Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
What's bad about GM? The cars
boston.com — Toyota recently projected that it would surpass General Motors in 2007 as the world's top-selling automaker. GM lost $10.6 billion in 2005 - about what Toyota earned in profits. From quirky steering to oddly placed controls GM shows it is a company run by bean counters and ad men. Until they ditch that mentality they will continue to lose money.
johndi- 839 diggs
- digg it
- harumph, on 10/12/2007, -6/+70this guy is spot-on. i used to be a mechanic for buick and the amount of nickel and diming customers had to endure on cars that were only a couple years old was totally obscene. after 5-6 years their interiors would be falling to pieces and major engine components would fail. they did have a few reliable engines but those have now all been phased out because they were pushrod engines and, hence, less efficient. even so, ancillary components like coil packs and fuel injection related sensors would fail regularly. by contrast, i once owned a 1980 toyota corona which never needed any major engine work on it, ever. i got rid of it at 300,000 miles and it got good mileage, had good performance and the a/c was still cold. it isn't just toyota either, honda, nissan and the rest still deliver a far superior car in longevity and driving experience.
sad stuff.- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29I was about to say that the Buick 3.8 was one of the finest engines ever produced. Completely indestructible, and in the case of the Regal Turbos, some of the quickest factory cars the world has ever seen. A Buick GNX can toast pretty much toast any other of it's contemporaries. That includes the mid 80's Lamborghini's, Ferrari's and 911 Turbo's. But it completely destroyed the Corvette, and the brass at GM just couldn't have that, so they killed it. And that goes back to the bean-counters instead of Engineers running the company.
If GM would just go back to what they know, people would come back in droves. They used to make cars that were desirable. And yes, that means front engine, rear drive and comfortable. Nobody made those types of cars better than GM did. And front engine, rear drive pretty much sums up what a classic American car is. And no, that is NOT a bad thing. Why do you think that SUV's and truck sell so well in America? Because they are front engine, rear drive and comfortable.
Oh, and as far as the Toyotas go, my dad bought an 81 1/2 Toyota Long Bed Diesel. In 25 years, he put a water pump and alternator and new batteries in it. General maintenance items. - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Tell me about it. I have a nissan sentra 87 hatchback. The body of the car is getting pretty rusted. I had to solder some plates in the back where the suspension is lodged because it was thorned open due to rust. My main point is that the whole body is giving up on me while the engine still runs like a charm, no oil loses and, most of all, it still has no problem to start at -30 in winter. It's a damn 20 year old car!
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Front engine and rear wheel drive sounds disastrous to those of us living in snow prone areas. I for one am glad that the mainstream is now front wheel drive, at least in my area it makes sense.
On the record though, I have a 1996 Honda Accord, I am the third owner, It has 150,000 miles on it and it purrs as if it was just coming off the lot. Although the cigarette lighter for charging my cellphone just quit working which is a shame but should be cheap to fix, If GM cars had this kind of reputation I doubt anyone would have moved to a foreign car. - Kale, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I made the choice to drive an American car, a Firebird, knowing I would run into some problems, I just figured I would put up with it to have a car with so much "history". I didn't realize the wiring problems I would have.specifically, the connectors for the wiring. I've had dozens of connectors corrode and stop working, and it's become habit to check the connectors for oxidation as a first step in troubleshooting (I do all of my mechanic work myself, if I can).
Having owned an old VW GTI, I know that the suspention in the Firebird is not optimal for a sport car, and I'm having them re-worked as soon as I get the funds. Cars like the GTI, Subaru Impreza, or RX-8 come with a nice, tight suspention "right out of the box", it's a shame US automakers thought people driving a sports car would want a smoother ride and opted for lower performance shocks. - Kale, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Ah crap. Ate my comment. We need a different editing system!
I was making mention how much more polished the Subaru Impreza, VW GTI, or RX-8 is compared to a Firebird. I'm replacing the suspention soon since it's much to soft for a sports car. I had a GTI and I miss the tight suspention it had. I kind of knew this would happen with a GM car, though.
Both GM cars that I have owned have also had significant problems with wiring connector corrosion. The connectors are way oversized, yet they still corrode and stop working. - mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10My 99 Toyota has had to have 3 of 4 "O2 sensors" replaced and they cost about 2-300 dollars each. There is also a rattle upon acceleration (the V-6 version) and the car only has 90,000 miles and I change all the fluids regularly. The brakes also squeek and have done so since about 20,000 miles and no one seems to be able to pinpoint a reason. I am not so impressed. And as a side note this is one of the Camrys that was built in Japan (VIN starts with J). My old Ford Taurus with 120K miles had fewer repairs required than this POS.
- McShaken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15You're right... This guy is "spot on". I've owned 4 GM vehicles over my lifetime, and all but one were garbage. They had to give the GM employee discount last year to get their numbers up, and also lost over 10 billion dollars that same year.... not a good way to run a business. People aren't going to spend $30,000 on something that needs continuous repairs, or lacks basic functionality (like a passenger side keyhole (especially on models that don't have keyless entry)).
GM could have saved their own neck if they would have continued with the EV1 (or a hybrid gas/electric option). Instead, they decided to sue CA and run away from the technology...
Lots of good info here:
http://www.gmsucks.net - omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The first car I drove, and the car my grandmother still drives, is a 1991 Toyota Camry. We bought it new in the fall of 1990, and it now has over 280,000 miles on it. The only thing on the car with any trouble at all is the body. It's literally rusting apart around all the major components. The car still runs beautifully (aside from looking pretty bad, since it's been in a number of fender-benders, one of which required a new door... so it has a black door on a maroon car), and gets 28 mpg. In fact, in 2002, my father bought her a 2003 Ford Focus to replace the Camry, and she drove it for about a month, and gave it back, saying that she preferred her Camry.
When I purchased my current vehicle, I got the best of both worlds... I got a major discount from where I work on GM vehicles, so I got a Pontiac Vibe. The Vibe has an engine built by Toyota, so I know the car will run into the 2020's. It's 3 years old now, and we haven't had any problems yet (knock on wood). - dfa83, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4well look i work at a Mercedes-Benz and we receive brand new cars that are broken. 1 out of every 2 cars we sold came back within a week for some kind of repair. Ya MB has some nice engine but there electronics are the *****. Its like buying something at the dollar store..lol.. ! Now about Japanese's cars its all in your head...lol. So much to say but I'm not going to waste my time with that. Now I'm a GM guy. You know why? Because there well built and reliable. I've had 4 GM Products. First one when i was 16, a 1986 cutlass supreme brougham that car was a beauty until some guy totaled my car, passing a red light. Second car which i still have today is a 1992 Lumina Z-34 this car has never broken down on me. Only regular maintenance. Third car i had for the winter was a 1987 cavalier that car was so fun to drive i put 20 000 km on it in 4 months in the dead of winter. I mean it was like -40c for a month straight and always started. 200 000km what a beauty. lol..except for the rust! And now i have another cutlass 1991 and its like driving a Cadillac. SO ya GM Rules... !!! Why does anybody pick on Ford They actually suck ass !
- btljuice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think I've got one of the last reliable GM cars myself. 96 Chevy Beretta (3.1L), 160K miles with original motor and transmission and the car has given me VERY little trouble. Though, I've seen what they've come out with since so I think my next car will be an Audi. Sorry GM :(
- Bluejaye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Digg really needs a threaded reply system, but since it doesn't...
"Front engine and rear wheel drive sounds disastrous to those of us living in snow prone areas. I for one am glad that the mainstream is now front wheel drive, at least in my area it makes sense."
I live in Michigan, which has considerable snow (just no mountains). My rear wheel drive car drives much better than my last front wheel drive. But, it has stability/traction control. Something you won't find available on most domestic cars.
Personally, I'd like to buy a Mercury(Ford/Mazda) Milan for several reasons, but I won't because it doesn't have traction/stability control even as an option.
The former Big-3 (GM, Ford, Chrysler) only have themselves to blame for losing out. The cars they offer are junk (imo). - hammydude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8One can only hope the day GM and all its gas guzzling, SUV and crappy cars goes out of buisness...
(and I live in detroit)
Only then will American Car Companies realize the mistakes they are making, their horrible designs on their cars. Americans do not want SUVs, they want fuel efficient trustworthy cars. Until then, u.s. citizens (myself included) will continue buying foreign cars. Cheaper, and far superior. - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm on my fourth Toyota. I will never ever buy an American car again, with the exception of some old collectable car like a 63 Vette if I had money to blow. Otherwise, I laugh when I see people driving around in crap like Escalades. They're just throwing money away and rewarding people and companies who produce crappy work.
I have two Toyotas right now. The combined mileage on both vehicles is nearing 400,000 miles. Aside from an occasional brake job and replacing the batteries, the only thing that has ever happened is I blew the timing belt on one of the Toyotas. I was going to trade my old Toyota in for my new one but I decided to keep them both because even though they maintain their value better than american cars, they're even more valuable than the published blue book value and it's better for me to keep maintaining them than even buy a new car. Toyotas rule. The only drag is that they discontinued the Celica line.. that's really a shame. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7hammydude: "Americans do not want SUVs"
Then please explain why at least HALF of every single car on the road is a truck, van or SUV.
Please explain the Honda Odyssey, Ridgeline and Pilot, theToyota Tundra, Tacoma, Land Cruiser, Sequoia, 4Runner, RAV4, FJ, Highlander and Sienna, and the Nissan Frontier, Xterra, Murano, Quest, Pathfinder and Titan.
If Americans didn't want SUV's as you assert, these vehicles wouldn't exist here. Just because YOU don't want an SUV doesn't make it universally true. For better or worse, MOST American in fact DO want trucks, vans and SUVs. That's why there are so many on the road. - joesoko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1for the guy talking about that awesome buick
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0510phr_spread/ - j0c1f3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3american cars suck because some greedy asshat is trying to make them disposable so you have to keep buying new ones ever decade...
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Front engine and rear wheel drive sounds disastrous to those of us living in snow prone areas. I for one am glad that the mainstream is now front wheel drive, at least in my area it makes sense."
Yes, because it never snows in Germany where BMW/Mercedes (90% are all rear wheel drive) are made.
Good tires are all that matters. I've had 2 RWD cars and 2 AWD cars, I know what I'm talking about. - mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1My 99 Toyota has had to have 3 of 4 "O2 sensors" replaced and they cost about 2-300 dollars each. There is also a rattle upon acceleration (the V-6 version) and the car only has 90,000 miles and I change all the fluids regularly. The brakes also squeek and have done so since about 20,000 miles and no one seems to be able to pinpoint a reason. I am not so impressed. And as a side note this is one of the Camrys that was built in Japan (VIN starts with J). My old Ford Taurus with 120K miles had fewer repairs required than this POS.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29I was about to say that the Buick 3.8 was one of the finest engines ever produced. Completely indestructible, and in the case of the Regal Turbos, some of the quickest factory cars the world has ever seen. A Buick GNX can toast pretty much toast any other of it's contemporaries. That includes the mid 80's Lamborghini's, Ferrari's and 911 Turbo's. But it completely destroyed the Corvette, and the brass at GM just couldn't have that, so they killed it. And that goes back to the bean-counters instead of Engineers running the company.
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Horribly designed cars... yes! I recently had the displeasure of trying out a brand new cobalt for a rental car last month on a buisness trip. The car had some of the worst design ideas i've ever seen. The handbrake was UNDER the arm rest! The gas tank intake had such a poor entry angle that it splashed back on the fuel nozel causing the cutoff sensor to trigger and stop dispensing fuel. I had to sit there for 10 minutes clicking the fuel pump on and off to fill up. The brakes also scared the ***** out of me. Because they were so weak, I honestly didnt know if I could stop in time if I needed to. I honestly have NO IDEA how this car got passed their QA division...
- Tivor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Ditto on the scary brakes. I own a Hyundai Elantra, and I once rented a Chevrolet (I think it was an Impala) when I went on a trip.
People who laugh at Hyundai for making crappy cars obviously haven't compared it to a Chevy. That Impala's chassis squeaked every time I made a turn, interior finishes screamed "cheap", and, as numerously mentioned, the brakes were horrible. And that car had like only 3000 miles on it. Since then, I've avoided GM vehicles like a plague whenever I had to rent a car.
In comparison, my Hyundai, over the past six years (and 100k+ miles) I've owned it, has given me a surprisingly few troubles that I didn't cause. It may not be a Toyota, but it has certainly proven itself to be much more solid and trustworthy than the usual "haha, hyundai" jokes would lead one to believe. Better than GM, that's for sure. - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Correction to that.... Hyundai Accents are crappy. The rest are just fine. One lost their breaks and had to hit an electrical post to stop... just in front of my house. Someone told me another story where some Hyundai accent got its acceleration pedal stuck in the highway.
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow and I thought I was the only one that has always noticed how terrible GM braking systems are. Though I've never owned a GM, many of my family and good friends do, and I've clocked a lot of time in a Regal, Suburban, and a Tahoe. Even after doing complete brake system replacement jobs (clean fluid, discs/drums resurfaced, new caliper pistons, etc.) on the Regal and Suburban, brake performance is terrible, and you're spot on when you say that you really have to mash the pedal to get to that "hidden" braking power.
How is anyone but a 200lb macho man supposed to stop these things in an emergency?
Oh, and GM, way to go on putting your light-duty disc and drum brakes on most Suburban 1500-series models. Real safe, guys. I don't know if you guys knew this, but it weighs a bit more than the 1500-series Silverado.
- Tivor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Ditto on the scary brakes. I own a Hyundai Elantra, and I once rented a Chevrolet (I think it was an Impala) when I went on a trip.
- iching, on 10/12/2007, -3/+45"So what's wrong with GM? The cars. GM is famous for being run by bean counters and ad men. Toyota is run by engineers."
that summed up the whole article.- lcohiomatty86, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4so the company owners are bean counters... with the company losing 10B a year.. looks like they'll have to do alot of counting of the beans their losing..
- domeng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you still believe that crap about union's fault? and you are going to tell me next that union cost is bankrupting gm? that is the wall street mantra. tell you what. comparable toyota cars are *more expensive* yet people buy them simply because they are built better. the cost differential that wall street seem to spew all the time that it cost more for gm to built cars by about $800 because of unions does not explain why gm is losing money and toyota is making money. the irony is if gm can built better cars, comparable to toyota or honda in quality, and increase the price, they will be much better off.
- wingnut21, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23You know what's also bad about GM? $2000 of the sticker is used directly to fund retirement pay to past UAW workers. These people didn't make your car; this is money that has nothing to do with the car you just bought. Other companies have significantly lower amounts of the sticker that is used for retired pay, including Toyota. Gotta love unions!
- diggless, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32Its GM's fault for not investing the pension funds properly. If they had allocated the funds to the correct investments as they were paying these people the burden wouldn't be so high. However, they thought that if they didn't allocate the funds and thus didn't have the money to spend come retirement time they could simply get out of the obligation to pay the benefits due to the hardship it would place on the company.
Additionally the unions played their role. The first duty of a union is to ensure the survivability of the company it works with. The UAW did a poor job ensuring GM was playing the game properly and thus should take some of the blame.
Labor unions are critical in the workers attempt to close the income gap and re-establish a middle class in this country. The average executive makes more in 1 hour than the average worker makes all year. I believe the discrepancy is somewhere around 700:1. This is appalling. Companies can afford to pay more, unions arent always being greedy, they are just asking for their share of what their labor produced for the organization. The problem is that people have a distorted view of what labor is worth in this county. Why should ALL the profits go to the share holders? Sure they deserve some, but the guy out in the factory running the presses deserves a comfortable life as well. And these companies can provide that. - dherman, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Toyota/Honda has no active pension debt (in 10 years they will be in the same shape as the Big 3 BTW), also over 2 billion goes to health care, which Japs don't have to pay for thier non-US employees. It is not a balanced trade economy. The US pays dearly to maintain its middle working class.
- ZenPirate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14 Too many companies *don't* offer good benefit/retirement packages for blue collar workers today. GM's failings can be blamed entirely on arrogance, and running a business to cater to shareholders instead of on building quality products first. I'm by no means pro-union, but they're really not the problem contrary to what you may have read.
- moneybender, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1The Japanese don't have medical care? That surprises me. Unless, of course, you're saying that they get medical care for free, which is even more ludicrous.
- torifile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"You know what's also bad about GM? $2000 of the sticker is used directly to fund retirement pay to past UAW workers"
How does that make them continue to produce the crap they put out? Cheap interiors and bad design decisions aren't related to healthcare costs. - neilparis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"Additionally the unions played their role. The first duty of a union is to ensure the survivability of the company it works with. The UAW did a poor job ensuring GM was playing the game properly and thus should take some of the blame."
The UAW workers don't design the cars, they build them. If the quality of the parts is poor, or the design is bad, how can you blame the guys assembling the car? If GM under funds its pension fund and now has to make up for the shortfall, how can you blame the workers? Furthermore, how can you blame the UAW for getting health care for its members? Other countries have nationalized health care, so it's an uneven playing field. Then there is trade. The cost to build cars in Mexico is significantly less than it is to build them here, but GM can still sell the cars here. Look at sales of American cars in Japan (dismal) and look at sales of Japanese cars in America (Obviously doing well, with Toyota set to surpass GM--yes I know there are Toyota plants in America).
The UAW has, for a long time, evaluated the company's financial situation before making demands. They are not as unreasonable as they frequently are made out to seem. If you want to blame the UAW, go ahead. But ONLY blaming the UAW is outrageous and naive. - omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"Additionally the unions played their role. The first duty of a union is to ensure the survivability of the company it works with.
@diggless: I've never seen nor heard of any union official who thought that was their first duty. To them, the first duty is to ensure their salary never drops below what it is. How many companies could have been saved if the unions would have allowed minor 1-2% pay cuts? No executive salary could make up that amount of money. That might be their first duty in theory, but in practice, it's something else entirely. - l00dpr3h, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6I blame all woes of the American auto industry on unions. Unions were good back when labor laws were do horrible, that the only way to ensure safety and security of employment, was to create a union. Now that all of these labor laws were put in place, the purpose of unionizing is no longer necessary, but it's there (the unions). If you're union, then you have a secure job, and that job security grows as you stay with the company. You get good money for doing your job, regardless of how well you work on the assemblyline. Nobody can really prevent you from half assing your job because unions are all about all being together through thick and thin. I'm not sure about salaries of assemblyline workers, but I'm sure it's up there, along with a nice vacation, medical plans, etc..
Not really a good example of a union job, but here's something interesting. I had a friend who worked as a mechanic at a rental car company. The mechanics are all part of the Teamsters. My friend worked on Saturdays because he was on the bottom of the union totem pole, and he had one manager who came in on Saturdays as well. The great example of the union was that his manager on Saturdays, came in, clocked in, and went home. At the end of his "shift," he came back and clocked out. I'm not saying UAW do these things, but you can see what the power and laziness rests in the minds of union workers. "I'm union, and can get away with a lot of *****. Nobody can tell me what to do. I've been with XYZ Auto company for twenty years." - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Toyota, Nissan and most non-American car companies operate in areas where there is national, socialized medicine. All Toyota employees in Japan have free healthcare! If the United States of Corporate America(tm) wasn't so ass-backwards when it comes to treating their population and workforce with some decency, you wouldn't need unions.
You can't blame the crappyness of GM or any american company or its products on unions. That's a tired, urban myth. It's a simple fact of economics you have to keep your employees happy if you want to have a healthy company. Unions wouldn't exist if companies took their of their employees in the first place. - neilparis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The great example of the union was that his manager on Saturdays, came in, clocked in, and went home. At the end of his "shift," he came back and clocked out. I'm not saying UAW do these things, but you can see what the power and laziness rests in the minds of union workers."
That proves nothing about unions and everything about ***** management. Managers aren't in the unions.
- diggless, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32Its GM's fault for not investing the pension funds properly. If they had allocated the funds to the correct investments as they were paying these people the burden wouldn't be so high. However, they thought that if they didn't allocate the funds and thus didn't have the money to spend come retirement time they could simply get out of the obligation to pay the benefits due to the hardship it would place on the company.
- belfastbiker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7All companies who offer pension schemes will pay for some of the pensions of people who no longer work there.
Isn't that to be expected?- XMinusX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1That is correct Belfasbiker. I am not saying Unions are bad but They have allot of people on the line,That are making 50 Dollars and up.Also the pensions. Paying people allot of money who don't work for them anymore.
So The cost to manufacture to compete with lower wage company's that are dishing out 13,000 dollar cars can't compete. GM has brought there prices down but am sure there not getting enough profit because of the expense to make it and the wages. - bardamu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Good riddance to GM. All they do is make big dumb SUV's. Now they are whining because the government wants to start raising the gas mileage saying it will kill their business. I say it's about time. Seriously it's 2006 and they are still pumping out mammoths that need a pushrod V8 just move these boxes at highway speeds. What does a Yukon get in town, maybe 16mpg? That should be considered a crime against nature in this day and age. Toyota is ahead because they make better, smarter, more reliable cars, that most of the world use to get to work everyday. GM makes dinosaurs, because GM is a dinosaur!
If the new gas mileage legislation goes into place Toyota loses what 2 cars? The suckoilya and the takoma. GM loses most of their fleet.
Change or become extinct GM. The clock is ticking. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5That's right bardamu. FORCE everyone else to change to YOUR world-view. You clearly know what's best and right for everybody. Let's make you Emperor of Earth, so tomorrow you can stop producing all cars other than Priuses. It's 2006 after all! We bow to your wishes.
Now grow up. - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@theblooms
Oh, he forgot. It's your /right/ as a free citizen to drive a car that is the equivalent to an assraping of the environment. How /dare/ someone imply you should drive a more efficient car. I mean, the NERVE of those people! You love your V8 and V10 monsters that weigh 5000-6000 pounds. They're not any faster than some 4 cylinders, but who cares! The sound of the engine when you rev completely justifies 12 mpg!
Grow up and get a life. If you believe for one second low mileage vehicles will be around for much longer, you in a dream world. High efficiency is the progression for any technology, and cars too. You're going to lose your low mpg vehicles, and that's a fact.
It's irritating how when change for the better comes about, you have some ass holes whining about they can do what they want and resist the change. - Firehunter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Reality check for all of you.
People who like luxury items need bigger vehicles to pull their boats, campers, etc. Contractors need trucks or SUV with lots of power to pull their equipment. They are never going to disappear.
GM has actually started progressing towards make more fuel efficient trucks and SUVs. Ever heard of Active Fuel Management? No. Well here is a little read for ya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Fuel_Management It is standard on all the 5.3L V8's in their trucks and SUV's as of the 2007 model year. Granted it isn't increasing the city MPG that much, a 6000+ lb truck getting 20MPG on the highway is pretty impressive.
Another thing, GM released the first Hybrid pickup truck. Again, MPG and hybrid functionality isn't completely there, but it is a step in the right direction.
So, unless you want your contractor never getting work done, because he can't get a load of lumber or a tractor to your house, stop bitching so much about a truck using gas.
P.S. The Honda Ridgeline only gets decent gas mileage because they refuse to put a V8 in it. Which also means it can't pull worth crap. - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Firehunter
I guarantee you if the amount of SUV's and Pickup Trucks on the road was proportional to the amount of people who could afford boats or RV's and those who required them for work we would see a horrifically drastic change in the makeup of our roads.
Don't pretend only contractors and boat owners own Excursions and F150s. People are buying vehicles that can haul roughly 95% more than they will ever need, as a status symbol. That's all it is, a status symbol.
- XMinusX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1That is correct Belfasbiker. I am not saying Unions are bad but They have allot of people on the line,That are making 50 Dollars and up.Also the pensions. Paying people allot of money who don't work for them anymore.
- speel, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Toyota FTW!
- AngryOx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I use to have a job cleaning cars for Hertz Rental Car so I got to spend a lot of time in a lot of different American cars. Almost every American car that we had there felt like the interior was made by Fisher-Price. The plastics inside were huge and bulky and it was all cheap looking and had a bad texture to it. However Ford was not innocent of this. The inside of the new mustang is horrid. We also had some Mazda's and Toyota's and a few Infinities and every single one of those cars were fantastic.
- bagpipegoatee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And it's really funny that Mazda is owned by Ford. Whoever's in charge of the interiors in the Mazdas has obviously pushed for better, why doesn't Ford get it? Maybe they're satisfied with a couple tiers. Mazdas for quality, Fords for cheapness. But wasn't Lincoln supposed to be luxury and quality? Those seem pretty cheap as well.
- 4tygames, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ford owns 1/3 of Mazda and they use them a lot!
Mazda 6 components including the platform help make the Ford Fusion, Lincoln MKZ and the Mercury equivalent.
Mazda 3 components including the platform help make the Volvo S40 and the Euro Ford Focus. Americans are still stuck with the same Ford Focus since 2000.
- wallet55, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6after the engine of my gm car had to be removed to replace a 2 dollar part, i took a holy vow never to buy a GM car again. that was more than a decade ago. they will never get me back
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Not that I'm discounting your story, as after working on American cars I've had similar experiences, but what part costs only $2?? Even simple gaskets cost $5. And btw, I view this as another problem with cars. Some of the simple parts you need to repair them are vastly overpriced.
- betterth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe a decade ago, a gasket was 2$. :shrug:
- TPrime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I forget which Ford it was (Fiesta?) but I heard that half the engine had to be disassembled just to change the oil. Bad engineering...
On the occasion that I have to change the battery on the PT Cruiser, I can't believe that I have to remove the air box/air intake to get to it. - Firehunter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My Fiancee's 2000 Eclipse is more annoying to work on than any GM vehicle I have done. To change all 3 of the 6 spark plugs I had to completely remove the upper intake manifold. A project that should have taken 30 to 40 minutes, ended up taking 5 hours. That's bad engineering as well, and OH NO, it's a Japanese made car. . .
- bagpipegoatee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Firehunter: That reminds me of the Pontiac Fieros. Those were really cool cars, minus the flaws. (I won't get into the fact that many of them burned to the ground due to a faulty gas line design) They were made to compete with the MR2, and so they were mid-engined. But the engine wasn't accessible enough, and to change 3 of the spark plugs (your same problem) one has to pull the engine.
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1TPrime,
Don't know what urban legend you were told of, but that's certainly not the Fiesta, and it doesn't apply to any Ford car I've ever heard of or worked on.
- Erectus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3One thing the article doesn't mention: American auto manufacturers take a loss on their small cars. They do this because the EPA requires them to have an "Average fuel economy" and they have to offset the big trucks and SUV's that make up the majority of their profits. So they're losing money on these small cars, of course they're going to churn them out as cheaply as possible.
Compare this to the japanese that specialize in small cars- think crowded Tokyo. Americans like big cars and always have, and the big 3 have never really figured out the compact car thing, with the exception of the highly rated Neon SRT-4, but I'd never drive it because...well.. its a neon...
Germans like uber-fast autobahn cars, so that is their specialty (and my personal preference).
I echo concerns about poor brakes on american cars. I had a Taurus rental a couple of years ago that nearly killed me due to brake fade descending a mountain. Even using engine braking I still had to park it and use the ebrake due to excessive fade. Very scary.- Frinlythegnome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Similar to what i was going to say. American car companies continue to pump out Suvs and trucks when the price of gas continues to rise while the Japanese companies are making a killing on small fuel efficient cars.
- belfastbiker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"American auto manufacturers take a loss on their small cars. They do this because the EPA requires them to have an Average fuel economy"
How come we in Europe can make a profit on small cars and have higher average fuel economy than you?
"Americans like big cars and always have, and the big 3 have never really figured out the compact car thing"
Why do you think that is? - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Why do you think that is?"
Because most Americans abhor *****. Most Americans like big, roomy, comfortable vehicles that float down the highway. Which is why you see an F-150, Explorer, Tahoe and Suburban in every other driveway. They aren't this nation's best selling vehicles by accident.
And if you don't think that's true, why does that Honda Ridgeline, Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan exist? - tumult, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4"How come we in Europe can make a profit on small cars and have higher average fuel economy than you?"
Emissions requirements are much more strict in the US. - cypherz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I love my Neon SRT-4! Yes, its just a Neon, but it's a stinkin' fast Neon! w00t!
BTW, Great brakes! You need 'em in the SRT-4!
BTW, I've raced many 5 series. Fast cars. But they cost alot more than the Neon. - cypherz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The German influence in Chrysler-Daimler is the best thing thats ever happened to Dodge. God bless 'em for the SRT cars! I've owned several "classic" sports cars from the past. MG B, Triumph TR-3 and the driving experience of the SRT-4 is very much a sports cars experience in spite of being a Neon and a 4 door.
I'm disappointed at the reports (above) regarding the Cobalt. I thought it might be Chevy's breakthrough into the real sports car world. Alas, the Jap cars still got them there. I hope the Caliber SRT-4 doesn't fall short of the Neon SRT-4. (And I hope its got less squishy motor mounts!) - h2d2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@theblooms:
Well, for one those "*****" save their owners at least three figures in gas a year and because they are fast and fun to drive. And besides if all Americans liked "big and roomy" cars, Toyota and Honda wouldn't be making a killing here would they?
So please do not categorize the entire nation to fit your demographics. Because where I live, a lot more people drive small to mid size sedans than big trucks. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The reason Honda and Toyota are making a killing is they are producing cars people want to drive.
Honda:
Look at an 86 Accord, a 96 Accord and a 2006 Accord. The car grew MUCH bigger in response to what Americans wanted. Look at the aforementioned Ridgeline. Big assed truck.
Toytota:
Look at an 86 Truck, a 96 Truck and a 2006 Truck. Again, it grew. A LOT. The Tundra, not even existing 10 years ago, is a big assed truck as well.
Those companies are smart, and responded perfectly to the demands of their customers. I LOVE Hondas and Toyotas.
Personally I drive a Honda Prelude. It is a really good looking ***** that is fun to drive and gets great mileage. I got a killer deal on it. But I have no pretensions that it is NOT a *****. Corollas and Civics are, by definition, *****. OUTSTANDINGLY reliable and affordable cars. They are probably the BEST commuter cars money can buy, but NOT luxurious by the furtherest stretches of the imagination. An '85 Buick Electra is about 100X a more comfortable car on the highway than a brand spanking new Civic or Corolla would EVER be.
If Honda and Toyota were still solely making the tiny ***** they did like in the '80's, they wouldn't be in business. If you seriously think that Pick-ups, vans and SUV's are going away in America anytime soon, you are delusional. While I can see in 20 years SUV sales may fall, the Full Sized Pick-ups like the Chevy Silverado, Ford F-150, Dodge Ram, and Toyota Tundra will NEVER go away in America. EVER. - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Americans need big cars because their fat, lazy asses get bigger each year.
- Karmalary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Having been a life-long advocate of Chevy pick-ups, 2006 found me the proud owner of a new Toyota Tundra. Which was made right here in the USA and has a level of refinement Detroit hasn't even dreamed of in years.
- smeep2k4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's funny you should say that. My Dad bled GM for close to 40 years. He owned GM vehicles almost his entire life. He recently bought a Toyota Tundra and has since said he'd never go back to GM. I have a Chevy Truck, and I think my next truck might be a Titan or a Tundra. There are too many quirks on this truck (ie. I have to kick just to the right of the gas pedal if I want the fan to start running in the winter, my windshield wipers work... except when it rains, etc etc.)
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7There's an episode of that English car show Top Gear where they take an old Toyota pickup truck and try to destroy it but it seems impossible. After watching this episode, that pretty much convinced me there is no competition for Toyota when it comes to pickups.
Watch this and cry if you own an American pickup truck:
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=9a1f6477beb1e1486dc10138285bee51.505090 - MASTERPL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5watched the video. If this doesn't make you switch to toyota, I don't know what will.
- Karmalary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As a matter of fact I saw that video, right after I bought my Tundra. My neighbor has an old Tacoma about like that poor truck they tried to kill. Those dudes ought to see what he does with his on a daily basis. The body is rusted out and dented with heavy farm work, but the drive train and frame just keep going. Not even SW Missouri stops it when he's rounding up cows - we've winched into mid-air to cross mud.
- NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD0UVI99R8Q
The Yahoo link didn't work for me. - NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*Edit feature was nonexistent*
Better audio (2 parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRZzkrLSXj0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Fzrsf4G2I
- Tivor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13With such a shoddy quality, it's a wonder that GM held on to the title of "top-selling automaker" for so long.
If anything, it's a sign that seemingly-patriotic "Buy American" sentiment doesn't really work. A company has no incentive to improve upon itself if the public will continue to hand over money despite the prevalence of superior products.
Consumers' money should go where quality is. That's the capitalistic way, and ultimately, the American way.- egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2GM is the top seller into fleet markets, governments and such. That's been their primary focus. They also sell a lot of SUVs
- neilparis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They don't make a lot of money on fleet sales. The DO make a lot of money on SUVs and trucks, which is why they are so stubbornly hanging on to them.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2So "stubbornly"? Uh, no. The reason they hang onto producing them is they are the vehicles most American like to drive. If no one bought them, then they wouldn't be produced. That's capitalism. Drive down any street in America. Literally every other vehicle is a truck, van or SUV. Prius owners notwithstanding, most people in this nation actually LIKE driving big, comfortable, roomy vehicles.
Personally I drive a Honda Prelude. One of the SMALLEST cars you can buy. But I got a killer deal on it and it gets great gas mileage. Would I prefer an Escalade? Of course. I just can't afford to pay for, nor feed it. - gourami, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I've never been a fan of domestic cars, but I don't agree with this article. Condemning GM based on a single rental car experience is silly. I travel frequently and I've rented the G6 several times before...I have actually found it fun to drive and never had any of the problems reported in the article. And seriously, almost all rental cars come with a key fob, so I don't see why unlocking the passenger door was such an issue for the author.
GM does have a legacy of shoddy quality, but it's not as bad as it's purported to be. Their Cadillac and Buick brands had better initial quality rankings than Toyota in 2004 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-04-28-quality-chart.htm), and the domestic automakers as a whole have dramatically improved their quality over the last 5-10 years to where they're almost on par with the Japanese. - neilparis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ theblooms
Yeah, you're right. But by "stubbornly" I meant they produce these SUVs at the expense of smaller vehicles. I'm not necessarily saying they're wrong for doing it--obviously they're great for profit. But it's foolish to ignore the rest of the market, too - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The truth is, many American companies would be out of business if it weren't mandated by the government accounting office that wherever possible, american products be purchased. This is most obvious when it comes to government vehicles. This is another reason why Harley Davidson managed to be successful when in the area of motorcycles, the Japanese clearly also have superiority. It's a status symbol issue more than having anything to do with quality, performance or reliability.
- HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -23/+4There is some Toyota fanboyism up in here...
Why are people picking sides? "See, the brand that I choose to buy is better than the brand you choose to buy"
As a consumer, Toyota has nothing to offer me in the performance market so they'll continue to lose out on my money.- JorgeGonzalez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Because Toyota makes great cars and therefore many people love them.
- Erectus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Agreed. If toyota had a RWD performance car with utility (how I miss the supra) they would have a much better chance at earning my business
- Karmalary, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Toyota makes great pickups too. I'm not so much a fanboy as I just did a year of careful research before making my decision. The overall workmanship is supurb, the 20+ owners I talked with were very happy with their trucks, and customer service has been wonderful. I sure couldn't say that about my last GM product.
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2All the rear wheel drive performance fanatics seem to be forgetting that those cars aren't popular anymore with the mainstream. Maybe there is a niche market to be filled but for most people we want reliability and good handling in all weather, these are two areas that rear wheel drive vehicles are not famous for filling.
Should Toyota fill the rear wheel drive gap how many cars do you think they might sell? They obviously are always trying to be better but maybe you need to express the kind of vehicle you are looking to purchase so they can focus on bringing it to market (however small that might be). - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I owned a rear-wheel-drive Celica and I currently own a front-wheel drive Celica. The front-wheel drive vehicle has a smaller engine than my real wheel drive version, and is faster, lighter, better at cornering and overall a better performer.
Don't call them "performance cars" if all you really care about is seeing the back wheels spin. Front wheel drive, especially on vehicles like Toyota, was a dramatic performance and handling improvement. Rear wheel vehicles aren't popular because they have been proven to be inferior.
- moneybender, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4I kinda like my GM. It still works great after two Japanese cars have squashed themselves on it. Sure, I've spent money on repairs to get it to 175K miles, but then I've spent a lot on that crappy Volvo in the garage to get it to 120K. :) And the Volvo hasn't been banged around in 4WD on rough gravel roads, even.
- drk1t, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15 GM and Ford union employees in the USA are pricing themselves out of their jobs.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You seem to forget that it takes two to tango. It was GM, Ford and Chrysler that agreed to wage demands of the unions. Management is as much to blame as the unions. When times were good for the Big3, they had no problem or issue overpaying for labour. Unfortunately, that has come back to haunt them (and the unions).
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7So the unions would rather let their whole industry go under than take a pay cut? Makes sense to me!
- toasty168, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the whole point is that despite the high cost of labor unions, if the company was actually to churn out decent cars, they could still succeed. The problem is they're worried about the bottom line instead of creating brand loyalty/recognition which is where the long term money is at. All their goals seem to be short term, hence the ***** interiors, poor performance and low reliability. The Japanese invested long term and are now reaping in the profits.
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Japanese and other nations have free national healthcare. You can't blame GM's fate on unions, not when other countries have far more benefits for their employees and they still manage to produce superior products. If the americans gave a sh*t about the health and welfare of their employees, you wouldn't need unions. Crappy companies treat their employees like crap, and as a result, produce crappy products. Unions are really not a significant issue in the big picture.
- JeanNaimard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"GM and Ford union employees in the USA are pricing themselves out of their jobs."
So do their executives.
- XMinusX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3i think unions might be at it's end and corporation's are going to give out 10 dollar an hr jobs doing twice the work. I Think lower wage country's are going to grow and go through a Industrial Revolution. when that happens our Economy will go up because we will be back on an equal playing field.
- eclips, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0The western world revels in those companies that lose their innovation. It is humorous to see enterprises that begin with novel ideas and great products succumb to failure because they rely solely on their momentum, and on their achieved market share. But it doesn't take long for a market leader to become a has been. Once leading innovator Google now turned buyer of good ideas is a testament to that fact. As mentioned in the article, these domestic automakers had decades to plan for the challenges they face today. Now, they simply exist to suit the needs of shareholders alone. That is why they focus so heavily on branding and marketing. What is true does not matter, what matters is what you think is true. This adage drives the marketing industry into fooling people that GM makes a good product. And for every crappy car they create their is a sucker who is willing to buy them. So, we really have each other to blame. The false and empty hopes of the average consumer who continues to give GM another chance. Despite their deep dissatisfaction with their failed products we continue to buy.
- tumult, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you'd left out that part about Google, people would be digging your comment.
- mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When in a mature market with stable market share your main job is to maintain your market share. The Big 3 let these upstarts come out of no-where and eat them alive. It says to me that they are not only lazy and stupid but also lacking in competitive spirit. They SHOULD have been able to bury any competitor before they even got a foothold in the market but they didn't. They ignored the small car segment because their consumer research fu(%i#& sucked. Now they are taking it in the shorts on small, medium, luxury AND SUVs. The people running these companies should be ashamed and the stockholders should fire the entire board of each company and start over.
- HomeRowedkilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1God. I know. That's the problem with digg. It's suppose to be about people sharing views and story's unless it apposes there views . Digg concerns of Apple,Foxfire Extensions,Google,bitching and Kevin rose Fan boys , put world news in there and add a actual gem of the Internet and that's Digg on a regular repetitive basis. Digging me down will only prove my point. then doing the cowardly digging down why do you explain for the sake of conversation why you disagree with them.yah might learn something from each other.
people think it's the product that sucks, Some are saying Anti union things some accept that it is our cost for unions but unions are good and makes middle American survive. if we isolate our market and buy real American products our economy and business might do well. and people might have money and jobs . We are the first generation of people who will be making less then our parents did. There are people coming home from collage with no jobs. Helping smaller country are fine but it's hurting our economy. one digger submitted that the American dollars don't mean much in the world market anymore. God Canadians are getting close to our dollar and god knows you don't want them to be the next power country.
- lashepherd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If they would've kept the EV-1 on the road, they would have moved back to 50%ish market share. I'm not a tree hugger but I'm damn tired of doing the oil game while have politicians jack us off talking about hydrogen fuel. Electric works and works now. I dare everyone to watch the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car"; it paints a clear picture.
What do I drive? '03 Chevy Silverado. Nice rig but when gas goes back to $3-$5/gallon, I'll damn the day I bought it.- moneybender, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe I'll be ready at that point to lay down the cash for GM's full-sized 35MPG 4WD hybrid pickup. I wonder what driving through the creek will do to the electric motors, though. ;)
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Haven't seen the movie, but the thing is, don't electric cars just unload the power production to an external source (usually coal?). I am not really sure that's an improvement...
- mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Passenger cars, for the most part, are extremely efficient. Had the SUV craze never happened we'd be a much better position than we are now. It would have been simple to avoid the SUV mania too, just require a special permit. Anyway, one of the worst things choking American cities at this time is particulate pollution from diesel trucks (which have almost no regulation on tailpipe emissions). IF we were smart we'd phase out SUVs by more restrictive regulations (i.e. set a maximum height, weight, length, width, etc of passenger cars) AND start to regulate diesel trucks as heavily as passenger cars.
Very quickly the problem would get significantly better. - aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, electric cars unload the pollution to the power stations, but considering most people charge them overnight when the grid isn't experiencing peak demand and has extra power to spare, this is a BS arguement. Also, with the EV1, they found it was incredibly easy to maintain, and that was with 10 year old battery technology. With the current advancements in batteries, you could get 200-300 miles on a charge.
I drive a truck because I need something that can haul wood (hobby woodworking business, and I pick up 2000 lbs of oak at a time). But I drive 45 miles to my full-time job, and I would love an electric car as a commuter vehicle. It would just be too damn cheap and simple. In the absence of one being available on the market, I'm going to continue driving my truck until I find a cheap commuter car that gets 35MPG (my truck gets 22MPG), and I'll be buying it used, not new. So regardless of what GM, Toyota, or any other manufacturer put out, they won't be seeing any extra money off of me. That is, of course, until they make a product I actually want. - PaulusVictor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Then tell me an0nymous, which do you think is better?
One polluting source (a coal plant lets say) which can be easily regulated at the source.
OR
100,000 (# pulled out of my ass) polluting sources which can't be easily regulated?
That, and electric motors are inherently more efficient than their combustion counterparts. - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1aliengoods: "Yes, electric cars unload the pollution to the power stations"
My power station is hydro-electric. What pollution are you talking about? - dcshiderly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What? You do realize that 1) GM was the only manufacturer to even attempt to build a mass-produced, all-electric vehicle, and 2) they were so fantastically useless for so many people that they were discontinued? Maybe some people can get away w/ only driving less than fifty miles on a single eight-plus hour charge, but most of us can't do that. The car was also dangerously slow. Even the small cars of the day could manage 8-10 seconds to 60 miles an hour, and the EV-1 took what, twelve? Fourteen? That's too slow for traffic these days. You're ripping on them for having actually done the engineering to see if it's even feasible? How about ripping on Toyota or Honda for not ever producing something like this in the first place?
GM's forgotten more about vehicle engineering than most of the other manufacturers know. They can produce some of the most jaw-dropping gorgeous concepts ever seen, and sometimes even manage to get them into production. The biggest problem they face is execution. Every single one of their cars is engineered to a marketing price point, which forces them to nickel and dime their suppliers, thus getting amazingly bad parts for interiors, controls, etc. A similar effect can be seen in the Mercedes product lineup with the ML and the C class. M-B switched to this type of business model to get volume up, and it's backfired horribly. Mercedes has been running a distant fourth in reliability surveys for a number of years now, and they've even gone on the record saying that they don't need to be first, that second, third, or even fourth place was acceptable. As a result, Cadillac has been actually ahead of them for three years running, and once GM solves the interior materials quality issues (which looks like they may have actually learned that lesson for the '08 model lineup at NAIAS), they'll run roughshod over M-B. Hell, they're doing it today. - mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Passenger cars, for the most part, are extremely efficient. Had the SUV craze never happened we'd be a much better position than we are now. It would have been simple to avoid the SUV mania too, just require a special permit. Anyway, one of the worst things choking American cities at this time is particulate pollution from diesel trucks (which have almost no regulation on tailpipe emissions). IF we were smart we'd phase out SUVs by more restrictive regulations (i.e. set a maximum height, weight, length, width, etc of passenger cars) AND start to regulate diesel trucks as heavily as passenger cars.
Very quickly the problem would get significantly better.
- keeblerkhan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8GM's vehicles are good for one thing, low used car prices. We had a second generation body-style Transport. We bought it used for the price of a compact car with only 17,000 miles. After a year, the weather stripping was falling out, then the ABS started making noise, etc. We still liked the versatility of the interior and some fore-thought for families. When it came time to retire it lately, what did we replace it with? A Toyota Sienna. Why? All minivans are almost equal in prices, Chrysler, Dodge, Toyota, GMs clones - even Hyundai's new minivan, are all within $2,000 of each other. When push came to shove, the Toyota won in our eyes. The main thing was that safety of the owners was paramount for Toyota. GM preferred to glorify the entertainment package. GM has entertainment packages standard on their latest Transport. Not bad, DVD, hard-drive capable radio if you want it, all standard and no additional cost. The safety features for the Transport were front airbags and ABS. The Toyota on the other hand - entertainment was optional, but since this is to haul the family, safety was paramount. The Sienna has ABS, stability control, front air bags and side curtain air bags. Maybe GM executives need to drive their product more often with their family.........
- egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, GM execs need to drive OTHER brands. Maybe then they'd get it. As it stands, they have been fed a steady diet of Koolaid and believe their problems are because they just aren't getting the message out.
I'm sure their program* cars are put through the line with managers watching every bolt go on, just to make sure everything is done right. Common practice in big corporations. Even if the execs' cars were the same as yours or mine, they only drive them for a few months, and just about any piece of crap will run fine for a few months.
*Program car - what Chrysler calls their executive's cars that are driven for a few months then sent to dealers to be sold as used. My parents get them all the time. If I could find a Chrylser I liked, I'd buy 'em too.
- egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, GM execs need to drive OTHER brands. Maybe then they'd get it. As it stands, they have been fed a steady diet of Koolaid and believe their problems are because they just aren't getting the message out.
- thebudda, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Unions ruin the company more than anything else, the crappy cars are just what follows with the company's overall mentality. Unions were a good thing early in the century when people needed representation and protection from employers. They have been out of control for over 50 years. Unions have become nothing more than a powerful gang, bullying and extorting everything they can from the company (usually wants, not needs) which in turn we as consumers and taxpayers end up paying for. It's bad enough that we as a consumer have to pay for this, but yes we all pay for it every time the government give them subsidies, massive tax breaks, lucrative contracts, and bail them out every time they get into trouble. Why do you think we still have GM, the whole airline and rail industry around today? US tax dollars hard at work.
I had to testify last year in a case up in NYC. The detective I dealt with was telling me about all of the public service unions (police, fire, garbage pick up, etc.) and how great they were. Just after telling me how much money he made, benefits he got, entitlements the union got him and such, he proceeded to complain that he had to drive 2 hours to work each day from his small $350,000 house he can that he pays an ungodly amount of taxes on each year, the taxes that are excised on everything, government fees everywhere you turn, and how much "them bastards take us for." And he just couldn't believe we do not have hardly any unions where I was from and how low our taxes are, and how cheap our cost of living is. Gee, wonder how that happens.- Erectus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Unions sacrifice absolutely everything in order to collect more union dues by bribing the members (with artifically inflated wages). The money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from tax subsidies, higher consumer cost, or cutting product cost. It will *never* come out of the corporation's profits.
Unions are killing NY, and they won't stop until they've bankrupted the state or it is 100% socialist. Wasn't there a dugg article recently about how many people in the NYC area are dependant on free food to survive? Socialism at work.
I am totally amazed at how many people think unions are a good thing. Its the modern day mob. I haven't done the math, but I suspect unions are costing us as much or more than executive level theft such as enron. Would make an interesting research project. - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Blame Unions all you want, but they didn't design the crappy GM cars.
- Erectus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Unions sacrifice absolutely everything in order to collect more union dues by bribing the members (with artifically inflated wages). The money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from tax subsidies, higher consumer cost, or cutting product cost. It will *never* come out of the corporation's profits.
- SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Not being an American I don't know what GM churn out for the American market but they own Vauxhall/Opel here in the U.K which are pretty bland, run of the mill yet popular cars (I was shocked to see how similar the new Corsa is to the Alfa 147, lookswise naturally). The thing you always find about Japanese/Korean cars, is that they all feel so..........nothing. My experience of Toyota stems from some rental cars and my parents recently owning one. Sure they are very reliable, solidly built but yet feel so dull and uninteresting. I guess it depends what you are looking for but certainly European manufacturers have got the Japanese licked if you are looking for anything other than cheap reliability.
On a side note maybe it's something about the way American's view cars that seems to make the market so different from that in Europe. I remember reading once in an opinion piece in one of the sunday papers motoring sections that the American's tended to view their car as an extension of the horse 'a means to getting around' whereas here in the U.K it is most definitely a status symbol for most people (even to the extent that many people will replace their car, putting themselves under financial strain every 2 years even if it is just a £12,000 Focus). Was wondering if Americans could shed any light on this at their end?- moneybender, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's both here in the U.S. There are places where you don't need one to get around, but the train won't take me out to my favorite woods. Having said that, many people here definitely consider status when choosing what they'll drive, just like anywhere.
- Erectus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting perspective. Cars are a huge status symbol for many americans. Some people here do get a new car every 2 years but that is pretty rare. I think average is 5 years, and the smarter consumers get a new car every 10 years.
But the other part is we have a car culture. I have 3 cars - a shiny new benz that I use for commuting and most social occasions, and a couple of other older cars that are project cars that I work on or drive because I like to. I'll get together with friends and we'll work on project cars together. I think we have a car culture here where it is more about transportation or status. I think the horse analogy is a good one- its about the enthusiasm and hobbyist value.
The aftermarket for vehicle add-ons in the USA is huge. It is common for someone to buy an older car and spend more on accessories and upgrades than they paid for the vehicle. In fact, some people can spend more just on the WHEELS for a car than they paid for the vehicle. Its a hobby.
- JoeSlingo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2What a bunch of BS. First of all, the guy is talking about a rental car. They get beat on. The other problem is stuff made in china and japan is getting just as ***** as stuff in the US. I bought a 20" lcd a month ago (samsung) that flickers a yellow tint on the screen sometimes. Emailing tech support returned silence. They dont give a *****. A buddy bought a 27" tv (again, samsung) and it wouldnt remember the channel settings after powering it off. I used to own an RSX that I bought because everyone said how great the stuff lasted. It was nice looking, but after 50,000 miles the dash lights started burning out, speaker mounts came loose/rattled, and oxygen sensor burned out ($350 + $100 to get it checked + $LABOR). A friend of mine bought one of those Toyota Prius told he was supposed to get some really bitchin gas mileage with it and it's not even close. The worst part is , people are still clinging to the idea that stuff made overseas is better.
- Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5lol stuff made overseas are not nessesary better. But did you know that a Toyota Camry have more American made parts in it than a Ford Mustang? I guess you're agreeing with that article all along ROFL. Because of Unions, American car companies have to go to Canada/Mexico to cut down cost, and Japanese companies keep putting up American manufacturing plants.
".....Toyota currently operates 12 manufacturing plants in North America and will open two additional facilities in the future; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas in San Antonio, Texas in late 2006 and Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada's second plant in Woodstock, Ontario in 2008.
Additionally, Toyota will begin producing the Camry at Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. (SIA) in Lafayette, beginning in Spring 2007.
In 2005, Toyota produced more than 1.55 million vehicles, more than 1.3 million engines and nearly 400,000 automatic transmissions at its North American manufacturing facilities.
By 2008, Toyota will have the annual capacity to build nearly two million cars and trucks, 1.44 million engines, and 600,000 automatic transmissions in North America.
Annual purchasing of parts, materials, goods and services from North American suppliers total more than $28 billion................."
"http://www.just-auto.com/article.aspx?ID=88247&lk=np"
The guy is right on IMO, GM is obviously capable of making good cars, the Corvette is probably the best American car for the past decade. High operational cost is one thing, but poor design and quality play a much bigger role in the downfall of GM. - mellon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your LCD problem sounds like a bad cable or a bad connector. That is, it's probably easy to fix. Before you give up on it, try a different cable, if you haven't already. Failing that, see if the connector is bad by jiggling it. If that makes the yellow flicker happen, it's probably a cold solder joint in the connector. You can usually fix this by simply resoldering it.
Your point is true, though. Indeed, the article says the same thing. The problem with GM isn't that they're american. It's that they're designing and building lousy cars. They mentioned a number of other American products that are very nice.
- Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5lol stuff made overseas are not nessesary better. But did you know that a Toyota Camry have more American made parts in it than a Ford Mustang? I guess you're agreeing with that article all along ROFL. Because of Unions, American car companies have to go to Canada/Mexico to cut down cost, and Japanese companies keep putting up American manufacturing plants.
- aquamato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9being a bit older now, and owning and selling many cars. i was a gm freak! i had a Buick as my first car. (crap) Then i went to the Chevy Montecarlo. I loved that car, but again, i was a new driver and i was young and naive, from there there was the Dodge Ram. A couple of transmission problems , but not bad. These were all used cars. Now as i got older, had some money, i bought my first new car 95 Impala SS. This car was so sweet. I absolutely fell in love with this thing. Until the 3 yr 35000 mile warranty went, along with the water pump. and of coarse, in hind sight my hood and trunk panels never lined up right, the paint was rubbing off some corners, and the clear coat actually started to peel off the p.side door. Looking back, non of these cars, although looked nice, ever ran right. The interiors, both new and old had so many flaws. I now own three Toyotas. My 98 Avalon, my 87 4runner, and 05 scion. although not perfect, they feel, and drive great. and they didn't break the bank on price. My dad now owns a Nissan. The whole family switched over. not because we hate American cars, but because we learned from our mistakes.
- ipodupodwepod, on 10/12/2007, -14/+0Maybe if America allowed slave labor like Japan does (paying less than minimum wage for workers because they have such a competitive workforce population) then we too could carve out more of a market share.
You can make cuts here and there to boost the profitability, but really, how can you compete with "free"?
If people stop buying foreign cars, there won't be a market for them. One hand washes the other. I don't foresee this occurring, so let's all get ready to bow down to dictatorship and break out the "japanese as a second language" books :)- xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If people stop buying foreign cars, there won't be a market for them." If people stop buying foreign cars it will only encourage the American companies to make even ***** cars. Competition benefits everybody, the company, employees, and consumers. The foreign companies undoubtedly raised the bar, it was up to the American companies to compete. Instead they keep blaming everything and everybody except their crappy cars.
I hate the fact that I have two foreign cars in the driveway, but I refuse to spend my hard earned money on crappy vehicles. - nazadus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So what you are saying is our labor is too expensive to have cars that hold up?
I don't understand your logic.
The article is more about the cars themselves sucking and not lasting, it's not so much about the price of it.
Oh, and if the price of labor was cheaper, guess what that only means? more profits for them with only a *slight* decrease in cost to the vehicle -- with their bean counting attitude.
@xcoastie:
I hear ya. I'm not about to drop $20k on a vehicle that's going to nickel and dime me to death in 3-5 years BEFORE I pay off the vehicle... screw that *****. - toasty168, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Uh, hello dumbass??? Toyota produced 1.55 MILLION cars in thier NORTH AMERICAN facilities.
- SammyJr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Maybe if America allowed slave labor like Japan does (paying less than minimum wage for workers because they have such a competitive workforce population) then we too could carve out more of a market share."
IIRC, Japanese labor is more expensive than American labor. Japan is a very expensive country to live in.
That's China you are thinking about.
- xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"If people stop buying foreign cars, there won't be a market for them." If people stop buying foreign cars it will only encourage the American companies to make even ***** cars. Competition benefits everybody, the company, employees, and consumers. The foreign companies undoubtedly raised the bar, it was up to the American companies to compete. Instead they keep blaming everything and everybody except their crappy cars.
- 3drage, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9It's interesting the amount of people who come down hard on unions. Unions help secure a better life for middle-class employees. They offer job security, a sense of accomplishment, and comradery. The difference between union employees and non-union employees is night and day. Non-union workers are always looking to stab each other in the back to get what they want. This creates a hostile work environment filled with stress. A union is full of employees who are willing to work together to accomplish a goal. After five years of working my rear off in a corporate job, I was laid off without notice. There was not so much as a warning, a thank you, or time to prepare to get a new job. It seems like when it comes to keeping your employees happy, companies would just rather outsource to India. I feel that unions are needed more today than ever, and a company's bad decisions should not fall on human beings who need to support their families, but on the people making the bad decisions. (Who I might add get paid more a year than most laborers make in a lifetime).
- moneybender, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@3drage - Guess it's the death threats against my family and vandalism that bother me. That's why I'll always be anti-union.
- dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Unions help secure a better life for middle-class employees."
That maybe used to be true, but these days unions seem to be in business to support unions. It would be hard to argue that the Director's Guild was more concerned with quality than protecting their racket.
I agree working class people need some type of protection from over-reaching corporate greed, but I'm not sure unions are the answer these days. Most unions came into being before labor laws and I'm not sure what value they provide. Unless you count collecting union dues as a value proposition. - egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ok, I was a supervisor in a union shop. I saw the techs who reported to me bullied, marginalized and stocked by union officials, mostly because they got paid a little more due to their job duties. One employee actually sought a restraining order after a shoving match. It worked out for the best, since that episode was the turning point in getting the union voted out. Meanwhile, all the employees had their wages frozen while a contract was negotiated (2+ years), and they didn't any sort of back pay.
The unions also like to threaten strikes. They get all the rank and file fired up and emotional over a few cents/hr, then they go out on strike. Even if they get their raise, most of the time the strike wipes out any gain they may receive and then some. - sidewalksurfing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1unfortunately, the unions which began as a good idea, have become corrupt and inefficient in many ways. however, i still think they are a necessary evil to protect poor, uneducated workers who get locked inside walmart all night long. Don't kid yourself if you think that the CEOs of these companies (eg ENRON) care about the wealth and health of its workers AT ALL.
- nazadus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I once heard a friend of mine bitch about unions.
Basically he was a programmer and knew the electrician field. The time came for others to go home, end of day. My friend asked if they could just finish this part, it's just 5 minutes. The dude refused. My friend decided to do the part himself -- so he can fly back home. They got *extremely* pissed and decided to file some form of grievance against him to which he didn't care.
I'm going to side with that unions *used* to be good, but not anymore. Perhaps they may have a use in the future... but that will only be after they cost themselves out of jobs. - brianbennett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Unions have have been forces for good 'back in the day,' but now their cancerous, self-perpetuating political organizations. One of the reasons American cars are overpriced is because we have to pay some guy $25 /hour to drill one bolt in to one hole.
- belfastboi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7When the Japanese first arrived in Europe the 70's, they competed by imitating and producing high quality copies of euro cars and with the exception of the Germans, it took the euro-box makers 20 years to catch up in terms of build quality and craftsmanship. Having had the pleasure of working in the USA i was totally shocked when i was given a brand new ford focus lease car, expecting it to be like my euro built one but with the wheel on the other side. But inside it was so so cheap and tacky and the engine died at 7k. If they can make high quality versions for us Europeans, why do our American friends settle for such utter and blatant cost cutting in their purchases? Continue to vote with your dollar, eventually even the most arrogant conglomerate will take notice!
- dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"GM shows it is a company run by bean counters and ad men. "
Wow, welcome to the mid-1970's. GM lost their market because they put profit over quality. Their cars are junk, plain and simple. If GM would strive to make the most cost-efficient and reliable cars on the market, Toyota wouldn't be kicking their ass. There's nothing surprising or magic about GM's demise. Make bad cars, go out of business. That's how open markets work. I buy Honda, Toyota and Hyundai because they make better cars.
No one cried when the dinosaurs went extinct. No one will cry when GM finally swirls down the toilet for the last time. B-bye, losers. - lorenski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I keep wanting to buy a Silverado every year. But every year I am disappointed, especially this year. I miss the 70's when aesthetics were involved in the design and engineering. That's why Dodge has been so successful. They are into looks. Looks are where its at. If a Silverado simply "looked" good, sales would scream. I could care less about quality, In 3 years I'll have a new one anyway.
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dodge is into making their vehicles look like *****. Why do they make every exterior design element so ***** huge?
- antechinus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It is really only the American GM cars which are so poor. GM makes some very decent vehicles in other parts of the world, for example GMH (Holden), SAAB, and Opel to name some.
The problem is that American auto engineering is way behind the rest of the world. In fact American cars are a joke.- ZenPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There's nothing wrong with the engineers, it's the executives and focus groups that decide the way the car is to be built. Case in point, waaay back when the Ford Pinto was designed it was one of the safest small car designs made. It had a puncture proof bladder in the fuel tank, and an air bag. Bean counters decided that these features would make the car too expensive for the target demographic, and the features were cut. The ended up with the exploding car...
- madtinkerer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9First, sorry for the long post, but I hope it is informative.
I went to Japan about a year ago and spent most of the day in a park in Hiroshima. As I was about to leave, an elderly Japanese man came up to me and we started to speak. He seemed like a nice guy so we ended up going out for dinner together. He told me that he used to be an engineer for Nissan and we talked a little about the Japanese automobile market. I asked him why Japanese cars were such a dominant force on the world market and he summed it up in three basic points.
First, American workers are paid too much for their jobs and the work atmosphere in the factories is laid back compared to Japan. Japanese assembly lines are more efficient and there is more attention paid to minute details in the construction phase. He said it was a constant problem he had to deal with when he worked in the Nissan factories in America - the quality of production was just not there.
Second, and this agrees with the article, Japanese engineers have much more input in the design of the cars than their American counterparts. He told me that while American designers were given a production cost estimate they had to meet from the drawing board, Japanese engineers design the car and after it is designed, the production team has to figure out how to make the car for a certain cost per unit. Of course there is some sacrificing of quality, but not as much as in the American system. (As a teacher, I can tell you that if you start your students at 100% and take off points rather than starting at 0% and add points, their scores will be higher every time.)
Finally, he said American business strategies have no long term vision. He was amazed to know that sales were reviewed DAILY by the management. For example, if on Monday Ford sold 100 cars, but on Tuesday they sold 75, the management would react with cost cutting measures, shakeups on the line, etc. They seemed to have no business strategy that extended more than a few months. The Japanese, on the other hand, have basic engine and parts designs that are in use for 10+ years, and business strategies to match. Imagine how this effects their design process. Every part of a car has time to mature and be review and improved, not totally redesigned to suit a whole new car design every model year.- shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Laid back American workers have made some of the finest products in the world. Lots of Toyota cars are made by factories IN America. It all depends on how the company is run and if you actually have people that want to make a decent product.
- toasty168, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think the point is that american factories of american cars are too laid back.
- Chesterfield, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I've had to rent GM cars, much to my misery, on many occasions, and I was stunned by the poor performance, shockingly strange ergonomics and layout (why do you have to search for things like the secret-hidden trunk latch, etc?) But the king of crappy design is Chrysler. Get a look at their line-up. The cars 'look' and behave like big old men in suits trying to act 'hip'.
- ZenPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Chrysler is actually pretty smart. They know they can't compete with Camry, Accord, etc... so they make a product that caters to a specific market need that Japanese makers don't.
- jakhtar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I drove a Cavalier when I was in university in the late 90's. The brake were horrible - I had to change the pads every 30,000kms, without fail. The O2 sensor would die every year or so.
Also, when I bought it, there was no radio in it. That's right. No CD player, cassette deck, or radio. Just an empty plastic panel where the head unit should go. The dealer wanted $1700 just to install a basic radio and two speakers. I took it to Future Shop and had an aftermarket unit installed. I mean - who the f**k makes cars without radios of any kind???
I now own a VW Jetta. I know some people have problems with VW's, but mine is still going strong after 120,000kms. I guess I got a good one. I'm now looking to replace the Jetta, and I'm flip-flopping between the Honda Fit and the new VW Golf. I'll never buy an American car again.- ez12a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Buy a honda fit. VWs are made in Mexico now.
- zer0ized, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1This is a really stupid article. Who cares what this guy thinks about GM, and how can you base a review of the entire company on renting their lousiest car?
- residentofevil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I completely agree. One rental car and OMG! GM IS DOOMED!! I'm not knocking Toyota but it's ludicrous to make GM out to be like Yugo. I've owned GM in the past and they've lasted a long time (200,000 plus miles). Sure, I can complain about certain things about them, but they always fulfilled their intention.
- madchemst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1GM has lost money every quarter for well over two years. The bank account may be big but it isn't bottomless. Unless they do something very soon, you can kiss GM as you know it goodbye.
- toasty168, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1there are always exceptions but the general rule of thumb is american cars are cheaply designed and overly problematic.
- toyotaboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love my toyota corolla.. 130k miles and it still purrs like a kitten. My first car was a chevy (GM) corsica, and at only 6 years old and 60k miles the door panels started rusting like a mother-f*cker, the head gasket wore out, the wiring harness failed. I will never buy an "american" car ever again (big three).
The saddest part is that ford is essentially the oldest car company (early 1900's?), yet they aren't making the best reliable cars? Toyota has been around for 30-40 years, and they're passing everyone up? Sad when you think about it, it's cocky attitudes that have made them all fall.- dakboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Toyota has only been selling cars in the US for 30-40 years; they've been doing it much longer than that.
- sgunes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There was a report on NPR talking about the Big 3 and unions. Even union workers were saying that they are overpaid and had much better health benefits than anybody else. If you look at other industries with strong union: the US steel industry comes to mind. They were also run into the ground due to a collusion of incompetent (and way overpaid) management and overzealous unions.
The second factor is that GM spends something around $ 3 billion for advertisement (non-stop TV commercials, print ads, NASCAR...) and until a couple of years ago $0 for hybrid and other advanced technologies. They have the worst environmental record of any automobile company.
The only way for them to turn this Titanic around would be to invest in design, engineering and quality control and get rid of most of the marketing guys. It is probably too late for them and they will go the route of Pan Am, Woolworth's, Montgomery Ward ...
Hopefully Mercedes Benz can bring enough engineering expertise to Chrysler to make them survive.- tmiller51, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To say GM until a couple of years ago spent $0 for advanced technologies is total ignorance on your part.
- moneybender, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mercedes? You're kidding, right? I've heard about their engineering from a mechanic who knows what's necessary to fix their crap. You pay over-market prices for the work, and every job takes longer than it should because they don't know how to design and build a maintainable car.
- sgunes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1tmiller: One of the GM CEOs (may have been Bob Lutz) was quoted as wishing they had invested some of the advertising budget on hybrids (just google it). It will be 2007 in a couple of hours and all they have is a half-ass Saturn Greenline Vue! And this is from a company that spends 3$ billion on advertising. If you think that is a good market strategy, you should apply for a job at GM.
Can you name some advanced (especially fuel-saving, environmentally friendly) technologies that GM has come up in the last 10 years? - tmiller51, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1GM's first hybrid came out in 2004, before Vue. And what's wrong with the Vue's hybrid system? Although it doesn't have all of the advantages of Toyota's full hybrid system, it will be cheaper and should ultimately show up in more vehicles which will in total save more fuel. GM's full size vehicles get better mileage than comparable Toyota vehicles. GM has programs working on hydrogen and E85 vehicles...http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/sustainability/reports/01/product_design/design_enviroment/altfuels_propulsion.html
- nowisee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Toyota also has the Toyota Production System, or Lean manufacturing as you Americans like to call it. That has given them a great advantage. I would suggest you all read about TPS.
- tmiller51, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Are you saying we should all read our TPS reports?
- londubh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I've had both Chevy's (GM) and Ford's, and frankly they both suck ass. They've had 20 years, 20 goddamn years, to make a decent car to catch up with the Japanese. GM screwed themselves. They had a winner with the electric car they so conveniently killed.
- tmiller51, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh yea, a 2 seater with 100mile range for $80k, that was a real winner.
- filmbandit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2exactly -- american car manufaturers have lost the battle -- they didn't make the substantive corrections in the 70s. didn't tear down their infrastructure and rebuild production and management to match the successful japanese model.
and why bother when every 2 or 3 years you can go whine and suck off of uncle sam's teat for more corporate welfare dollars. - droflovephd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 "they didn't make the substantive corrections in the 70s. didn't tear down their infrastructure and rebuild production and management to match the successful japanese model."
GM has wanted to replace their outdated factories for years. They know they are wasteful. But in order to tear down and build a new factory, they will have to lay off some workers, at least temporarily. The unions would not let them lay off any one until recently.
You can blame GM for a lot of things, but the unions have them buy the balls when it comes to infrastructure changes.
- Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Detroit makes gas hogs that are unreliable. The consumer has other choices.
- toxicredm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Owners of American cars may get "nickel and dimed", but when it comes to repairing foreign cars their owners get "five and ten-ed". That's $5 and $10 compared to 5¢ and 10¢. Foreign car parts are so ridiculously priced you'd think the mechanic had to fly to Japan or Korea or wherever, himself, and fly back with the part in another seat next to him.
- nowisee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The reason is probably because the parts are of some quality, and you don't have to change them that often as cheap parts. And i would rather have quality parts than some parts that are likely to fail after a short time.
- nazadus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'd rather spend $5 or $10 once every 5 years than a nickel or a dime every other week, for a couple years, then an engine, then a transmission (I was going to put tranny... I thought twice about that), then a ... etc
The point is that Nissan, Toyota, etc have parts that last. When they break, you don't mind springing for extra buckage because it's so rare. GM/Ford on the other hand...
I had a friend of loves Ford and a family member that loved Chevy. Both are in their mid 30's. They now both own something other than Ford and GM. Both companies just screwed themselves.
True story:
A car salesman (Chevy) wanted a new car for himself -- went to Toyota. His boss made him go return it and buy a Chevy or else it might cost him his job in one method or another.
Even your own people don't want from you. Wow.
- greevar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'm glad I went with a 2005 Dodge Stratus R/T. It's built by Mitsubishi. :)
- nbcivic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1mitsubishi eclipse.................wow, how reliable.
- ez12a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not all japanese makes are reliable. actually only one is unreliable = mitsubishi.
- Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here is an article about how Toyota improves its cars and cuts its costs via a culture of having all employees look for ways to make things better and more efficiently. It does this at all its plants, including the ones in the U.S.:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/111/open_no-satisfaction.html- nowisee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's called Toyota Production System, or Lean manufacturing.
- filmbandit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this is such a 1979 conversation -- the u.s. auto industry doesn't care how others do things -- they don't have to -- u.s. gov will just bail and bail and bail them out again.
- lcohiomatty86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@filmbandit.. i guess we'll find out b4 too long with ford..
- MidnightSon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've got a 2004 Hyundai Elantra GT that I bought new. It's comes with a peppy 2.0L 140HP engine that gets 36mpg on the highway, disc brakes all the way around, nice tight sport suspension, leather, cruise, etc etc etc. I've put 26,000 miles on it and all it needed is routine maintenance. Even has a 5 year, 60,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty. Out-the-door price: $13,500. I love it!
- cjenish, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2First of all it was a rental, so it was probably not maintained properly and was drove very hard. Second, GM quality is much better and actually was better than Toyota last year, and last the new products are much better, Saturn Aura, GMC Acadia, Silverado, Tahoe, etc... Silverado was Truck of the year, and there are many others.. Its all perception because some people can not get over how things use to be and don't see the reality!
- fmcivic16si, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I love it, reading about how crappy GM cars are. My father has owned nothing but M cars over the years. All with over 250000 miles on them before he gets rid of them and they been nothing but great cars for him. He actually looks after them. I decided to try out a Honda and bought a 1991 civic and had to replace every suspension part imaginable, burned over a liter of oil a week from about 95000 miles on and at 180,000 miles I had to get rid of it. As for Toyota, ask a Toyota mechanic about the 1.8 liter engine and the problems there are gonna have. I work for a auto group that sells Chev Toyota Nissan Hyundai Subaru Mercedes/Smart Infinity..... Before you buy your Toyota you should look up the Echo floor pan rust recall and the Sienna brake recall and the Sienna rust recall. Look them up.... Oh and the alignment problems that Toyota is still trying to fix on the Corollas. Ask how long they will be replacing your tires, You'll get about 15000 miles on a set then they will need replacing. I work there I know. They changed from Goodyear in 06 to Bridge stone in 07 as Goodyear didn't want to go good for Toyota's manufacturing problems
- fintheman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Oh boy
A story all the Honda and Jap car sack riders can get on.
Honestly, 2-5 years ago I would of agreed with a lot. You have to be blind to see what GM is doing "right now" in order to survive.
Have a look at Saturn recently?
The projects Lutz is bringing over from Holden (The GTO, and now the G8)
Their bread and butter truck line which people would be hard to find straws to grab at when discussing quality.
If I recall, Buick is the number one selling car in China. Makes you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - jellomizer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Union vs. Non-Unioned.
I know people like to look at Unions with idealistic blinders on. Figuring the only people who hate them are Greedy Corporate types who want to abuse their work force. GM is a strongly Unioned shop, Toyota is Non-Unined. Toyota pays its employees well and gives them good benefits but they can save a lot of money by not dealing with the union, and put more money towards making higher quality cars, and well paid and happy hard working workers. Unions have expensive over head. It first make HR far more expensive because they will need to work with the Union for every stupid change, If they don't like an employee they just can't fire them they need to go threw with the Union, so in the mean time a bad employee is still working (Costing the company), while HR (which is not free as well) is working twice as long or more to get Union OK to fire them. Also for situations of improvement in technology they may make some jobs obsolete. Yes it is very bad when a Job a person has been working for had become obsolete, but it happens. The company shouldn't expect to keep you hired for a job that doesn't need to be done. Unions are now just as greedy if not more then the corporations there customers are employees who pay them to protect their rights, and for the money their job is to be sure the workers are being treated fairly, but because they are, their job now is to prove that they are still relevant. But if you realize that if you allow one good employee to get laid off and hire 3 less skilled employees at less money you can get more money in dues. As well as the historical connection to the Mafia.
Unions need reform BAD. Workers are starting to realize that they do little to protect them, while making it expensive for the company to do business causing the plant to close and the community looses its job.
I am not saying that Unions should go away. Just threats of a Union makes Non-Union companies on their toes and makes sure their employees are treated and paid fairly. But the Unions need to stop and reorganize themselves first. Making themselves an entity that Businesses want to work with and employees want to work with as well. Where going Union isn't a death sentence for the company.- IamZed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It’s not the unions fault. Its American management.
American management is incompetent and greedy. No American executive is capable of thinking beyond his own gold parachute, so you can kiss the American auto industry goodbye. I used to think it was the unions fault, but all they are doing is their job. Management is supposed to keep them in check. If you have even the slightest concern beyond your own retirement, you know this will lead to unpleasantness, and lower short term profit thru a difficult and perpetual process of arbitration.
Or you could just say ***** Tomorrow, let my kids figure it out, and concede to everything that leads to short term profit. That is our nation’s best. Time to let other, less self centered people run things. - jellomizer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@IamZed
The only thing is threw my experience consulting with different companies. Non-Unioned American Companies seems to be doing a just as good if not better job at keeping their employees happy and productive as a Unioned company except management doesn't seem so hard to find cash. Non-Unioned companies just seem to have more cash that they can put toward future thinking and such while Unioned companies are completly worried about keeping people employed. Just dropping unions on Non-Unioned companies would be a bad thing, it will be like opening the tiger cage. But Unions on the other hand need to rethink about what they are doing and why. There job is to make sure their customers (workers) are being treated fairly, but not to a point where it is impossible for the company to stay in business, also unions fail to realize that people need to work, and work hard for some jobs, and balance a hard honest days work and abusive slave like labor. We as Americans have forgotten our root, America was build on Hard Work, the American dream is for a good life after a full day of honest work.
- IamZed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It’s not the unions fault. Its American management.
- brimg87, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6So this entire article is centered around the fact that the Pontiac G6 has poorly located locks and that a 93 year old woman got car sick so therefore the steering is poor? Give me a break.
- madchemst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article maybe. This about the entire problem of US car companies building poor quality cars. The Pontiac G6 is no exception. If you think I'm wrong, talk to me in two years when your head gasket fails and you leave your transmission behind on the highway.
- JackMiracle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Blame Unions all you want, but they didn't design the crappy GM cars."
A union lulls the common worker into complacency. The "I can't get fired" mentality ruins their dedication to create good results. Toyota does not have unions, every worker is paid more. The workers on the line know if they do not produce quality work, they'll get canned.
Furthermore, watch this Top Gear clip as Jeremy Clarkson describes what it's like to buy a F150 Lightning vs a Well made car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sscM3yBV2pU- madchemst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well said. Both Toyota and Honda factories have employee incentive programs for quality control. Above certain targets each month and each person on the line gets a bonus. I know this for a fact of Honda in Canada but only heard it was the same at Toyota. (Correct me if someone here is on the line at Toyota)