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
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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."
Using the cancer analogy, GM is in remission but is not really cured yet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
there really are no bad cars anymore.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
But in terms of performance and durability, cars today are miles ahead.
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.
"Executives from BMW and Mercedes----call your home office!"
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.
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.
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.
"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?:)
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:
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.
These sales aren't to the"Sheeple" some on this forum have labeled, are they?
Just askin' 'cause I really don't know!
All this GM ragging is pretty tiring - the US auto market has a few other players you know.
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.
You mean like Ford ecoboost and new Fiesta transmissions?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How about other Japanese brands?
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.
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.
It gets terrible gas mileage and I would't trust their rust-prone flimsy frames that may or may not have been fixed.