You're right. A lot of the problem isn't the quality of the cars; it's the perception of quality. It's a lot easier to fix quality than it is to change perceptions.
So the Toyota and Honda resale value being much better than GM and Ford is about perception?
That's exactly what the head of VW said when Morgan Stanley evaluated percieved v. actual quality. VW was percieved as having very high quality, when in fact it was very low. He said he'd rather have his problems than Mercury's (the most under-appreciated brand) because its easier to fix quality than it is the perception of quality.
Perception is reality. The Japanese brands didn't build their reputation for refined, high-quality cars overnight, nor did the big 3 make their reputation for building crap overnight. Perceptions influence resale values in a big way, so that when I bought a new Accord in 2004 I knew that it would hold its resale value better than just about anything else I could buy.
For me, when I think about it, everytime someone I know has a car that has major, expensive to fix mechanical problems, it's usually an American car. Nobody I know with a Japanese car has had to have an engine or transmission replaced. Honda had a big problem with auto trannies a couple of years ago, though, I know that. The difference is in how they handled the problem. They revised the design to eliminate the problem in the future, instead of continuing to crank a defective design out. For cars that had transmission problems, they fixed them whether in or out of warranty. And they instituted a program to inspect the problem trannies on the rest of the cars that had them, to do replacements or install a retrofit part to prevent the problem, before their customers had problems. This is not representative of how the US car makers have handled similar problems in the past.
And it's not just about reliability. Some people like knowing that they have a cutting-edge engine under the hood, even if it doesn't provide any real benefit from the driver's perspective. Fit and finish, inside and out, count too. Material selection - some materials just look and feel cheap. And then there's human factors - is the dash nicely designed, easy to read? Are the controls laid out in a non-confusing way, and easy to use? How do they feel when you use them. GM had the same left-side turn signal/wiper control/cruise control/headlight stalk for years and year. It was huge and ugly, difficult to use since too many controls were on one stalk, and it felt like you were breaking chicken bones every time you used it.
Maybe all of the above have been addressed, at least on some models. Some of it is obvious and can be seen and felt when you're sitting in the car. But the general distrust of the long-term reliability and durability (which aren't quite the same thing) of American (Ford and GM, and to a lesser extent D-C) cars will take time to overcome. I considered an American car when I bought my last one, but I feared, perhaps without cause, that I might get a lemon. But it's not as if Japanese cars are completely without problems. If the American car makers want to overcome this, and if they have the time and resources to do it, they will have to concentrate on matching the Japanese in quality, durability and innovation (or even beating them - you won't get ahead with a goal of matching your opponent) and keep it up for probably another decade. But this sort of long-term approach to business seems antithetical to US car company management.