Gear claimed, anyway.
Not really, it's just disguised as something else...
sedan = Camry coupe = Solara (discontinued, however) wagon = Venza crossover = Highlander minivan = Sienna luxury car = ES lux cross = RX
and so on. All are Camry-based.
It's kinda like the F "Series". Several wheelbases, lengths, door configurations, bed lengths, but underneath it's all on the same basic chassis. Heck, most use the same basic engine, too (2GR V6). And transmission.
They just do a better job differentiating the styling.
Look how many GM cars were on the Epsilon platform, everything from a Pontiac G6 to a Saab 9-3 to the euro-only Caddy BLX.
So you still have lots of choices, but they have different labels.
But those aren't really cars. Some of us don't want any kind of van or fakey estrogen-laden SUV, and a Venza sure as heck aint no wagon. So there's Camry 4 door only with a few color choices and engines, but all pretty identical - and a bunch of other things for people who mostly just don't like cars.
At least the GM derivatives are cars. Oh well, I can still get an E-class in a coupe, sedan, convertible, and wagon (A4 is similar too), so it's not all lost.
Your comparative youthfulness is apparent, if you think the Toyota line of today is representative of the types of choices we had in, say, a Chevrolet line-up of 'back then'. 1975: Eight lines of cars...not counting trucks or SUV's. Impala series: two coupe bodies, four-door sedan, four-door hardtop, two and three seat wagons, and a convertible in the Caprice trim. Sixteen colors. Multiple interior options. It was great. And I didn't start to dislike American iron until they began to imitate the foreign makes, and utilize front-drive.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Don't the batteries come from Canada? That's what Top Gear claimed, anyway.
In a roundabout way, yes. The raw resources for the batteries come from Canada, where it's mined out of the ground through a process so dirty that NASA declared the surrounding area a dead zone or something like that, and uses it to run tests that need to simulate a lifeless environment.
Then, I believe it gets shipped off to China for some kind of refinement, then to Europe where the batteries themselves are finalized. Or maybe I have that backwards...could be Europe first, then China. Then, back to Japan, where they put the batteries in the hybrid cars. And then ship 'em over to the United States.
All told, the process is so filthy and hard on the environment, between all the mining, shipping, etc, that if you really want the warm, fuzzies that come from hugging a tree, you're almost better off just buying an Expedition or Suburban!
Strongly disagree. Workers (assembly and similar) were not the cause of GM bankruptcy. If they had too generous of wages, benefits, it was top management that caved in.
I agree that top management is ultimately responsible, but the union doesn't get off Scott free either. Labor laws let them pick one company to target in negotiations thereby giving them tremendous leverage to force the D3 firm they picked into capitulation, especially in a highly leveraged, high capital industry like autos. If the D3 companies worked together against the union (lockouts, sharing positions, etc.) that would be against the law. In fact, I don't think they can even cooperatively team negotiate with the union as an industry. It is no way near a level playing field, totally slanted against the employers. Only financial disaster and transplant competition got the union to get reasonable on many things. Of course, Obama's clear preference of the UAW over creditors and bondholders also helped the UAW get a better deal against a BK GM and Chrysler than most workers in the same situation would have gotten.
Of course, Obama's clear preference of the UAW over creditors and bondholders also helped the UAW get a better deal against a BK GM and Chrysler than most workers in the same situation would have gotten.
Apparently this was not an impeachable offense. Should have been.
Your comparative youthfulness is apparent, if you think the Toyota line of today is representative of the types of choices we had in, say, a Chevrolet line-up of 'back then'. 1975: Eight lines of cars...not counting trucks or SUV's. Impala series: two coupe bodies, four-door sedan, four-door hardtop, two and three seat wagons, and a convertible in the Caprice trim. Sixteen colors. Multiple interior options. It was great. And I didn't start to dislike American iron until they began to imitate the foreign makes, and utilize front-drive.
There are fewer GM choices. Isn't that a reflection of their failed brand strategy, anyway?
As a market, the auto market today is far more diverse than it ever was in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. Many more makes. Many more models. Many more choices. Much more horsepower, luxury, safety, and economy. I wouldn't go back to those old days for anything.
Pro-Camaro? Oooh, you're ******* in the Wheaties of one particular member here! You know, the one who said they were being discounted before they were even for sale.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
There are fewer American auto choices by far, compared to back then. Opinions are fine of course, but if you can't see that, you simply mustn't have been around, or have been an auto buff, then. The domestic industry copied those negative aspects of the imports too, I'm afraid.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yes, and $10K more for the ZL1. That's what big brother is for. Sorry, Chevy!
What's the verdict? As Randy puts it, "The Mustang was my favorite American muslcecar...until today." Does that mean the rivalry is over? Not by a long shot. There's a rematch in the wings, one that's coming as soon as we can get our hands on the 2013 Ford Shelby GT500 and its 650 supercharged horses.
Checkmate! :shades:
Eating Wheaties: "Breakfast of Champions". Eating Camaro: Mustang!
As a market, the auto market today is far more diverse than it ever was in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. Many more makes. Many more models. Many more choices. Much more horsepower, luxury, safety, and economy. I wouldn't go back to those old days for anything.
Personally, I think there are a lot fewer choices, but what's happened over the years is that the choices that fewer buyers went for have been weeded out. For instance, we usually only have 6-10 colors to pick from rather than 20, but that's because some of those colors only had a few hues of separation, while others were simply vomit-inducing.
Once upon a time we might have had 6 or more engine choices where now we only have two or three. For instance, on my '76 LeMans you could get a 250-6, V-8's in the 260, 350-2bbl, 350-4bbl, 400-4bbl, and 455-4bbl range. But that's because in those days you either got fuel economy or some semblance of performance, but not both. And California's stricter emissions requirements meant some engines were banned there, while others were only offered there. Nowadays, your typical midsized car with a 4-cyl engine probably does 0-60 in 8-9 seconds on the "street start", although C&D and MT will get quicker times by power-braking and such. In 1976, the only one of those LeMans engines that would have even broken the 10 second barrier would have been the 455, and even then, not by much. The 250 and 260 probably took about 20 seconds or more to get from 0-60, while the 350's were around 12-13. The 4-bbl was a California model, equipped with a smog pump, so it was probably no quicker than the 2-bbl that the other 49 states got. I saw an old road test of a 1977 LeMans police car with the 400, and it took something like 11.4 seconds to hit 60!
So basically, what the manufacturers did was get rid of a lot of those sucky, slow engines, while focusing on an entry-level engine that gets good performance with a focus on economy, and a performance engine that still has economy as a goal.
As for body styles and trim levels. Well, in '76, they often took what was just the same car, and call it different names to make you think there were more choices than there really were. Using my LeMans as an example again, that year they had three different series: LeMans, LeMans Sport Coupe, and Grand LeMans. The wagons were called LeMans Safari or Grand LeMans Safari. So they'd throw a bunch of names around which today are just trim levels, like LX, EX, et al.
They did offer a wide variety of options in those days, but that's because cars usually came pretty stripped. Nowadays everybody wants power windows, locks, air conditioning, a nice stereo, tilt wheel, power seats, and so on. And nobody wants a vinyl interior anymore, or those low-grade fabrics that were actually cheaper than the vinyl.
As for body styles, there simply aren't that many people who want a coupe anymore, and now that everything has air conditioning, most people don't care about open-air motoring anymore. So, with the exception of Mercedes Benz, I think the hardtop has gone the way of the dinosaur. And while there are still convertibles, with both fabric and metal roofs, they don't offer them across just about every single model like they did back in the 50's and 60's.
One thing that I really don't like these days, is how often a midsized car isn't that much bigger than a compact, and what passes for a "full-sized" car these days is only marginally bigger than a midsize. But, to a degree, there's always been some overlap in size classes. My compact '68 Dart had more legroom up front than my full-sized '67 Catalina or '69 Bonneville, for example. And in 4-door form, the Dart in those days had more legroom in the back than a GM B-body, as well! Many cars got big back in the 60's and 70's, but without a meaningful increase in interior room. It was all about style, prestige, and "mine's bigger".
I do like playing around with old cars as a pasttime, going to shows and such. And I like driving my old cars in nice weather and on short trips. But, to depend on them day in and day out, no way. I still remember how my '79 5th Ave would stall out at random when I had to depend on it during the gap between when my 2000 Intrepid got totaled, and I bought my Park Ave. And driving my '76 LeMans almost 200 miles in the rain last year, coming back from a car show, and having to deal with those clunky 2-speed wipers with no delay feature. And no rear window defroster, either. Ahh yes, those were the days! :P
I have a buddy with a '74 Avanti II and he also has a '70 Coupe de Ville. If it's not Pharoah Gold, it has to be close...dark brown vinyl top and gold brocade cloth interior. His folks always had Caddys ('56, '60, '65, '67, '70, '73, '76 and '78 Sevilles) and this one was too good to pass up at the price. Nice car. I drove it once...should have flags on all four corners!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
This is a single page from the 1971 Barracuda brochure. 7 engine options. 18 colors. And [ interesting to me ] shows both gross and net HP ratings ....
I believe compared to the old days, most stuff is meant to be installed one way...the easiest way. If the componentry didn't change,
Tell that to the people that got GM-made vehicles with no brake pads.
If there is only one way to install brake pads, I guess that way is to not install them at all. Did the brake pads change from one year to the next causing the issue and failure? Maybe.. Maybe they got delivered differently causing the confusion and lack of quality control?
Whereas, being someone that knows a thing or two about audio, it is EASY to criss-cross a wire, or have a bad connection with one wire, that may not completely fail the system, but say, could become loose over time and cause issues later on.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Wait...was there a previous-year Sonic to compare this to?
I didn't think so.
I'd say the brakes on a '13 and '14 Sonic will be the same brakes on the '12.
Why so many people refuse to believe this kind of thing over sample error, which is totally understandable, is a mystery to me.
I think one thing's pretty certain...they probably won't revise brakes in '13 and '14 and go back to using the '12 brakes in '15. That's the kind of thing you see in CR reliability ratings. Although, as Andre pointed out, it's not so much that they got worse, than better, they're being compared to other cars. But it makes it look like "stay away from this year, buy this year, stay away from this year"...when they are in all reality the same cars.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
We can also thank the millions of Americans, who starting back in 80's, had an open mind and looked at, test drove and bought Japanese brands.
I recently commended and complimented my father on having the foresight, intelligence, and forward-research based thinking, to having purchased a 1982 Honda Accord 5-speed manual way back in 1982 brand new.
I told him that was a great decision getting that amazing Honda, as he bought Honda before Honda had Honda's REPUTATION. But cars like that Accord built that reputation.
He had also got an early 80's Audi wagon, but that was before Audi became an expensive luxury car maker really. Of course, the Audi's back then weren't reliable like they are now, it had electrical gremlins, but the powertrain ran forever (and was strong). The '87 Jetta cleared 100K miles but still had electrical issues and the clutch seemed to wear out rather quickly and regularly (say every 40K miles or so I think?). But it shows he was happy enough with the Audi to try VW again. He never did buy another Honda, as they became a Toyota family; which were all pretty much flawless ('95 Camry, '01 Camry V6, late 80's or 1990's ish Subaru Wagon which was underpowered manual tranny). I think the '95 Camry and my Neon were the first Automatics in our family. The Camy's outlived the Neon's.
He told me something like "hey boy, I read and I research before making big decisions."
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I have that recent annual auto magazine CR issue. Tell me where to look to find swings of 2 dots or more in any direction, from one year to the next, and then back in the other direction 2 dots away or more please. I'd like to look at some examples.
A one dot difference (say open black outline dot vs. half black) is not a big enough difference to say this year was great, but stay away the next year.
AS cars age, they get less reliable. So you will see red dots start to turn black for older years for cars that aren't very durable.
And if sample error exists, it is just as likely to favor and benefit an automaker with BETTER than actual ratings, than it is to present WORSE than actual ratings. For all you know, sample error is making manufacturers look BETTER than they really are!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Strongly disagree. Workers (assembly and similar) were not the cause of GM bankruptcy. If they had too generous of wages, benefits, it was top management that caved in.
I agree with that statement.
Even if workers were incompetent, lazy, and performed shoddily (which I believe UAW workers did), managment could have had some FREAKIN' quality control to catch and correct errors, mis-aligned panels, rattles, and other failings. If the quality control workers fail to do their job adequately, it is MANAGEMENT's fault for not FIRING their butts and getting new people to do the job correctly.
I'm sure now I'll hear well it's the union's faults for making firing someone nearly impossible. It is still a managment failure though. If it was me in charge, and I couldn't fire someone because of the UAW, I'd put the incompetents on floor sweeping duty and hire new competent workers to actually do the real work competently. Sure, my labor costs would rise having multiple people for each individual job, but at least I wouldn't lose customers longterm due to shoddy product quality!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
but aren't legacy costs really just another way of saying a company borrowed from their future to pay for their present or past?
Seems a managment failure to me. Perhaps they underpriced their vehicles for many years? LOL. No, I think they let their costs go out of control, and one of those costs got the label of "legacy." All it really amounts to is a cost you put off until a later date.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Do you think this is a sampling error? Looks like something is wrong at Government Motors....
Looking at retail share, there are a couple of surprises. Toyota and Honda are bouncing back from last year's product shortages as expected, although inventories for Honda are still light. But what is happening with GM, with a share drop of 14% from last month? Some of this drop might be attributed to buyers returning to Toyota and Honda, but wouldn't that be felt more evenly by Ford, Chrysler and others — as well as GM?
We will have to wait a few weeks to see if this is just a blip or if something more is going on...
Comments
LOL.
Let me address this in several short points. Technology/design. After WWII, the U.S. was 5 steps ahead of everyone else. My point is the U.S. companies should hve advanced at the same rate as the competition, and kept 5 steps ahead. Instead they were lazy, or gave away their technology, and then let the foreign companies match or exceed them.
No legacy costs to deal with.
And why did the Big 3 have such high legacy costs? Because when they had a monopoly on the market, they could get enough $ to make all those promises. And when they did see competition from foreigners, what did they do. They continued their relatively high pay and added to their legacy costs. EVEN TODAY, you see GM and the others paying out bonuses (many thousands to each employee)!
Open market here; closed markets there.
As I said before it is very stupid of our industry leaders and government. They think short-term and maximum short-term profits. If they thought long-term they would not have shared technology, and they would not have allowed countries that directly subsidized their industries to sell here. It's good for GM's bottom line to make and sell vehicles in China isn't it? Do you think it's good for this country?
Things change and that never stops. Now that cars are a commodity, GM is slowest to adapt.
Regards,
OW
I must just have good eyes. I found a better car for lower cost. And it was a GM.
gets mid 30's on the highway, over 500 mile range, and it beat all others on cost. Very smooth and quiet and helps workers in the Warren MI and KC area make a good paycheck.
It's not lower cost on its own merit. The way GM is run they would have to charge much more, if they didn't have any government subsidies - bailout + no income tax.
So yes I can open a restauarant and sell $10 T-Bone dinners, and pay the cooks $20/hr + benefits; if the U.S. government gives me $$, and doesn't tax me!
helps workers in the Warren MI and KC area make a good paycheck.
I'm not against the people of MI and KC making a good wage - IF they deserve it. Making autos is a commodity since our industries and governement have allowed the technology to be spread worldwide. The people assembling vehicles in MI and KC are competing against other people world-wide who have those same skills. So if your skills are no better than someone in China, I don't see where you can expect to earn a good-wage. It's nothing but welfare to corporations. And yes Europe is guilty of subsidizing their industry and it has caught up to most of them. Government after government, and economy after economy is going to go down.
The U.S. is headed towards that same brickwall. We're robbing from the future, to keep most people happy now. Artificial "Good paychecks" is not a good thing, when it is borrowed $ they are spending! :mad:
It's fairly stupid for GM and the U.S. to transfer technology, train their students, and build heavy industry in China.
Me too. Wife loves her Aura. My 2006 Silverado is beginning to feel like some of my old F-150s...like it will run forever.... and while there are more and more internet reports of premature frame rust on late model (2005 and newer) Toyota Tacomas and Tundras my frame has virtually none.
If and when Toyota ends their truck frame buyback/replacement policy there will be a ton of uhappy Toyota owners.
Can you please provide proof that GM lost money selling me my car. And also provide proof that after March 1, 2012, they were reimbursed for these losses by the gov. (The day after I bought my Chev). Until such proof is provided, your statement is bogus.
You know the government doesn't give GM $ everyday or every car they sell. The $60B in bailouts a couple of years ago holds them over nicely for awhile. Oh and April 15th is coming soon. You personally will probably pay more income tax than all of GM! (maybe I'm exaggerating a little there).
GM once had 50% market-share and a large amount of assets and cash back in that day. The decades that followed saw GM workers destroy that. They ran the company into the ground, taking out of it more than they were putting in. This is nothing new, and what leads to BK.
Profit per unit is interesting because it tells us something about the demand for a manufacturer's automobiles, and about how well that manufacturer is controlling its costs. The ones with the highest unit profit are obviously doing things better since, as I said at the top of this piece, their Number One reason for existing is to make money.
The numbers for 2010 shake out like this.
Daimler (Mercedes-Benz) is #1 with $3316 profit per unit. BMW is second with an average profit of $3000 per unit. In third place is the French automaker, Renault, with $1741 per unit. Here's the complete list:
Daimler 3316
BMW 3000
Renault 1741
Nissan 1500
Ford 1320
VW 1288
Honda 833
Hyundai 810
GM 553
PSA 417
Tata 400
Toyota 349
Fiat 292
Mazda 154
Chrysler -438
I suspect GM is doing better at the moment but as you pointed out, it's real nice evaporating all of the debt from years of mismanagement and greed.
Go Boss 302 Mustang! :shades:
Regards,
OW
Strongly agree.
American brand buyers have the Japanese to thank for the improvements in quality/reliability in recent years.
We can also thank the millions of Americans, who starting back in 80's, had an open mind and looked at, test drove and bought Japanese brands. I was one who was a long time GM brand buyer that looked at GM and other American brands in 1984, then test drove 3 different Japanese brands. My eyes were opened at the superiority in every respect of the Honda I bought over test drives and looks at equivalent size/segment cars of the American brands.
American people with open minds looked at, test drove and bought Japanese brands to such an extent that the American brands, eventually, got a clue. But, they would have not done that absent the threat of Japanese brands taking away market share.
Strongly disagree. Workers (assembly and similar) were not the cause of GM bankruptcy. If they had too generous of wages, benefits, it was top management that caved in.
Top management is ultimately responsible for failure, bankruptcy of a company such as GM. Workers such as assembly can only put together the parts and pieces that engineers and accountants have specified as per the goals, policies and directives established by top management.
And also the increased 'vanilla blandness' of today's cars, sadly, not to mention lack of choices we used to take for granted. Sigh.
I'm not saying what % each contributed to the downfall; that's another topic.
Basically what happened is that GM became weaker and weaker thru the mid-70's until 2008. It acquired more legacy costs, had acquired and added divisions that weren't doing well, paid some of the best wages in the world, and basically alienated a lot of former customers. They were Weak. When a crisis hit, and they always will in the future, GM did not have enough cash to run its business. The government poured $$ in numerous ways into the auto industry, and then helped GM thru BK.
The government helped clear the old debt, and gave GM large sums of cash, by issuing themselves stock, which allowed GM to keep their development of new models and other operations going. If the government hadn't stepped in, GM was paying out more $ than they were taking in. The only way for GM to break even would have been to increase prices, to bring in more $$. With the government providing the $60B or so, they kept GM from having to increase each vehicle they sold by many thousands of $$. So yes each and every vehicle you see being sold by GM, or each and every bonus GM hands out is subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer.
GM received their welfare all at once during 2008-09, as it was deeemed politically safer. It would not have been palatable to many politicians and the public if the government made the bailout $500M/month for the next 10 years, as they would keep popping up on peoples' radar. GM is a welfare-case whether you want to hear it or not. The stigma of that is why Ford wanted no part of it, and Chrysler and GM were reluctant at first, though they were in such bad shape that they had to take it. Ford was much happier hocking-everything, than having to go on U.S. welfare.
But if the battery pack lasts 12 years, and it under warranty for 10, you come out slightly ahead.
The 2nd battery pack last far longer than the 13th year.
Also, uplanderguy says buy local, well, that extra $550 in gas ends up being imported. Over the 12 year life span of the battery that's $6600 total, most of which probably ends up in Russia.
Don't the batteries come from Canada? That's what Top Gear claimed, anyway.
Not really, it's just disguised as something else...
sedan = Camry
coupe = Solara (discontinued, however)
wagon = Venza
crossover = Highlander
minivan = Sienna
luxury car = ES
lux cross = RX
and so on. All are Camry-based.
It's kinda like the F "Series". Several wheelbases, lengths, door configurations, bed lengths, but underneath it's all on the same basic chassis. Heck, most use the same basic engine, too (2GR V6). And transmission.
They just do a better job differentiating the styling.
Look how many GM cars were on the Epsilon platform, everything from a Pontiac G6 to a Saab 9-3 to the euro-only Caddy BLX.
So you still have lots of choices, but they have different labels.
At least the GM derivatives are cars. Oh well, I can still get an E-class in a coupe, sedan, convertible, and wagon (A4 is similar too), so it's not all lost.
Your comparative youthfulness is apparent, if you think the Toyota line of today is representative of the types of choices we had in, say, a Chevrolet line-up of 'back then'. 1975: Eight lines of cars...not counting trucks or SUV's. Impala series: two coupe bodies, four-door sedan, four-door hardtop, two and three seat wagons, and a convertible in the Caprice trim. Sixteen colors. Multiple interior options. It was great. And I didn't start to dislike American iron until they began to imitate the foreign makes, and utilize front-drive.
In a roundabout way, yes. The raw resources for the batteries come from Canada, where it's mined out of the ground through a process so dirty that NASA declared the surrounding area a dead zone or something like that, and uses it to run tests that need to simulate a lifeless environment.
Then, I believe it gets shipped off to China for some kind of refinement, then to Europe where the batteries themselves are finalized. Or maybe I have that backwards...could be Europe first, then China. Then, back to Japan, where they put the batteries in the hybrid cars. And then ship 'em over to the United States.
All told, the process is so filthy and hard on the environment, between all the mining, shipping, etc, that if you really want the warm, fuzzies that come from hugging a tree, you're almost better off just buying an Expedition or Suburban!
I agree that top management is ultimately responsible, but the union doesn't get off Scott free either. Labor laws let them pick one company to target in negotiations thereby giving them tremendous leverage to force the D3 firm they picked into capitulation, especially in a highly leveraged, high capital industry like autos. If the D3 companies worked together against the union (lockouts, sharing positions, etc.) that would be against the law. In fact, I don't think they can even cooperatively team negotiate with the union as an industry. It is no way near a level playing field, totally slanted against the employers. Only financial disaster and transplant competition got the union to get reasonable on many things. Of course, Obama's clear preference of the UAW over creditors and bondholders also helped the UAW get a better deal against a BK GM and Chrysler than most workers in the same situation would have gotten.
Apparently this was not an impeachable offense. Should have been.
There are fewer GM choices. Isn't that a reflection of their failed brand strategy, anyway?
As a market, the auto market today is far more diverse than it ever was in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. Many more makes. Many more models. Many more choices. Much more horsepower, luxury, safety, and economy. I wouldn't go back to those old days for anything.
What they say about pictures?
Sorry couldn't resist.
What's the verdict? As Randy puts it, "The Mustang was my favorite American muslcecar...until today." Does that mean the rivalry is over? Not by a long shot. There's a rematch in the wings, one that's coming as soon as we can get our hands on the 2013 Ford Shelby GT500 and its 650 supercharged horses.
Checkmate! :shades:
Eating Wheaties: "Breakfast of Champions". Eating Camaro: Mustang!
Regards,
OW
Couldn't be caused of a failed many decades run, now, could it? :surprise:
Regards,
OW
Personally, I think there are a lot fewer choices, but what's happened over the years is that the choices that fewer buyers went for have been weeded out. For instance, we usually only have 6-10 colors to pick from rather than 20, but that's because some of those colors only had a few hues of separation, while others were simply vomit-inducing.
Once upon a time we might have had 6 or more engine choices where now we only have two or three. For instance, on my '76 LeMans you could get a 250-6, V-8's in the 260, 350-2bbl, 350-4bbl, 400-4bbl, and 455-4bbl range. But that's because in those days you either got fuel economy or some semblance of performance, but not both. And California's stricter emissions requirements meant some engines were banned there, while others were only offered there. Nowadays, your typical midsized car with a 4-cyl engine probably does 0-60 in 8-9 seconds on the "street start", although C&D and MT will get quicker times by power-braking and such. In 1976, the only one of those LeMans engines that would have even broken the 10 second barrier would have been the 455, and even then, not by much. The 250 and 260 probably took about 20 seconds or more to get from 0-60, while the 350's were around 12-13. The 4-bbl was a California model, equipped with a smog pump, so it was probably no quicker than the 2-bbl that the other 49 states got. I saw an old road test of a 1977 LeMans police car with the 400, and it took something like 11.4 seconds to hit 60!
So basically, what the manufacturers did was get rid of a lot of those sucky, slow engines, while focusing on an entry-level engine that gets good performance with a focus on economy, and a performance engine that still has economy as a goal.
As for body styles and trim levels. Well, in '76, they often took what was just the same car, and call it different names to make you think there were more choices than there really were. Using my LeMans as an example again, that year they had three different series: LeMans, LeMans Sport Coupe, and Grand LeMans. The wagons were called LeMans Safari or Grand LeMans Safari. So they'd throw a bunch of names around which today are just trim levels, like LX, EX, et al.
They did offer a wide variety of options in those days, but that's because cars usually came pretty stripped. Nowadays everybody wants power windows, locks, air conditioning, a nice stereo, tilt wheel, power seats, and so on. And nobody wants a vinyl interior anymore, or those low-grade fabrics that were actually cheaper than the vinyl.
As for body styles, there simply aren't that many people who want a coupe anymore, and now that everything has air conditioning, most people don't care about open-air motoring anymore. So, with the exception of Mercedes Benz, I think the hardtop has gone the way of the dinosaur. And while there are still convertibles, with both fabric and metal roofs, they don't offer them across just about every single model like they did back in the 50's and 60's.
One thing that I really don't like these days, is how often a midsized car isn't that much bigger than a compact, and what passes for a "full-sized" car these days is only marginally bigger than a midsize. But, to a degree, there's always been some overlap in size classes. My compact '68 Dart had more legroom up front than my full-sized '67 Catalina or '69 Bonneville, for example. And in 4-door form, the Dart in those days had more legroom in the back than a GM B-body, as well! Many cars got big back in the 60's and 70's, but without a meaningful increase in interior room. It was all about style, prestige, and "mine's bigger".
I do like playing around with old cars as a pasttime, going to shows and such. And I like driving my old cars in nice weather and on short trips. But, to depend on them day in and day out, no way. I still remember how my '79 5th Ave would stall out at random when I had to depend on it during the gap between when my 2000 Intrepid got totaled, and I bought my Park Ave. And driving my '76 LeMans almost 200 miles in the rain last year, coming back from a car show, and having to deal with those clunky 2-speed wipers with no delay feature. And no rear window defroster, either. Ahh yes, those were the days! :P
7 engine options.
18 colors.
And [ interesting to me ] shows both gross and net HP ratings ....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/rayainsw/1971Cudaengineandotheroptionsbro- chure8.jpg
Tell that to the people that got GM-made vehicles with no brake pads.
If there is only one way to install brake pads, I guess that way is to not install them at all. Did the brake pads change from one year to the next causing the issue and failure? Maybe.. Maybe they got delivered differently causing the confusion and lack of quality control?
Whereas, being someone that knows a thing or two about audio, it is EASY to criss-cross a wire, or have a bad connection with one wire, that may not completely fail the system, but say, could become loose over time and cause issues later on.
I didn't think so.
I'd say the brakes on a '13 and '14 Sonic will be the same brakes on the '12.
Why so many people refuse to believe this kind of thing over sample error, which is totally understandable, is a mystery to me.
I think one thing's pretty certain...they probably won't revise brakes in '13 and '14 and go back to using the '12 brakes in '15. That's the kind of thing you see in CR reliability ratings. Although, as Andre pointed out, it's not so much that they got worse, than better, they're being compared to other cars. But it makes it look like "stay away from this year, buy this year, stay away from this year"...when they are in all reality the same cars.
I recently commended and complimented my father on having the foresight, intelligence, and forward-research based thinking, to having purchased a 1982 Honda Accord 5-speed manual way back in 1982 brand new.
I told him that was a great decision getting that amazing Honda, as he bought Honda before Honda had Honda's REPUTATION. But cars like that Accord built that reputation.
He had also got an early 80's Audi wagon, but that was before Audi became an expensive luxury car maker really. Of course, the Audi's back then weren't reliable like they are now, it had electrical gremlins, but the powertrain ran forever (and was strong). The '87 Jetta cleared 100K miles but still had electrical issues and the clutch seemed to wear out rather quickly and regularly (say every 40K miles or so I think?). But it shows he was happy enough with the Audi to try VW again. He never did buy another Honda, as they became a Toyota family; which were all pretty much flawless ('95 Camry, '01 Camry V6, late 80's or 1990's ish Subaru Wagon which was underpowered manual tranny). I think the '95 Camry and my Neon were the first Automatics in our family. The Camy's outlived the Neon's.
He told me something like "hey boy, I read and I research before making big decisions."
A one dot difference (say open black outline dot vs. half black) is not a big enough difference to say this year was great, but stay away the next year.
AS cars age, they get less reliable. So you will see red dots start to turn black for older years for cars that aren't very durable.
And if sample error exists, it is just as likely to favor and benefit an automaker with BETTER than actual ratings, than it is to present WORSE than actual ratings. For all you know, sample error is making manufacturers look BETTER than they really are!
I agree with that statement.
Even if workers were incompetent, lazy, and performed shoddily (which I believe UAW workers did), managment could have had some FREAKIN' quality control to catch and correct errors, mis-aligned panels, rattles, and other failings. If the quality control workers fail to do their job adequately, it is MANAGEMENT's fault for not FIRING their butts and getting new people to do the job correctly.
I'm sure now I'll hear well it's the union's faults for making firing someone nearly impossible. It is still a managment failure though. If it was me in charge, and I couldn't fire someone because of the UAW, I'd put the incompetents on floor sweeping duty and hire new competent workers to actually do the real work competently. Sure, my labor costs would rise having multiple people for each individual job, but at least I wouldn't lose customers longterm due to shoddy product quality!
I think bailouts should be an impeachable offense. And everyone in congress and the senate who voted for them should be removed from office as well.
Heck, it should be a Treasoness offense!
but aren't legacy costs really just another way of saying a company borrowed from their future to pay for their present or past?
Seems a managment failure to me. Perhaps they underpriced their vehicles for many years? LOL. No, I think they let their costs go out of control, and one of those costs got the label of "legacy." All it really amounts to is a cost you put off until a later date.
Looking at retail share, there are a couple of surprises. Toyota and Honda are bouncing back from last year's product shortages as expected, although inventories for Honda are still light. But what is happening with GM, with a share drop of 14% from last month? Some of this drop might be attributed to buyers returning to Toyota and Honda, but wouldn't that be felt more evenly by Ford, Chrysler and others — as well as GM?
We will have to wait a few weeks to see if this is just a blip or if something more is going on...
A Look at March Sales Pacing
Get ready for the stock to tank! :lemon:
Regards,
OW