Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
What does GM's market share have to do with it? Nowadays we have Honda, Toyota, everybody with full size offerings, even 4x4s.
|
The full sized cars you speak of are not the full sized cars of the 70's and 80's. I remember thinking "what a tiny car" the first time I ever sat in a Volvo, and today Volvos are considered full sized cars. So no, Honda and Toyota don't make "full-sized offereings". Let's ignore trucks which are a cargo carrying vehicles (even then, neither Honda nor Toyota makes a pickup as big my Dad's old full-sized Chevy Silverado.)
Detroit was dragged kicking and screaming into making smaller cars (and they do make smaller cars today compared to when the Japanese started competing). They were also dragged kicking and screaming into improving the cars they made of any size. The American car you could buy in 1972 was basically the exact same car you could buy in 1952 except with a different body. Drum brakes, same transmissions, etc. The Japanese and Europeans forced Detroit to compete.
The same is true today. Although what Lutz said was "There is no profit in small cars", what he really meant was "There is huge profit in big cars". If everyone made only small cars there would be plenty of profit in them. Detroit just wanted to hang on to their old designs for as long as possible and avoid having to upgrade electronics, suspensions (you couldn't buy an independent suspension in an American car in 1972, but my Datsun Z had it), fuel systems, brakes, engines, etc, because those things cost Detroit MONEY to add.
Detroit has been 5-10 years behind the curve on car technology (including reliability) since they first had to compete in the 60's. THAT's why Japanese and European cars have captured so such market share in the US. The only real innovation by US carmakers in the past 50 years has been the cup holder.