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 ...
No, they're just not very appealing. Yeah, they perform well, but they're boring to look at, boring to drive. Hopefully that trend will change as cars like the Charger and Solstice have come into the market. And Saturn is releasing it's own version of the Solstice with it's Sky model. Chevrolet has premiered the next Camaro along side Dodge's Challenger. All nice looking cars with a fun drivability factor. But currently, those types of cars are rare. Most are still very vanilla.
Not bad, but not good enough either. Long term reliability is the American car's Achilles heel. Japanese cars routinely go 200K or better without major repairs, and I have personally known of quite a few that went far beyond that. The most miles I ever got from an American car was 172K from a Mercury Grand Marquis. The engine was still running OK when I sold it, but it had gone through 3 transmissions, one differential, and so many carburetors that I lost count. Not to mention at least 1/2 dozen power window motors, numerous alternators, a water pump, an A/C compressor, and a timing chain. There was more that I can't recall offhand. And I ALWAYS changed oil and filters every 3K miles and transmission fluid and filter once a year. Oh, and at least 1/2 of those miles were Interstate Highway driving.
One of my friends has resisted buying Japanese cars ever since they first became popular over here. But after so many utterly disastrous experiences with Lincolns, Cadillacs, Buicks, and one Chrysler he finally broke down last year and bought a Toyota Sequoia (sp?).
Actually, I much preferred driving and riding in his last few Cadillacs over the Toyota, they rode better, were quieter, and had more comfortable seating. But at least the Toyota won't spend half it's life in the dealer's shop being patched up for another month or so the way some of his previous cars did. He trades cars every 2 or 3 years so most of the repairs were under warranty. Still, having your primary car in the shop every few weeks is very aggravating even if you aren't paying the repair bills. I know that very well because I once foolishly bought an Audi. No more German cars for me, ever again.
You have to be kidding. Since I bought my first car (Ford) in 1956 I owned mostly American cars and NO Japanese cars until 2001 when I bought a USED Nissan Altima.
The Nissan has been virtually trouble free for 5 years and 164K miles. See my previous post #182 for the most "reliable" American car I ever owned. It was still running at 172K, but a large percentage of the original parts had been replaced several times by then.
OK, you can say that my experience was not the norm and not typical of most American cars. I have to disagree again. Every one of my family members has had bad "luck" with their American cars and now own Japanese cars which they love. In my immediate family there are 2 Nissans, 3 Toyotas, 2 Hondas, 1 Mitsubishi, 1 Chevy truck, and 1 Ford truck. As far as comfort, driveablility, appearance, fuel mileage, etc, all are about equal. The big difference is long term reliability, and in that respect there is simply no comparison.
"Japanese cars routinely go 200K or better without major repairs..."
NONE of the Japanese cars I have had ever came close to this, and I'm religious on maintenance (most mechanics say "what noise" when I tell them something is wrong). On the other hand, my Ford and the ol' Mazda (which was basically a Ford) have all hit over 100k without problem. I've gone through 3 engine rebuilds on Camrys in that mileage, not to mention the body rust.
That isn't to say Japanese cars are bad - Hondas and Toyotas are generally very good, but they have their problems as well. I'm looking at premature strut mount failure on a Camry right now because of a defective design. That will push the trailing 12 month Camry repair bill to $2000 if I don't do the work myself. The Taurus? Oil changes.
Wait - weren't ALL Mercury Grand Marquis EFI by 1987? EFI was available on it as early as 1983, IIRC. So you're comparing Japanese cars of today against your experience with a Mercury 20+ years ago?
Why is it that people will believe that Hyundai can go from building vehicles with piss-poor, industry worst reliability to high reliability just 5 years later, but they don't believe that Ford or GM could fix reliability problems in 15-20 years?
I don't base my opinion of American cars on that one car, I have owned several other American cars since that one. I only mentioned it because I put more miles on it that any car I have owned and well remember it's problems. As nearly as I can remember, I have owned 10 Ford and Mercury cars and trucks, 3 Chrysler cars, 1 AMC, and 9 GM cars and trucks since 1956. Some were good, some were not good. Most of those which were not so good were built after 1971.
Why is it that people will believe that Hyundai can go from building vehicles with piss-poor, industry worst reliability to high reliability just 5 years later, but they don't believe that Ford or GM could fix reliability problems in 15-20 years?
I have trouble believing it because of the experiences of my family and friends who owned or now own late model American cars that haven't been a great deal better in the reliability department than American cars were 20 years ago. Maybe my experience is not typical, but all I can say is what I have seen with my own two eyes.
I am not opposed to buying American cars, in fact I would much rather buy American all things being equal. But for now at least, all things are not equal. If Detroit gets it's stuff together at some point I will probably buy American again.
The cars might be ok but they don's sell well and they are unprofitable to manufacture.
The whole exercise is to scare Americans into demanding change and the most important change is exterminating the unions.
Late reply here, but on flat, level ground, at a steady 35mph, my 12V is running about 1300 rpm or so, after just having shifted to 4th (it does this around 32 mph, if I'm not pushing it hard). At 55 mph, its running about 2000 rpm.
Your 24V could be behaving normally - I'd have to see if the gearing was different - or something could just need a little calibration (which would NOT be surprising on a salvage title)
Still, most Fords I have rented and/or GMs I have ridden in were rattletraps.
I have a Toyota now and have to stifle a grin everytime I fire it up.
When I bought my very first new car in 1990, I wanted to "buy American." In my price range back then, I could afford a little Ford (an Escort, I think), some little Chevy which I can't recall, or a Toyota Corolla. Well neither of the "American" cars were made in America. One was from Mexico, the other from Canada. The Toyota was built in the US. I wound up buying the Toyota. I traded that car in on a 2000 Corolla after 197,000 miles. I could have kept it, as it was still running great, but it needed a LOT of mechanical work (time for a new timing belt, major tune up, clutch, brakes, tires, front end, shocks and struts - I was still on the original clutch and front end), so it just didn't make sense to sink all that money into a 10 year old car, with nearly 200,000 miles on it. I have no doubt that it's still running somewhere. During that 10 years, the only problem I had was a freak incident, where the exhaust manifold cracked, burning a hole in the radiator. That was the only service done, other than normal maintanance.
My 2000 Corolla has about 119,000 miles on it, and the only problem so far was a bad sensor, which was replaced under warranty.
Mark
This has become a problem for me. When I bought my first Toyota Corolla, it was priced about the same as the competing Ford and Chevy "econo-boxes." That was back in 1990. When I bought my next car, in 2000, the Corolla was priced above the competition, and really strained the limits of what I was willing to pay. If this keeps up, I'll be taking a very serious look at Hyundai, as their prices are still reasonable, and friends who have them love them. I remember when they were rattle-traps, but the quality has improved tremendously.
Of course, this is all subject to change. I only buy a car once a decade.
Mark
I imagine getting my car checked or adjusted would cost more than I'd save in gas money.
In my new (then) '96 Ford Explorer, the transmission fell apart at 24,000 miles. We now have 2 Hondas and a Toyota in the family.
Sorry - 12V means 12 valves... 24V means 24 valves.... Its a 12V V6 - or a 12 valve V6, which means 2 per cylinder. That's the configuration of the base engine on the Taurus. The optional duratec is a 24 valve dual overhead cam design.
Oh boy do I feel dumb.
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.