Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

The Current State of the US Auto Market

18485878990130

Comments

  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    "Since the '70's? That's news to me. That's when GM creamed everyone else in sales each year, by the hundreds of thousands if not more."

    Yes. The beginning of the long slide into Bankruptcy, Failure and Embarrassment.

    "The 1971 Chevrolet Vega was GM's launch into the new subcompact class to compete against the import's increasing market share. Problems associated with its innovative aluminum engine led to the model's discontinuation after seven model years in 1977. During the late 1970s, GM would initiate a wave of downsizing starting with the Chevrolet Caprice which was reborn into what was the size of the Chevrolet Chevelle, the Malibu would be the size of the Nova, and the Nova was replaced by the troubled front-wheel drive Chevrolet Citation. In 1976, Chevrolet came out with the rear-wheel drive sub compact Chevette.

    While GM maintained its world leadership in revenue and market share throughout the 1960s to 1980s, it was product controversy that plagued the company in this period. It seemed that, in every decade, a major mass-production product line was launched with defects of one type or another showing up early in their life cycle. And, in each case, improvements were eventually made to mitigate the problems, but the resulting improved product ended up failing in the marketplace as its negative reputation overshadowed its ultimate excellence.

    The first of these fiascos was the Chevrolet Corvair in the 1960s. Introduced in 1959 as a 1960 model, it was initially very popular. But before long its quirky handling earned it a reputation for being unsafe, inspiring consumer advocate Ralph Nader to lambaste it in his book, Unsafe at Any Speed, published in 1965. Ironically, by the same (1965) model year, suspension revisions and other improvements had already transformed the car into a perfectly acceptable vehicle, but its reputation had been sufficiently sullied in the public's perception that its sales sagged for the next few years, and it was discontinued after the 1969 model year. During this period, it was also somewhat overwhelmed by the success of the Ford Mustang.

    The 1970s was the decade of the Vega. Launched as a 1971 model, it also began life as a very popular car in the marketplace. But within a few years, quality problems, exacerbated by labor unrest at its main production source in Lordstown, Ohio, gave the car a bad name. By 1977 its decline resulted in termination of the model name, while its siblings along with a Monza version and a move of production to Ste-Thérèse, Quebec, resulted in a thoroughly desirable vehicle and extended its life to the 1980 model year."
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Those of us who lived through the 70s definitely, positively knew that the American auto industry was doing something very wrong. Aside from the usual dead horses like the Vega and Pinto, and aside from the humiliating death of the muscle car (which, I remember distinctly, was excused by the D3 by saying the government is to blame, we can't possibly make a good car with that emissions junk on it), there was the D3's non-response to the mini pickup market, the D3s contempt for Japanese and German products ("they're too small---they ride too hard--Americans won't buy them, blah blah") and lastly, the D3s laggard response to the prospect of higher fuel prices (just look at the SIZE of American cars from 1979-1985, and plot that size and weight against a graph of fuel prices 1979-1985. What do you see? You see evidence that D3 didn't even care.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    GM is no longer making crappy cars but it cost a lot to change the game. Too bad the past disease remains alive and well underlying a basis for failure once again.

    Using the cancer analogy, GM is in remission but is not really cured yet.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Can you just imagine what expensive piles of crap American cars would be today if the Japanese hadn't come over and set up assembly plants in the States? Duopoly vs. competition!
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,027
    edited November 2013
    All the talk of the Vega won't offset the other many sales successes GM had in the '70's. The '77 B-and C-bodies were revolutionary. In its seventh year of the body and chassis, the Caprice Classic still made Car and Driver's Ten Best list (1983). No doubt the Vega was a goof, but to dismiss everything they made for that decade is foolishness IMHO. Look what so many cars of that era bring, money-wise, today.

    Personally, I much-more enjoyed shopping for new cars in that period. Way more choices than today in colors, interiors, trim levels, optional equipment, etc. We've discussed this many times before, but it was also possible for a working stiff to buy a new car every three years or so. I make ten times now what I did in 1980, but I still can't (won't) buy a new car as often now as I did then.

    All I'm saying is, I've always read about the marketplace and I remember no one saying GM was doomed for failure in the '70's. The sales reports will tell it all if one chooses to look.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I've pointed out the excellent job GM did downsizing their big car in '77 before. Unfortunately they didn't do that consistently on other vehicles. Economic Duopoly protected GM for a long time. But when the Asians moved plants here under pressure from the auto industry and the UAW, competition grew and it took Detroit way too long to adjust to the new economic model.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,027
    edited November 2013
    I guess that unfortunately I responded to your response, when you weren't the person who made it seem like the Corvair and the Vega were the only two products GM built in twenty years. ;)

    GM had sales successes that every other manufacturer could only dream of--even well, well into the seventies. Ignoring those is revisionist history. A simple look at sales numbers will confirm that.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Yep, but as an auditor I think you know full well the dangers of running regressions based on unadjusted history. The game changed big time in the 80's and beyond. Suddenly, D3 sales in the 70's were becoming a statistical outlier when projecting the future.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited November 2013
    GM in the 1970s was "revolutionary" compared to a 1935 Buick, yes, but year to year market share fell and fell, with a few bumps up here and there. No one with a glance at D3 market share 1965-1985 vs. Import market share 1965-1985 could think anything other than *disaster*, unless of course you were on the 14th floor of GM headquarters. Then you thought everything was rosy and that little bright spots in 1975 and such were more significant that 20 year trending.

    This is such a common pattern among American automakers. They really suck at looking at the Big Picture and longterm performance. They produce a one-hit wonder, get a plastic trophy from a magazine, and they think it's all going to turn around.

    There are only a few possible answers to the Downfall of the D3---either they really couldn't read simple market share charts, or they really thought that American car buyers were hallucinating and would soon come to their senses or they really thought that their cars were as good as the Japanese, Swedes and Germans.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    GM had sales successes that every other manufacturer could only dream of--even well, well into the seventies.

    Yes, but you also know that perceptions lag reality. The beginnings of the GM's demise started in the '70's and accelerated in the '80's. The sales numbers reflected the historic reputation of GM, and the sales held on a long, long time after the products were going downhill. Similar to Toyota's situation today IMHO.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    There are only a few possible answers to the Downfall of the D3---either they really couldn't read simple market share charts, or they really thought that American car buyers were hallucinating and would soon come to their senses or they really thought that their cars were as good as the Japanese, Swedes and Germans.

    I think there are a few reasons.

    The midwest and Michigan culture was very pro-union and pro-Amercian, and they weren't very aware of what was going on at the coasts.

    Their culture was so insular that they pretty much discounted/ignored their pesky competition from overseas making those little cars. They couldn't fathom that large numbers of customers would find those foreign vehicles appealing.

    They were too arrogant to actually look at the competing products and ask what things were better about them than their own production vehicles.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    yeah I think there is an element of truth in what you say as well.

    I remember when I was living in Colorado and had recently opened a modest little auto repair shop, in the late 70s. We had a great auto parts store in town where I sourced most of my needs, and one day they were having a huge debate on whether to gear up and stock more foreign parts. The store owner was leaning towards doing it and the store manager, kind of a cowboy type, was dead set against it. He really knew American cars and was good at his job but he hated, hated foreign cars (also a young guy, so no excuse for World War II residue).

    I voted to pour on the foreign parts because even as a little guy I could see what was coming. All the mechanics in town could see it, because they were working on the cars.

    I remember the first time I took apart an engine on a Toyota pickup truck. The quality of the castings and the precision of the engine just amazed me, given the cost of the truck. Also it felt like the future of engine tech, not the past of it.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,072
    edited November 2013
    I think that's it exactly - insular or even isolated in a way. People from most areas are guilty of thinking the nation revolves around their region, and I think those running Detroit were no different. On the coasts, the foreign invasion and takeover of the upper and middle markets was in full swing, while in the middle, foreign cars were still uncommon. It's like the suits never took a field trip to see what the market was embracing in LA or NY or even Seattle or Boston etc, all areas where foreign cars were big a long time ago, and areas that today are known to be early adopters.

    It'd be interesting to study where it came from...the "I've never been more than three states away, so nothing past that exists", or stubbornness/arrogance, or even thinking the coasts were wrong and it was not going to last forever.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Having grown up and lived on and off in the Midwest, I'm going to play devil's advocate on this topic with my perception of why Detroit hung on longer in the Midwest (besides the D3 and vendor factories). I'm not saying I'm right, but I think it was more a supply issue than a demand one. When Japan first started growing, most of the production was imported into the US. Japan initially had constraints in production over there, so they started on the coasts where the big ocean ports were located. As things expanded, the use of distributorships made it economical at the time to then expand through the smaller ports in the Southeast and Texas. As they started planning and building transplants over here, just then did Japan start opening many Midwestern dealerships. Trust me, there were plenty of people fed up with Detroit quality and pricing in the Midwest, but there was initially a paucity of dealerships and product available. Way more people in the Midwest have nothing to do with the auto industry than do, outside of Detroit and a few localized areas in places like Ohio. Now Chicago, where I grew up was a big GM town even though Ford had a large local factory. But when the Honda and Toyota dealerships came, they started moving product out the door by the boatloads, often at sticker or above. Today, the big Asian dealerships still do well throughout the Midwest, but it's now more about pricing I think, than quality. I believe the reason the Midwest has more D3 dealerships is two-fold; all the rural small town dealers which focus on trucks and SUV's, and the fact that Asian producers tend to have fewer, but often large, dealerships in a marketing area than D3. BTW, VW sold pretty well in the Midwestern cities prior to the Asian invasion. There were a fair number of them in the shopping area parking lots, particularly given they were a small car in an area with sometimes big people! Well, that's my take on it all.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I think that while Toyota can conveniently blame the tsunami, their real problem was the non family chief exec (Wanatabe or something like that). I'm pretty sure he was a US Ivy League MBA and seemed to start focusing Toyota more like a Detroit firm. The Toyoda family is now back in charge, so I expect to see them back to their old ways in the near future. But realistically, the quality playing field is getting more level, so pricing is going to probably start becoming more of a customer focus than brand and quality. Honestly, that may help the Koreans most.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,382
    I think it is quote plausible that the "worst" new car today is better than the best from not that many years ago, in terms of quality.

    there really are no bad cars anymore.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    True....there aren't any grossly incompetent cars like there were in the 1970s and early 80s (many ran like crap, ate gas, rusted away, steered and handled like mom's couch), but you can still find plently of "glitchy" cars that have built-in factory defects that require multiple attempts at sorting.

    But in terms of performance and durability, cars today are miles ahead.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,072
    That does make sense, coastal dealer networks and parts supplies were no doubt better than those 1000+ miles inland. The truck tradition is a big part of it in some places, too.

    Still, I just have a feeling that the ivory tower suits dismissed the German luxury entrants and the Camcord invasion, didn't notice as these cars spread like wildfire in early adopter areas, and by the time they did react, they were playing a game of catch-up that in some ways still exists.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,072
    For several years now, I've heard a saying that goes something like "a 3 year old car today is as good or better than a new car was 10 years ago". I think that saying was especially true 10 or 15 years ago.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Hey even Mercedes got caught with their pants down when Lexus arrived. They were clueless, blind-sided and arrogant until their first test drive. Then their blood ran cold. I still remember the headline in Automobile magazine after they road tested the new LS400:

    "Executives from BMW and Mercedes----call your home office!"
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,072
    edited November 2013
    I think the biggest impact to MB was that Lexus forced lower profit margins. MBs, especially in the upper range, have seen pretty low price inflation over the past 20 years. A 30K 190E from 1990 is a 36K C in 2014, a 90K 500SEL from 1992 is a 105K S550 for 2014. Not bad. I don't think Lexus forced better quality - heck, MBs got worse not long after Lexus came around.

    And still, Lexus has made more than one mis-step (get really boring, then become reactionary and add bizarre styling, which isn't setting sales afire), and continues to be more of a North American idea (Luxury EXperiment for the US) than elsewhere, while the others still sell by the boatload worldwide.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I think the clueless suits and the UAW, along with many politician types thought that forcing Japan to build here would ruin them. Forget that you preached about being patriotic by buying cars assembled in America, or that transplants would reduce Japan's transportation costs and allow them to be less impacted by currency fluctuations. Sometimes I wonder if the ivy league is better at teaching arrogance than common sense?
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Having grown up and lived on and off in the Midwest, I'm going to play devil's advocate on this topic with my perception of why Detroit hung on longer in the Midwest (besides the D3 and vendor factories). I'm not saying I'm right, but I think it was more a supply issue than a demand one.

    Well that's a bit inconsistent with the stories I heard. I had a good friend in the late '70's whose family was from MI, but now lived in southern California. They tended to drive Oldsmobiles, but then decided to get a VW Super Beetle for him when he graduated from HS. My friend went back to MI to visit grandma every year or so. I remember him telling me that if he had his VW in Michigan it would probably be keyed or have its tires slashed if he was parked in a large parking lot at a place like a mall or something (his grandparents lived in Dearborn I believe). I was incredulous, as being from CA I couldn't fathom such behavior.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,027
    I'm not being a wise guy, but "unadjusted history"? That's a new one. History is history. We shouldn't "adjust" it. ;)
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,027
    "(just look at the SIZE of American cars from 1979-1985, and plot that size and weight against a graph of fuel prices 1979-1985. What do you see? You see evidence that D3 didn't even care."

    Huh?

    You can say the domestic makers didn't do them well, but there wasn't a single domestic automobile in those years that wasn't smaller and lighter than the cars they replaced.

    First domestic front-drive compacts out in '78 (Chrysler) and GM ('79, as '80 models), also.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    edited November 2013
    Comical. I'm sure you know Berri meant this:

    "Many contract audit applications of regression analysis include variables which are affected by changes in wage and price levels. When economic changes have significantly affected any of the variables during the period covered by the historical data, the regression analysis applied to the raw data will not produce reliable results. In such cases it is necessary to (1) include a measure of economic change as a separate explanatory variable in multiple regression or (2) adjust the data to eliminate the effects of the economic changes."

    But of course, when it comes to GM, nothing ever goes wrong. ;)

    Right?:)
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    edited November 2013
    Only in the 1970s, after the first oil shock, did faults start to become visible. The finned and chromed V8-powered monsters beloved of Americans were replaced by dumpy, front-wheel-drive boxes designed to meet new rules (known as CAFE standards) limiting the average fuel economy of carmakers' fleets and to compete with Japanese imports. As well as being dull to look at, the new cars were less reliable than equivalent Japanese models.

    By the early 1980s it had begun to dawn on GM that the Japanese could not only make better cars but also do so far more efficiently. A joint venture with Toyota to manufacture cars in California was an eye-opener. It convinced GM's management that “lean” manufacturing was of the highest importance. Unfortunately, that meant still less attention being paid to the quality of the cars GM was turning out. Most were indistinguishable, badge-engineered nonentities. As the appeal of its products sank, so did the prices GM could ask. New ways had to be found to cut costs further, making the cars still less attractive to buyers.

    Respite came with the decline in oil prices from the late 1980s and an anomaly of the CAFE regulations that allowed passenger vehicles classed as light trucks a much slacker standard. Rather than invest in low-margin cars, GM and the two other Detroit firms concentrated on building profitable pickups and SUVs. After recovering from losses of over $30 billion in the early 1990s, the company was in trouble again at the beginning of the next decade. Its market share had been steadily falling (see chart 2), while higher interest rates and an economic downturn led to a pensions and benefits crisis.


    History is History. You can't change it! :shades:
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    image

    image

    These new cars and light trucks could not arrive too soon. With the exception of 2011 during which the company's U.S. market share edged up .4%, GM has bled share every year since (at least) 2007. And in 2012, this trend accelerated with the company's share sliding 1.7 points to 17.90*, its lowest level since the 1920s. If anything is going to stop GM's share decline, this impressive array of all-new or redesigned products should do it. In fact, GM has refrained from taking the pre-recession route of heaping on incentives to buy business, hoping instead that its redesigned and all-new products on their own will resonate sufficiently with the consumer to boost sales and share. Polk's U.S. Light Vehicle Forecast indicates that GM's share indeed will rise slightly in 2013 to the 18.0 – 18.5% range.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    edited November 2013
    esla is top seller in nation's wealthiest enclaves

    These sales aren't to the"Sheeple" some on this forum have labeled, are they?

    Just askin' 'cause I really don't know!
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,027
    Somehow, I'm now thinking of Cliff Clavin on 'Cheers'. ;)
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,027
    Back to the original statement: I seriously do not remember anyone making public statements that GM was doomed to failure, in the '70's.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Somehow, I'm thinking of Frank Slade from "Scent of a Woman". :)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Now find us a graph showing GM's profit the last decade or so.

    All this GM ragging is pretty tiring - the US auto market has a few other players you know.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    "his VW in Michigan it would probably be keyed or have its tires slashed if he was parked"

    I'd heard of that around some parts of Chicago, but I don't think it was really all that prevalent there. Detroit is it's own story. I haven't been into there for probably 4 or 5 years, but last time there I was reading a local paper in the hotel lobby waiting for the shuttle and actually saw an article that keying cars was still going on there. I was a bit surprised because there are more than a few imports there, especially in the suburbs. Detroit, as well as other auto plant towns are kind of unique though because so many people in those areas are eligible for A or X plan pricing that it can distort the ownership breakdown statistics.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    "All this GM ragging is pretty tiring - the US auto market has a few other players you know."

    You mean like Ford ecoboost and new Fiesta transmissions?
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited November 2013
    " I remember him telling me that if he had his VW in Michigan it would probably be keyed or have its tires slashed if he was parked in a large parking lot at a place like a mall or something (his grandparents lived in Dearborn I believe). I was incredulous, as being from CA I couldn't fathom such behavior."

    There is some truth to that during those times. I grew up around the steel mills and I remember seeing union members on TV taking sledge hammers to Toyotas to make a point in the late 70's and early 80's.

    I remember when my aunt and uncle bought a Honda in the late 80's. My grandpa wouldn't let them park it in his driveway. Now my dad and all his siblings drive foreign makes.

    My BIL works for a auto supplier in Grand Rapids, MI and he drives a Tundra and my SIL drives an odyssey and it's not a big deal anymore.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    "For several years now, I've heard a saying that goes something like "a 3 year old car today is as good or better than a new car was 10 years ago". I think that saying was especially true 10 or 15 years ago."

    Or 30. My aunt ordered a new '83 Mustang and it over heated and blew a head gasket on the way home from the dealer. IIRC, it was a casting issue in either the head or block. Anyway, it needed a new engine after 7 miles.

    My grandpa used to be a Ford salesman and I remember many of his demos had issues in the early 80's before he finally retired. Ford's in that era were really junk, probably why Ford nearly escaped bankruptcy back then.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    "You mean like Ford ecoboost and new Fiesta transmissions?"

    I know a guy that has a late model Focus and another with a Cruze Eco. Both have had trans problems. The Focus needed a clutch assembly replaced in the auto dual clutch trans and the Cruze Eco needed a master cylinder and something else in the hydraulics in the clutch replaced. It actually road on a hook to the dealer due to the clutch not disengaging.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I think Ford has been getting sort of a free ride in the press because they avoided the bailouts. The new management team did a great job with that, but I'm not sure they are fixing engineering and purchasing deficiencies at Ford. Looks like GM kind of kicked Ford's [non-permissible content removed] in the latest CR surveys and reviews.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Okay so they replaced big elephants by slightly smaller elephants that ran worse----agreed.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    >>>>>>Can you just imagine what expensive piles of crap American cars would be today if the Japanese hadn't come over and set up assembly plants in the States? Duopoly vs. competition!>>>>>>

    Exactly. If not for the Japanese and their superior products starting in the 80's, the big 3 would have continued to build the same crap they offered us in the 70's. The Japanese forced the big 3 to improve everything about how they produce vehicles. From design and engineering to procurement of parts, manufacturing and assembly.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    "I think Ford has been getting sort of a free ride in the press because they avoided the bailouts. The new management team did a great job with that, but I'm not sure they are fixing engineering and purchasing deficiencies at Ford. Looks like GM kind of kicked Ford's [non-permissible content removed] in the latest CR surveys and reviews. "

    Ford did pursue more advanced technology in high volume vehicles. When you look at where they put technology with Sync and My Ford Touch, DCT in the Focus and Fiesta, direct injection and turbos in several vehicles and in the F series. Plus they did all of the above in a short amount of time and the quality surveys show the effects of Ford possibly biting off more than they could chew.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited November 2013
    "Exactly. If not for the Japanese and their superior products starting in the 80's, the big 3 would have continued to build the same crap they offered us in the 70's. "

    I agree, competition is a good thing and I don't doubt for a second the D3 would have kept building garbage. Just look at how much D3 pickups have improved since Nissan introduced the Titan in '04 and Toyota's Tundra in '07. Sure they never threatened in the sales race, but in many ways, those two trucks were better in key areas at the time of their introductions. Looking at what the D3 offers today and it's obvious they are serious about keeping the lead in both sales, but in offering truly competitive trucks.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    >>>>>>I remember the first time I took apart an engine on a Toyota pickup truck. The quality of the castings and the precision of the engine just amazed me, given the cost of the truck. Also it felt like the future of engine tech, not the past of it.>>>>>

    How about other Japanese brands?
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    "I remember the first time I took apart an engine on a Toyota pickup truck. The quality of the castings and the precision of the engine just amazed me, given the cost of the truck. Also it felt like the future of engine tech, not the past of it."

    I don't doubt that. Toyota's 5.7 v8 that was introduced in '07 is still competitive with the latest offerings from Ford, Ram, and GM. Back then it was way ahead.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    The other Japanese brands varied back then, as I recall. Datsun made the 240Z of course, which I personally thought, for the money, was about 10X better made and engineered than anything British or the price-equivalent Porsche 914. (Americans didn't build 'sports cars' back then unless you wanted to include the rather bestial Corvette, which cost considerably more).

    Subaru wasn't much back then, rather tinny and crude but they ran well.

    Mazda had the rotary RX-3 about the same time as the Z, and I remember thinking that the RX-3 station wagon was a beautifully made car for the money...too bad the engines were such turkeys.

    Toyota also had the little Corolla, which was pretty cheap and flimsy but a very tough little car.

    Honda was still in "tiny car land" but again, these cars ran very well and foreshadowed the success of the later Accord.

    This was also the time when Honda had their new motorcycle, the 750-4, which destroyed the British motorcycle industry in about 3 years flat, and made a Harley look like a quaint throwback to 1920.

    But yeah, Japanese sheet metal and interiors were 'built to a price" (except for the Mazda, which I thought was better), and I was not impressed by build quality in general, but they ran much better than American cars, in my recollection, and of course, got way better MPG.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Honestly, for GM the most important metric is profitability. Apple is a relatively small share of the smartphone market worldwide, but they vacuum up most of the profits. As long as GM is profitable, it doesn't really matter (within reason) what their market share is.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,072
    Not to mention the bad designs and wheezy engines. Pretty sad when a Tempo would be an improvement. My mom's big 70s T-Bird only made it a little over 10 years - and that was just accepted with a shrug by my parents. Today, that would be intolerable. My dad's 85 S10 Blazer was also really iffy by its 10th birthday. The good old days weren't always so good - for cars anyway, this isn't a bad time.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,072
    I think with few exceptions, the modern cookie cutter MBA clone is a one-trick pony, focusing on cutting labor costs at the expense of everything else. I don't know if the big business schools teach anything about long term consequences. The ones hired by the D3 were no better.
  • greg128greg128 Member Posts: 526
    "Toyota's 5.7 v8 that was introduced in '07 is still competitive"

    It gets terrible gas mileage and I would't trust their rust-prone flimsy frames that may or may not have been fixed.
This discussion has been closed.