  Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 1208 Registered: 03-2005 |
...Though it's popular to sneer at the Big Three, they raked in many billions correctly judging a consumer appetite for large SUVs and pickups, including millions of pickups purchased by cosmetic cowboys who drive them to their office jobs. These were and remain impressive feats in consumer design -- as befitting products in which the Big Three were willing to invest precious capital, as distinct from the workaday sedans they churn out just to break even on their UAW labor contracts. Who's Afraid of Toyota? February 21, 2007; Page A16 By Holman W Jenkins, Jr The Wall Street Journal, op-ed Edmunds.com for years reviewed the Toyota Echo, the company's entry-level vehicle, by describing it as the cheapest car in America and still overpriced. Even after the Echo was finally dropped last year from the U.S. market, the authoritative auto site couldn't resist reminding shoppers it had once whispered in their ears, "Friends don't let friends drive Echos." And Edmunds offers only marginally more favorable comment on the Toyota Yaris, the vehicle that took the Echo's place, calling it a "decent subcompact" but advising shoppers to "keep an open mind" about competing vehicles, including the Chevy Aveo. Or take the Prius, the car that made Toyota a star in certain circles and perhaps even began to redress its reputation for bloodless, uninteresting vehicles. The Prius has hardly been burning up the sales charts lately. With a ridiculous federal tax giveaway expiring, Toyota has been reduced to dangling incentives even in front of California buyers. All this transpires while the EPA is still putting finishing touches on new mileage ratings that will sharply downgrade the Prius's gas performance. What Toyota really proved with the Prius, ironically, is that Americans have little appetite for high mileage vehicles -- in fact, are willing to buy one only when the stars align briefly and inexplicably to turn a car into a Hollywood-accredited emblem of personal enlightenment. To put it baldly, Toyota got lucky. Any motorist truly intent on burning less gasoline and saving the planet could have found a vehicle that produces mileage as good or better than the Prius's, without paying Toyota a premium for its busy "hybrid" technology. Designing a car that uses less gas, after all, is a snap. In the mid-1980s, Honda marketed a version of its sporty CRX that got an honest 50-plus miles to the gallon. In 1990, GM and Suzuki built the Geo Metro XFi, good for 53 in the city. But customers have to be willing to buy it. Detroit would have been only too glad to soak consumers for a high-tech, fuel-saving vehicle had consumers declared their willingness to be soaked. But apart from a few statesiders who might embrace such a car as a fad, it makes enduring sense only in markets where taxes keep gasoline prices in the stratosphere. And forget the guff about Toyota investing long-term for the end of oil. Hybrid technology is a mere fuel extender, and a heavy, mechanically complex one for so modest a return in gasoline savings. It shrieks technological dead-end. We offer these thoughts as corrective to the tendency to slobber over Toyota, on track to become the world's biggest car maker, especially given the rumored unraveling of DaimlerChrysler (though the real culprit there was the German side's consistent knack for screwing up a good thing). Yes, Toyota is an excellent company. Its commitment to disciplined manufacturing explains why in some developing countries the streets are jammed with Toyotas, especially its ubiquitous HiAce minivan. Toyotas often seem the only vehicles on the road -- or perhaps the only vehicles still on the road thanks to their sturdiness. But if being the biggest were such an asset, GM would be a world beater today. In fact, GM is shrinking on purpose, sacrificing market share for profitability, lessening its reliance on sales to rental fleets, which depress the value and image of all GM vehicles. As Edmunds recites in chapter and verse, Toyotas are far from being in a class by themselves in quality or value. A buyer who carefully, unemotionally weighs the trade-offs does not automatically end up owning a Toyota, or even a Japanese car -- though shoppers whose perceptions are a lagging indicator still treat Detroit products as automatically inferior. And Toyota has some disadvantages, while U.S. auto makers have advantages. Having tradition and heritage to draw upon is an advantage. Toyota is singularly weak in this regard. Few signature cars come to mind through the decades. That's why Toyota's new FJ Cruiser has earned unprecedented gushing from the automotive press -- Toyota ransacked its past for visual cues and, for once, was able to make a customer feel something for one of its vehicles. Profits are not assured by economies of scale. That's one lesson of the DaimlerChrysler merger, which was supposed to shave a couple nickels off the cost of every component by spreading their development over a larger vehicle output. As important and becoming more important in a crowded marketplace is a knack for turning out cars with ineffable cultural appeal. Toyota's world-wide success so far has come without being strong in this department. And Toyota knows it: Hence its constant invocation of the word "emotion" in how it approaches marketing its important new Tundra pickup. Cars are transportation: Buyers interested in a low-risk investment in transportation can seldom go wrong by buying Toyota. But car companies are profit-seeking organizations. Though it's popular to sneer at the Big Three, they raked in many billions correctly judging a consumer appetite for large SUVs and pickups, including millions of pickups purchased by cosmetic cowboys who drive them to their office jobs. These were and remain impressive feats in consumer design -- as befitting products in which the Big Three were willing to invest precious capital, as distinct from the workaday sedans they churn out just to break even on their UAW labor contracts. And unlike Toyota with its Prius, the Big Three produce and sell their fashion statements at a profit, a goal that still reportedly eludes the Toyota hybrid. The Big Three are far from incompetent car makers -- or incompetent users of capital. Their big problem is that, thanks to their legacy labor issues, the financial markets simply will not afford them the leeway to make large capital investments in sedan styling and technology. These labor legacies are a product of history and a set of political and market arrangements. Fix that problem, and any Detroit car maker that's still around has plenty of potential to compete successfully with Toyota or anyone else. | ||
Bratt Member Username: Bratt Post Number: 504 Registered: 01-2004 |
Not me... I drive one (Lexus). | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 3876 Registered: 10-2003 |
Traitor... lol | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1362 Registered: 10-2003 |
What a load of crap. Having tradition and heritage to draw upon is an advantage. Toyota is singularly weak in this regard. Few signature cars come to mind through the decades. That's why Toyota's new FJ Cruiser has earned unprecedented gushing from the automotive press -- Toyota ransacked its past for visual cues and, for once, was able to make a customer feel something for one of its vehicles. Oh, please. Emotion and "feeling something for a vehicle" is the LAST thing one should consider when buying a car. Americans have little appetite for high mileage vehicles -- in fact, are willing to buy one only when the stars align briefly and inexplicably to turn a car into a Hollywood-accredited emblem of personal enlightenment. Ahhh, so the writer believes in the validity of celebrity worship. But maybe Americans will have more "appetite" for high-mileage cars as fuel prices continue to rise. ($3.50 a gallon by this summer, anyone?) "Cosmetic cowboys"... that's a great phrase. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5569 Registered: 02-2004 |
Who's afraid of Toyota? THE UAW, FORD, DAIMLER CHRYSLER BENZ, GM, WHITE COLLAR, BLUE COLLAR AMERICAN CAR MANUFACTURES AND AMERICAN CAR PARTS MANUFACTURES. If they don't compete they LOSE, and that's what happening to them. George Bush has opened his global trade policies and we can't stop him. But another president in the future can. | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 126 Registered: 11-2005 |
Nice to see some evening of the score in the media. Now that Toyota is one of the top players in the market they are finally being subjected to the unending scrutiny the media has meted out on Ford and GM for the past 10 or 15 years. | ||
Ventura67 Member Username: Ventura67 Post Number: 108 Registered: 12-2003 |
Maybe overstated, but largely true. However, I did shake down the big 2.5 (I really looked hard) when I was shopping for a truck 4 years ago. The Tundra at the time seemed far and away the best pickup I could get, and 130,000 nearly flawless miles later I couldn't be happier with it. I want to buy "American", I do feel a little guilty, but damn, until GM and Ford can design trucks that are built better for the long-haul than Toyotas- forget it! I'm afraid of Toyota, yes, will they forever build better vehicles? (I don't blame the factory workers one bit, they're the ones I feel guilty about. I blame the engineers of the big 2.5 and their suppliers. Get your acts together should you ever want to get me to buy one of yours. Silly me believes a vehicle should outlast it's loan, it's decade, and should be passed down to one's children as a safe and reliable vehicle. Sorta like my screen-namesake Pontiac given to me by my father 14 years ago. That car will even outlast my Toyota!) (Message edited by ventura67 on February 22, 2007) (Message edited by ventura67 on February 22, 2007) | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1375 Registered: 11-2003 |
I think where Toyota will get caught is when in their unending pursuit for profit and cuts in costs, their workers demand more, and then you have a fight on your hands. It is only inevitable that someday this will happen. GM ruled the roost for so many years and was once thought untouchable, and sooner or later Toyota will make a mistake and pay for it. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 315 Registered: 11-2005 |
Who's afraid of Toyota? ::raises hand:: | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 970 Registered: 11-2003 |
I would be afraid to drive one... given the fact that they recalled more cars than they made in 2006... and the engine could die from the sludge issue at any point in the drive. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1709 Registered: 06-2004 |
and you can't afford to fix the damned things when they do break | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 4521 Registered: 11-2004 |
Fear them? What's to fear really? I respect them in one sense that they took what we considered our pride and joy and made a huge surge in sales with it. If anything I'm hoping that their uprising has stirred up our competitive juices and we're going to get up to the fight again. We became a bit lazy and complacent with ourselves and need to re-invent and innovate once more. We haven't given up yet. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 322 Registered: 11-2005 |
My biggest fear: If GM continues to have Toyota hand it to them, what happens if GM leaves the RenCen? Can you imagine the devastation to downtown and the setback to the riverfront? Granted, there are many things that need to happen for such a scenario, but it's just plain scary. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1364 Registered: 10-2003 |
GM and Ford will merge within 5 to 10 years, so who knows what will happen in terms of HQ location at that point. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 256 Registered: 08-2006 |
Just a fact- ford used to occupy the ren-cen it was sold g.m. in '96 for 75 million? I beleive it cost 375 million in '77. | ||
Craigd Member Username: Craigd Post Number: 223 Registered: 11-2003 |
Funny how everybody wants to blame everyone else for why the US auto makers are in trouble. Everyone except the US auto makers. I think the American auto buyers now as opposed to our parents generation are very different. We are not going to buy an American car because it is the right thing to do for our economy. (Is it?) We want quality well designed cars that don't lose a third or more of their value in the firs 2 years of ownership. Things will change or the big 3 will go out of business. Unions have overpriced wages and benefits to the auto workers in comparison the Japaneese auto workers. CEO's are making big bucks swallowing up profits too. Funny the Japaneese competition has been around 30 years and the big 3 still haven't figured out what to do about that. | ||
Peachlaser Member Username: Peachlaser Post Number: 61 Registered: 08-2006 |
"Funny the Japanese competition has been around 30 years and the big 3 still haven't figured out what to do about that." I agree. I read somewhere that the recent high prices of gas caught the Big Three with their pants down. What!!!??? What planet have the designers and decision-makers been on since the early 1970s? The Big Three have been laughing all the way to bank while selling glorified pickups in the name of Stupid Urban Vehicles (SUVs). These vehicles are: 1. Inefficient 2. Poorly designed 3. Top heavy and unsafe 4. Poor handlers on the road What scares me? 1. It looks like the Big Three still have their heads in the sand and unfortunately I see the same come through on this forum with the comments people make. 2. SUVs, which are the most dangerous vehicles on the road because of their high center of gravity getting passed down to our teenagers who are the worst drivers on the road. As a consumer, I want a car that is well-designed, reliable, efficient and handles well. I have two VTEC Hondas, one with over 225,000 miles without a problem, and the other a 15-year old Civic that gets 50 mpg on the road. Why did I buy Honda? I liked the way they approached Formula 1 back in the '80's. F1 changed the rules so that the cars got less fuel. Most manufacturers moaned, bitched and belly-ached while Honda designed the VTEC engine which still had power and increased gas mileage at the same time and kicked butt...and did so reliably. As an American, I really want to see Detroit design cars for the 21st century that will attract the buyers of the Toyotas, Hondas, Kias, Audis, VWs. How do you do that? You design and build a better car. One that performs, handles, lasts and does so efficiently. I think there is plenty wrong with the U.S. Management, Design Teams and the Unions. There is plenty of blame to go around. Unions have their place, but if you cut your nose off to spite your face, everyone is going to lose. Until the U.S. solves the healthcare crisis, things are going to be tough for the U.S. companies. We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but it ranks way down in effectiveness. We aren't getting what we pay for either in cars or healthcare and they seem to be going hand-in-hand. When you total up the number of deaths because of drug interactions, side-effects, medical mistakes, unnecessary surgeries, uncontrollable infections, etc., the U.S. healthcare system has become the #1 killer of Americans. I wish I could see a thread here about new designs out of Detroit that will become market winners rather than threads hoping demise upon Toyota. I get the feeling most Americans are proud of their obesity and would rather make fun of those in good health rather than becoming healthy themselves. I think a huge attitude change is necessary before Detroit gets this one right...if there is time. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 261 Registered: 08-2006 |
I keep hearing this same thing over and over. Go check out gms 2007/8 line up. At least they have realized the error of their ways and are legitimately trying to win customers. Not with incentives but with actual quality product. The same can not be said of the other 1.5 | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5573 Registered: 02-2004 |
What if Toyota buys GM? Will the Japanese have Michigan's automotive industry in their hands. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 267 Registered: 08-2006 |
^Same thing as "what if we sell off parts of detrot to the suburbs?" It makes for interesting discussion but its not going to happen. | ||
Dave Member Username: Dave Post Number: 132 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think the big 3 should be very afraid of Toyota. I think Toyota just built a truck factory in Houston, All those rednecks in the huge truck market of Texas are going to be faced with staying loyal to GM and Ford while they keep shipping jobs to Mexico, or buying a locally made Toyota. dave | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 127 Registered: 11-2005 |
Remember Bill Clinton's mantra in 1992 - "It's the economy, stupid?" The fact that someone on here said "Is it?" in response to their own question about whether buying domestic is the best thing for our economy is mind-boggling. Though it's true that many foreign brand cars and light trucks are built here--looking at assembly point is a mere fraction of the equation. While the foreign brand manufactures might source some of their first-tier supply chain domestically--the vast majority beyond this is in-house, off-shore suppliers. The domestic brands source the majority of their first, second and third tier supply chain to domestic suppliers--and yes, I do realize some of this supply chain is off-shore, however, the suppliers at least are domestic. Add to this front and back office jobs and spin offs and you see that the footprint of the big 2, and to a lesser extent Chrysler--is far greater than that of Toyota, Honda, or anyone else. You have freedom to buy what you please--just dont' try to assuage the damage you're inflicting to the local and regional economy by choosing your facts cafeteria-style. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 270 Registered: 08-2006 |
That wonderful truck plant has had so many cost over-runs it has greatly upped the starting price of the new tundra a couple thou. | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 128 Registered: 11-2005 |
I'd heard that also Beavis1981--that coupled with the recalls and concerns over escalating costs indicates to me that Toyota--for as much the media has humped it's proverbial leg for the past couple of decades--is coming into the same reality that befell it's domestic brand competitors in the 70s and 80s. These Japanese companies are certainly not immune from hubris--and clearly, Toyota and Honda being the most obvious examples have fallen into a pattern of believing they are untouchable. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8382 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: GM makes a lot of trucks in Arlington. Ignore the company that has been supplying jobs and taxes for years and kiss the ass of the new guy in the area. It's the American way. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1365 Registered: 10-2003 |
I wish I could see a thread here about new designs out of Detroit that will become market winners rather than threads hoping demise upon Toyota. I get the feeling most Americans are proud of their obesity and would rather make fun of those in good health rather than becoming healthy themselves. I think a huge attitude change is necessary before Detroit gets this one right...if there is time. Amen. Peachlaser, your post was the most relevant one so far in this thread. Realism, not jingoism. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 319 Registered: 07-2006 |
While GM certainly is concerned about Toyota, they don't fear them. Most of the damage Toyota can inflict has already occurred. Sure, they may take the top spot, but that's more of a matter of pride than profits. They may take a couple more points of market share, but that's nothing compared to what's happened in the past 30 years. What they do fear, however, is new manufacturers entering the market from China and India. They could do the same thing Toyota has done, with even cheaper labor costs. GM can't afford to lose another 12 points of market share, particularly if it comes soon, such as if a Chinese company swoops up Chrysler and starts undercutting GM with Chinese-built Chrysler-branded vehicles. They know it, hence the rumored move on Chrysler. Peachlaser - Why do you say they still have their head in the sand? You talk of Honda, but if they could build a 50mpg vehicle 15 years ago, why haven't they improved since then? | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 130 Registered: 11-2005 |
I have to back up what JT1 said regarding the Texas truck market. The last time I checked the Silverado and Sierra were built in Fort Wayne, Pontiac and Oshawa--and the full-sized SUVs in Arlington and yes...in Silao. The Silao capacity was not moved from Texas--it was additional capacity that was added. Peachlaser, the domestic brand manufacturers ARE building winning designs of excellent quality. The buying public's perception and economic sense just haven't caught up yet. The best full-size trucks on the market are the new GMT900 Silverado and Sierra--case closed. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 289 Registered: 08-2006 |
^ totally agree there for once needs to be no asterisk next to the last statement! | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 1 Registered: 02-2007 |
Perception is the key -- and one of the best illustrations I've seen on how tough it is to change is that Consumer Reports showed great reliability ratings for the Mustang and Focus, but the predicted reliability was horrible. US car makers issuing a recall get bigger headlines than do their counterparts. The same goes for the reporting of sales figures. Was there any report anywhere of the increase Ford had in car sales (as opposed to total vehicle sales)? | ||
Yelloweyes Member Username: Yelloweyes Post Number: 88 Registered: 02-2007 |
I quote David bowie on this issue: "They followed none too soon a trickle of strangers were all that were left alive Panic in Detroit" And "I'm afraid of Americans." -David Bowie | ||
Patrick Member Username: Patrick Post Number: 4078 Registered: 10-2003 |
Ventura67 that’s just your opinion. My S-10 lasted 170,000 miles with NO problems except a small patch of rust under the door. Toyota does NOT make a better truck and the public will soon find out that Toyota’s trucks are about as good as the ones Nissan builds. | ||
Patrick Member Username: Patrick Post Number: 4079 Registered: 10-2003 |
The good ol boys love their Fords and Chevys. Toyota needs to shitcan their ad agency. http://www.courier-journal.com /apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20 070223/BUSINESS/70223033 | ||
Peachlaser Member Username: Peachlaser Post Number: 62 Registered: 08-2006 |
"Peachlaser - Why do you say they still have their head in the sand? You talk of Honda, but if they could build a 50mpg vehicle 15 years ago, why haven't they improved since then?" 7 or 8 years ago, Road & Track had one of the first message boards on AOL that was popular for the R&T crowd. I quoted a Honda engineer that said that he could improve the efficiency of a GM 350 cubic inch engine by 30% by putting Honda heads (technology) on the block. Interestingly, about 6 weeks later, GM announced a plan to put Honda built engines into GM cars. Never heard the results of that test. Maybe someone on this board can update me. I say 'head in the sand' because Detroit tried to build its future on the SUV. "Peachlaser, the domestic brand manufacturers ARE building winning designs of excellent quality. The buying public's perception and economic sense just haven't caught up yet. The best full-size trucks on the market are the new GMT900 Silverado and Sierra--case closed." You talk of trucks. What about Honda Accord and Toyota Camry equivalents? Buying a new car for most families is a huge decision and investment and these cars represent the flagships. Families want the most dependable, most practical, best looking and best handling car for the money. Affordable quality is the keyword. $20k seems to be the price point. I know some can afford to buy and drive Bummers, I mean Hummers, but why do you need a vehicle like that to drive down to pick the kids up and go grocery shopping? Our priorities as a nation have gotten screwed up somehow when it comes to practical personal transportation. We have tremendous technical capabilities as a nation. I really wish that we could get our technical capabilities and our realization of what kind of a fix we are currently in synced so that we can work our way out of this in a smart, efficient and sustainable way. Detroit has the opportunity to lead the nation. It is going to take some visionary leaders to see the possibilities and utilize the resources that are available to build the transportation vehicles of tomorrow that the world will want to buy because of their innovation, quality, efficiency, dependability and affordability. I agree that perception is important. That is why Henry Ford wanted to win Le Mans and built the GT40. There is a whole new level of technological excellence and organizational preparation that is involved to excel at this level. Luckily, Roger Penske, realizes this and is bringing the world's best to Belle Isle this summer. I think that anyone that is involved in designing and building automobiles in Detroit should be there so that they can see what automotive engineering excellence can produce. I really hate to promote racing as a means to create a mindset that can make things better, but in this case of international endurance prototype racing, I think the high level of practical engineering achievement must be seen to be understood. Mr. Honda used to require that his engineers work in his racing program. As a result, the dependability, handling and engineering came through in his products. The highlights of American achievements in the highly technological world of Le Mans racing are Ford in 1965-69 with the GT40, Chrysler with the Viper, and most recently, GM and their Corvette program. In the eyes of the world, GM came close to having a respectable prototype with the Cadillac prototype. They were so close and so many people in the U.S. were pulling for them and they pulled the plug because they had not achieved success within their two year plan. They were so close and then pulled the plug. When we talk about perception, here is a case where the world was watching and GM seemed to make a short term decision and lost all the positive perception building that they had earned. The Cadillac needed a higher tech engine. They needed to step up to the challenge and prove to the world that American engineering is capable of the challenge. My hat is off the Corvette, Compuware and Pratt & Miller teams. They have proved that American technology can win in GT1, I just wish that our technology could build a winner in the higher prototype classes. Audi, Porsche and now Acura have entered into the fray. Detroit, the best of the world is coming to your doorstep at Belle Isle. I hope you learn something from this exhibition and can build something that gains the respect of the whole world in performance, efficiency, reliability and affordability. The challenge is on. I'm pulling for you Detroit as are many other Americans. We may be driving around in Hondas, Toyotas and Audis, but we wish that Detroit would produce a car that will attract us. The bar is high as we want the best that our money can buy. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 324 Registered: 07-2006 |
They put Honda engines in the Vue red line, i believe that is what you are referring to, and I don't know of GM using any other Honda engines. The next generation will have GM engines again if I recall correctly. You still didn't answer how in 15 years Honda hasn't improved on your 50mpg civic. An unsourced anecdote on a 350 has nothing to do with a compact car. As for Accord and Camry equivalents, how about the Ford Fusion and Saturn Aura? Both have gotten great reviews. and Expect similar from the 2008 Chevy Malibu. As for why someone would want a Hummer, you could also say why would someone want a Ferrari? Not every car is for every person. You don't want it, don't buy it. GM could make them profitably, so I fail to see what your point is in bringing them up. In fact, the money made from those SUV's is what's going into the new mid-size cars. They didn't bet the future. They saw a trend, and went with it. Honda and Toyota's trucks came late in the game and are still nowhere near GM's or Ford's in sales, and won't be for some time, if ever. (I won't judge them on quality, I know little about them.) But if trucks and SUV's are so evil, why does Toyota bother with the Tundra and Sequoia? The Big Three were way ahead of the game and capitalized on it, but now everyone wants to bash them for that too. Frankly, I don't give a damn about racing. It doesn't affect my purchase in any way, shape, or form. No vehicle I have will have the same engine, the same body, or a team of mechanics inspecting it every time i stop. The problems GM is having, regrettably, is mostly because of their inability to support their legacy costs with a <25% market share. Have some things suffered because of that? Certainly. They were trying to cut in the wrong places and their vehicles suffered for it. But most everything about GM vehicles has changed over the past few years, and instead of blowing their money away on racing, they've put it into styling, into engines, everything else that their end customer will actually see and use. Instead of bashing them, go check them out. I think you'd be surprised. (yes, there are some that still suck, but check out the newly redesigned models.) | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1369 Registered: 10-2003 |
The Saturn Aura is your nephew's Oldsmobile. Mediocre gas mileage; and, I understand that you can get "Moroccan" leather seats. (But what if I want "Corinthian" leather and a half-vinyl top? Maybe for '09?) (Message edited by Fury13 on February 24, 2007) | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 1435 Registered: 04-2005 |
"Who's Afraid of Toyota?" Jackson? | ||
Peachlaser Member Username: Peachlaser Post Number: 63 Registered: 08-2006 |
"As for Accord and Camry equivalents, how about the Ford Fusion and Saturn Aura? Both have gotten great reviews. and Expect similar from the 2008 Chevy Malibu." I will say that these are steps in the right direction and look promising. Do they catch my eye? Is the fit and finish there? Do they handle well? Will they last? "Frankly, I don't give a damn about racing. It doesn't affect my purchase in any way, shape, or form. No vehicle I have will have the same engine, the same body, or a team of mechanics inspecting it every time i stop. " The last time we bought a car, it was a lengthy evaluation process. We read every review we could, went to the auto show, looked at the styling, the fit and finish and sat in almost every car we were interested in and evaluated the ergonomics and feel while we sat in the driver's seat. We drove through the parking lots of malls to see what cars would catch our eye. Driving down the Interstate we evaluated every car we saw and logged the ones that caught our eye. Once we got down to choosing, we looked at the gas mileage, looked at the long-term repair rates for the previous models and at the tables for maintaining value. After all of this, we were down to the Camry and Accord. The Impala looked like it had been designed by committees and they couldn't agree on a look and the front looked one way and the rear another way. In breaking the tie between the Camry and Accord, we went with the Accord because of the VTEC engine and its history in racing. No, not the same engine, but one that was based on the technology perfected in racing. I hold an unpopular view with many in the racing world. I think that the manufacturers have a 'social responsibility' to use racing to advance the breed. Racing is outrageously expensive and dangerous in a time of diminishing resources. If you are going to race, then use it as R&D to progress the technology of your consumer products. NASCAR has, unfortunately, gone the way of entertainment and really isn't measuring up in this department, in my opinion. The reason I like the endurance prototypes is because they are built to function in rain or sunshine, day or night and must last. There is experimentation going on with engines and fuels and efficiency and reliability are a must. Audi is using endurance prototypes to advance their engine designs and these are directly influencing their products. You would think that everything that there is to know about an engine is already known, but they have found ways to inject fuel in ways that utilize the energy in the fuel to the maximum. Men will race whatever is available whether it is their little red wagon, gophers or ants. I think that in an 'advanced civilization', we should use racing to advance our knowledge and technology. Racing for entertainment is frivalous, in my opinion. I think that many of the advances in whatever propulsion systems we develop in the future will be through advances in computerization. If you make it out to the Belle Isle race, count the number of laptops associated with a car. With teams like Audi, you won't see all of them because many are in a trailer where the engineers work monitoring the cars and are connected via the attenaes you see on the car. I like many, miss the days when I could go in and work on my old 350 cid Chevy pickup engine. I had more labor in that truck than GM! But, the modern engines with their blackbox controls are amazing pieces of engineering feats. I don't think there is one magic bullet to our future energy needs and that there are going to be many required. Some may contribute 10-15%, but you keep adding these small amounts and you start getting some serious solutions. Therefore, we need engineers and designers that can think outside the box to come up with new revolutionary ideas. | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 134 Registered: 11-2005 |
Fury13, seriously, why the hate? Is the thought of a GM produced vehicle like the Aura getting excellent media reviews really that difficult for you to swallow? Do you concede that the Accord too gets what you'd refer to as "mediocre" fuel economy--because the EPA estimate on the Aura is 20/30 and on the Accord is 20/29--and that's GM's 3.5L vs Honda's 3.0L. I'd also like to emphasize that people continue to buy SUVs in large numbers. While the growth in this segment may be gone thanks to fuel costs--the sales are still there. The Asian brand products in this segment are overall poorly executed and have miserable fuel economy and lower horsepower than they equivilent products from the North American manufacturers. The 4WD Tahoe does 15/21 compared to the Sequoia's 15/18--again the advantage goes to GM's 5.3L over Toyota's 4.7L. On the midsize sedan argument--the Malibu was outscoring the Camry on some quality points as far back as 2004 on the JDPower surveys. I found this from 2004... According to consumer surveys by J.D. Power & Associates, the Malibu outranks the Camry on; mechanical quality, feature and accessory quality, and OVERALL Quality. The Camry does outpoint the Malibu on body and interior quality. The car buyers surveyed by J.D.Power also say the Malibu is better on every quality measure than other comparable sedans, INCLUDING the Honda Accord and the Nissan Altima.(Rankings posted at www.jdpower.com ) My dear old 2004 Alero, a car that was frequently maligned by the automotive press and by Consumer Reports has been a dream--outstanding fit and finish and not a single quality or mechanical issue with the car in nearly 3 years of ownership. I believe as a supporter of the domestic industry and as someone with sense enough to realize that there is no one in the corner of the world who's job doesn't partially depend on this industry--all I think I ask for is a fair shake--look at the points side-by-side, and spare me 20 year old arguments about quality--because those issues are dead. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 326 Registered: 07-2006 |
for years toyota, and to a lesser extent honda, have been just as guilty of 'design by committee' as gm. Until the 07 camry, it was one of the most boring, blandest cars on the road. Guaranteed not to offend anyone - but it certainly won't excite anyone either. GM is certainly not immune to the problem, but they are no worse than the Japanese manufacturers when it comes to style. i've rarely seen what long term repair rates on a previous model have to do with the current model. They are different models, and can get significantly better or worse from generation to generation. As for gas mileage, GM is just as good, if not better, when it comes to the big sellers. And if that's what people are buying, what does it matter if GM doesn't sell a 50mpg hybrid halo car? I will say the accord coupe concept at the auto show looked fantastic. I would strongly consider buying it myself. My first thought was that the next monte carlo is going to have some serious competition with that, should it be produced. | ||
Peachlaser Member Username: Peachlaser Post Number: 66 Registered: 08-2006 |
The New York Times has a new article entitled, "Racing to Make the Pit Stops a Little Bit Greener." Interesting timing considering the topics in this thread. We have mentioned 'perception' as being important in getting recognition for your achievements in designing a better car, etc. Racing is making some modest and, in some cases, significant steps in becoming 'greener'. Importantly, it is forcing racing to tie their technology to the realities of our world. As they make these changes, they must begin to innovate, research and test new ideas which is what is needed these days. In earlier posts, I mentioned that NASCAR was using 1960's technology. After reading the article, I stand corrected, they have been using 1950's technology! The series will now be using LEAD-FREE gasoline for the first time this year! How did we use to make engines last in the earlier days of the automobile? We ran lead in the gasoline through the engine to provide lubrication. Many years ago, we learned of the dangers of lead and modern engines do not require lead for lubrication-except it has been the norm in NASCAR. Yikes, I didn't realize that. The article says, "Though it has not been an easy transition, [one of the top engine builders in the sport], Robert Yates, said he thought the change needed to be made. He said he would like to see the series [NASCAR] race with smaller, more fuel-efficient engines that are more like today’s production cars than a 1950s sedan." I have also touted the engine-building capability of Honda. Back when the automobile industry was forced to adopt pollution control, the whole industry was gripin' while Honda went about designing an advanced engine that did not require a catalytic converter and way exceeded the requirements. I mentioned the time in F1 when fuel was taken away and once again everyone was gripin' and Honda designed the VTEC engine. Now, in the IRL, they have made a move away from the methanol-ethanol engines to a gas blend with a 2% ethanol additive. Here is another quote from the article, "the engines developed by Honda for the I.R.L. are capable of generating about the same power — estimated at 650 horsepower — and speed as the methanol-ethanol engines." Changing fuels in engines and increasing fuel flexibility is a big challenge in engine development. Increasingly, we are hearing of engines that run on a variety of fuels. This a very important part of development that is going on right now in the world of autos and racing. It's going to be interesting. From the article...Mr. [Michael] Andretti said in a telephone interview. “It’s a great effort to help the environment. The league has shown it can adapt to it, and Honda has done a tremendous job adapting the engines to it.” Honda (Acura) has now gotten into the ALMS. They are working with three teams and putting the same engines into different chassis and comparing their results. Engine designers of today and tomorrow in Detroit, these guys are coming to your doorsteps when they race at Belle Isle this summer. If you want to see where the bar is being set in engine development, I think it will be very educational. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02 /25/automobiles/25FUEL.html?_r =2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin | ||
Benjo Member Username: Benjo Post Number: 1 Registered: 02-2007 |
I will never buy a new Toyota, although I do have a 1975 Honda motorcycle. I have a 95 Ford Escort with 150K miles, and a 95 F150 with almost 160K miles and both run great. It all comes down to the powertrain- Toyota's V6 engines in their 90s 4-runners were garbage, as were Ford's Escorts with automatic transmissions. The big 2.5 need to engineer quality motors (such as GM's 350, 3800 and Ford's 300 inline six) and stick with them and they'll attract more customers. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1751 Registered: 06-2004 |
"as were Ford's Escorts with automatic transmissions" I have a 1994 Escort wagon that just flipped over 250K miles this week - the only trans problem in its history was a dripping pump seal that cost about $325 to have replaced (though most shops wanted to replace the entire trans). I suspect other owners had similar situations where trans replacements were done when not needed. | ||
Craig Member Username: Craig Post Number: 16 Registered: 02-2007 |
Fury13 said "Oh, please. Emotion and "feeling something for a vehicle" is the LAST thing one should consider when buying a car. " This explains why luxury vehicles are rusting on dealer lots, NOT. Great idea, Fury, but homo economus was pinned to the mat by homo psychologus a long time ago. I'm guessing that you choose to drive the worn out crap about which I have no choice. I'm crazy 'bout a Mercury, and when tips pick up I'll get one. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1395 Registered: 10-2003 |
Hey Craig, we'll see what "homo psychologus" does as gas prices keep going up and fewer people can afford to run those luxoyachts. (Have you noticed? I've seen $2.69 for regular already. What will the price be this summer? $2.99? $3.29? $3.69? The sky's the limit!) A car is a vehicle. A means to an end. Point A to Point B. Period. So it's best to get one that will make the trip economically and safely without breaking down. That's a simple proposition. Save the passion/emotion for women, pets, or aesthetics like art, architecture, music... what have you. But attaching emotion to machines, especially when issues of practicality are involved, is ridiculous. That car's not gonna love you back. | ||
Craig Member Username: Craig Post Number: 17 Registered: 02-2007 |
Hey back to you,Fury. Demand elasticity is well documented, but your original point spoke to the silliness of consumer decisions based upon fashion/normative criteria. Look at every society with automobiles and you'll see that every one of them -rich or poor, first or third world- in some way adorns their vehicles or otherwise works to lift these beyond the status of purely utilitatarian items like hoes and paper clips. Fundamentally, you're correct, but other than a couple of sad-assed hippies in forgotten communes your command of the intellectual high ground is ignored. Divorcing humanity from ascetics brings to mind the dingy, gray world of the old east bloc, and even there the "reactionaries" dressed up themselves and their cars as they were able. Join the dark side Fury: enjoy the beauty that surrounds you, or at least show your ride some love and wash off the road salt. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1755 Registered: 06-2004 |
Toyota makes friends, readies for backlash if the cause of Toyota importing so many vehicles is America's want of hybrids and 'fuel-sipping' cars, why are they building an SUV plant in Mississippi? | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1403 Registered: 10-2003 |
Believe me, Craig, I'll wash off the road salt. Staving off rust-out will help maintain my car's resale value. I want to retain as much value in my investment as possible. And I don't wish to totally divorce humanity from aesthetics... I go to the DIA regularly, have season opera tickets, enjoy playing my guitar, and like to read good literature. I simply feel that practicality should come first when traveling to one's destination. Aesthetics shouldn't come much into play when it comes to daily transportation. Again, it's only a machine. Of course, if someone truly loves devoting a large chunk of their paycheck to "adorning" their automobile, or relishes pouring most of their paycheck down their car's gas tank, that's their choice. I guess there are people who do such things. However, to me, using resources that way -- in light of rising transportation costs -- is silly. But to each their own. | ||
Llyn Member Username: Llyn Post Number: 1776 Registered: 06-2004 |
quote: I wouldn't wait any longer. While Ford still makes some poor quality vehicles with a couple exceptions, GM's quality rankings (according to J D Power) have not only improved for new car quality, but now are catching up in long term quality. (Check last year's three year ownership records. Even longer term favorable rankings are next on the horizon.) GM is now number 3 in the world in new car 30 day purchase quality, and the gap is not that great between them and Toyota/Honda anymore. I've had a GM Envoy for 5 years now with only one problem to date. I like it. Just trying to eject a little perspective into the discussion. It's not the 80's and 90's anymore. |
