Posted on 01/26/2006 11:13:00 AM PST by Dan Nunn
With all the bad news coming out of Detroit these days, many have a disarmingly simple suggestion: Ford and General Motors should simply build better cars.
"I read that Ford plans to cut about 30 000 jobs in North America alone," one CNNMoney.com reader wrote. "How about building better cars instead?'
How about that?
A perception of poor quality certainly isn't the only reason Ford and GM cars can have trouble in today's market. But it's a factor.
We looked at J.D. Power and Associates Long-term Dependability Surveys to get a sense of where American cars rank in terms of reliability and how much they've improved. That survey measures the number of problems vehicle owners have after 3 years of ownership.
We also checked with Consumer Reports to see what they thought about GM and Ford's performance in terms of reliability.
The answer is that, overall, GM and Ford cars are not that bad. In fact, depending on which survey you believe, they may even have become pretty good.
The problem is that "pretty good" has become "not quite good enough" in a world where quality standards have been raised so high and which many consumers still have bad memories of General Motors and Ford cars that have failed them in the past.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
And the much-vaunted consumer reports lets respondents decide what is a serious problem, rather than defining it themselves. So the bucking transmission in my parents' Toyota they don't consider serious, yet I get worked up about spending 10 minutes and $0.02 having to clean a sensor after 100k miles...
That, and the fact that mechanically identical cars get vastly different ratings (see Dodge Magnum V8 vs. Chrysler 300 V8, Honda Passport v. Isuzu Rodeo, Mercury Mariner v. Ford Escape) brings into question how significant a gap between their average and "much better than average" is. Many times, it means that the owner faces just a 10% chance of seeing the dealer one extra time in 3 years. And it doesn't consider the cost of the visit.
Check out msnautos.com for reliability info and register on truedelta.com to help get better info out on the street....
I agree the real problem is the unions. They just keep wanting more and pay/benefits for less and less work. Add government regulations and you can understand the situation. Manufacturers moved out of the US and outsourced
operations. It didn't help. they were still stuck with poor union workmanship. Foreign imports gave consumers an alternative with reliability and service. I don't owe American auto industry anything but scorn for years of frustration and high cost.
Have you tried a Honda Pilot or Toyota Camry for hard plastics? They're all going downhill in material selection....
Bingo!
That's why people are just now getting wise to Mercedes and VW....
I have 163K on my '97 Explorer. It had a stuck thermostat about 100k miles ago, but nothing else major.
The Neon is a 10 year old design and is being replaced as we speak with the Dodge Caliber.
The Neon, in its day, was well-known for reliability and performance. It was favored by weekend racers for its tough track performance. You might not like the ergonomics, but it was a big seller.
You know, I wonder if another factor isn't ego? I mean, if I buy a Japanese car known for reliability and have problems, well I'll blame the manufacturer and bitch at them. But if I buy from an American car brand that is (perhaps unfairly) known for poor quality/reliability, and it turns out to have problems, I'll be kicking myself and probably taking a few shots from friends, too, who'll be wondering why I bought a known poor quality/reliability brand. Of course, this is a minor and silly reason to base a decision on, but people do make decisions based on such minor, silly concerns.
I always found Toyotas to have hard, skinny, shiny steering wheels, just like the crappy American cars I loathed, which kind of turned me off them.
The 500 is really intended for one notch higher in the market place, IMO, competing against the Toyota Avalon, for example, rather than the Camry. The Ford Fusion is the real replacement for the Taurus. And by most accounts it's pretty good - competitive with the Accord or Camry and nicer than the last model Taurus, IMO.
Saturn - G.M.'s $3 billion mistake!
Well it was a 2006 car. If they haven't updated the design in 10 years that's their own stupidity.
It might have been a big seller then, but now it looks and feels cheap. Then there's the football field sized dashboard that can serve no purpose other than gathering dust you can't reach. Just not that impressive a vehicle, and stuff like that is why American cars lag in perceived quality, even if in reliability it's the best car ever it FEELS cheap and crappy just sitting in it.
Ofcourse the other variable is "city". There is really no such thing as typical city driving. You may drive 1/2 mile in 0 degree weather and wait for a train and 5 stop lights, or you may head to church on a 70 degree day and manage to go 4 miles at 40 mph, which is a cars most efficient speed.
That 24 valve is nifty though. It has 200 hp which really moves the car, then this neighbor of mine has a Yamaha motorcycle with 170hp! It can almost go 200mph and he says everytime he gets off the bike he is amazed the thing is even legal.
Probably is a factor.... there is a known relationship between what someone believes when they purchase and how they view the product after having it for awhile....
1) For example, someone buys a Toyota believing it is high quality. 100k miles later, it is running strong, so that reinforces their idea that it is high quality.
2) Someone else buys a Toyota believing it is high quality, but has a few minor problems, but nothing major. So they again reinforce their belief of high quality.
3) Someone else buys a Toyota believing it has high quality but it has problems. But they know other people who have had no problems, so they assume they "just got a lemon" and try again. As 90% of Toyotas are trouble free, they get a good one the second time around and partially discount the first experience.
4) Someone buys a Ford thinking it is low quality. They have a few minor problems, which reinforce their expectations. They may consider another later, but they're leery, even though it wasn't necessarily worse than a Toyota.
5) Someone else buys a Ford thinking it is low quality. Say 89% are fine. But they get a lemon. Therefore Fords are terrible, and they buy a Toyota the next time. Odds are they'll get a good one, then complain to all their friends about "that p.o.s. Ford" and rave about the Toyota. Yet statistically, the odds were almost identical that they would get a good Ford or a good Toyota (this is pretty close to reality). Therefore, the general public perception is reinforced, but not in a fair manner. It takes many years for this to play out and for the public to recognize that quality may be nearly equal
FWIW, they share a "common platform" but are not "rebadged" (nor "badge engineered")
Not to put down "Joe Lunchbucket", because I know a number of those guys, but you can always tell when it's payday at the Ford plant by the number of people playing the "cardboard crack" tear-off tickets at the local pub...
Assembly line workers who can afford to drop $200 a night on instant-win tickets in between complaining about Bush and the economy... makes ya wonder.
I drove a rental Neon for one day in an area of hills and curves of southern Mississippi in 2002. It was a battle every inch of about 200 miles. Poor steering, clunky transmission, under-powered engine and back breaking seats
made it a tough day. I had been thinking of buying one before that experience. There is certainly some merit in driving a rental of a model for a while in varying conditions rather than settling for a brief test drive.
I wish I could agree - but I've never had a problem one out of my Japanese cars. In fact, my son only stopped driving a 1990 Civic last year (he sold it). It had 260,000 miles on it and never had the valve cover cracked.
If GM, Ford and the rest are going to compete they are going to have to figure out how to make a reliable four cyclinder car. The competition is simply too good.
You're right - I forgot that the Escort and GLC parted ways with the second generation GLC/323 from 1985-1988. The 1989 323 shared parts with later Escorts.....
Things were more confusing when Ford owned a large part of Mazda, but not a controlling share... :)
Japanese imports were well on their way in the early 70's & didn't wait for Carter's arrival....FWIW
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.