GM: Won't let "green car stuff" get out of hand
 

Go read this. It's deja-vu all over again. GM's Lutz: Now the gloves are off

I've been saying this for years. GM hates fuel economy. Bob lutz hates fuel economy. The volt is window dressing. The government does not seem to care either. Just read the article. He is basically calling green cars money losers and performance gas guzzlers are the profit ticket. He blames most of GM's troubles on everyone else.

Consumers have wanted better mileage since cars were first mass produced. I have a Popular Mechanics magazine from 1958 in which they did a survey and found that for 60% of consumers better fuel economy was their #1 wish from Detroit. The VW beetle was the answer to that demand. I think VW did OK on that one dontcha think?

Here's a choice quote: As if the only choice for a "green car" is a hybrid.

Which is why they haven't been buying GM's crap products. "Best possible" of course means 400 cubic inch guzzler.:rolleyes: Consumer reports rates most of the US produced vehicles at the bottom of the heap with the Japanese at the top. By the way, 10% market share is a huge niche in automotive terms.

GM to consumers (with help from CNN): "Gas is cheap everyone. Please go to sleep while we kill off this whole annoying "green car" thing."

So you Americans are bailing out GM so it can do the exact same thing again but with better design?

By the way, not a peep about EV's in there.

You are wrong and Lutz is right.

American consumers have ALWAYS gravitated towards the biggest vehicles they could afford to run. Oh, they may SAY they want economy but when the rubber hits the road and they are voting with their money, they get bigger vehicles. When a recession or a oil crisis comes along all of a sudden there will be a little blip in demand for better economy but as soon as the "balance" is restored that desire for economy vaporizes damn quick.

Peak Oil will deny the big vehicle lusters the opportunity to do that at some point.

Oh- and Consumer Reports is full of ****.

Which is exactly why I hope that they will ultimately fail. They've shown themselves for who they are, perpetuates of the gas-guzzling economy.

If they had accepted my resume last November, there wouldn't be a single a 2010 GM model being offered with a "standard" drive train. :D

Really? So answer a simple two-part question: What was GM's market share in 1959, and what is it today?

Now a second question: who got the market share that GM lost, Ford & Chrysler? Or was it those Japanese, German, and now Korean companies that build smaller cars?


Humm... Frog boiling, anyone? Or am I the only one who remembers when $3/gal had people screaming & moaning about the end of western civilization?

Yes, really.

What does GM's market share have to do with it? Nowadays we have Honda, Toyota, everybody with full size offerings, even 4x4s.

Part 2: must have had more to do with the perception of quality than size or fuel economy.

Here's some questions for you: how many full-sized "imports" are used for solo commuting? How many 4x4 "imports" go off-road? Do the imports have an edge in fe? Are high fe cars selling well?

Exactly. People as a group have no foresight whatsoever. Now that gas is "down" are econoboxes and hybrids flying out of the lots? Or are 4x4s, pickups, and SUVs selling?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

If customers buy more large vehicles than small ones, what's a manufacturer to do? Even Honda has bent to the customer's will.

If a model is offered with a base engine and an optional H.O. engine and 95% of the customers order the H.O., it doesn't matter what's on your resume. The customers have a lot of say in what gets built.

That said, I do wish all the manufacturers would be more proactive in educating the consumer about energy use.

I'll agree with you that on the surface Lutz is right. And yes, the consumer will just return to buying GMs planned obsolecence the minute gas is cheap again. What I'm saying is that they are being misled.

The American consumer will buy anything that is advertised and marketed well until some kind of reality wakes them up like expensive gas, crappy quality or just by their own critical thought.

The market for vehicles is created by a massive psychological PR assault, in this case it works against the interests of the consumers. Peak oil is here. Many people who bought gas guzzlers were pretty pissed when they had to shell out for hundreds of dollars a week and as you know from these pages you can have enough power, size and fuel economy.

Yes, Americans buy big cars but not because it's good for them but because they are manipulated into it by misleading emotional advertising.

See? we agree on most things!:D

By the way, in the list of all time top sellers, the vast majority of cars have been compact and relatively fuel efficient. (the F-150 is a notable exception but one has to give it marks for utility. We need some HD, large vehicles)

In terms of reliability and quality, the massive success of the Japanese car companies who have dominated the fuel economy vehicle market for decades can't be ignored? (Toyota now has a crappy average fuel economy and that sucks too)

The higher quality of imports? It's legendary. It's not just consumer reports that will tell you this. It's the consumer, friends, family

Consumer reports is far more reliable a source of product information than any advertising based media. On what grounds do you call it crap?

JD Power and Associates will tell you the same: The big three are mostly the pits for dependability. I'm not making this up.

The American consumer really is a gullible stupid slob isn't she?

Is this the same gullible stupid slob noted above? I don't put much credence in what they have to say, as they evidently don't think things through.

That's a global list; I think we are only focussing on the North American market in this thread. I think the N.A. list would look very different.

I've had personally good experiences with what C.R. rated poorly, and poor experiences with what they rated highly, once too often. :mad:

Did you look at that list? Buick is pretty much tied for the 1st place, equal to Toyota and a bit ahead of Honda. Mercury is far ahead of BMW and Mercedes. VW = crap.

There are people who buy american cars because its what their family has always bought.
My friend bought an old rusty toyota Cresida sedan for his first car and finaly sold it last year (after owning it for almost 12yrs) with just shy of 450,000 miles on it. And it still ran great!

His mom bought american because its what her dad, and grand dad always told her to do. So she bought an oldsmobile aurora that the engine went out with less than 35,000 miles. So she replaced it with an intrigue that lasted her about 15,000 miles before it started all kinds of electrical issues and spent more time in the shop than running.

american cars have really been hit or miss in the past on reliability, with some exceptions.
My mom had an old lumina with over 200,000 miles on it.
My dads plymouth Voyager has 205,000 (still runs pretty well)
The F-150's from the late 80's through the mid 90's were pretty reliable.

I really feel that the Korean companies will really take a much larger market share over the next few years. Kia spectras/hyundai Elantras have great reliability, lots of trunk space, and are avaliable with a 5spd and as a wagon

Imagine if for every car ad, there had been a public advocate's ad, with an equal production budget, with messages like: "The bigger the tank you protect your kids with now, and the more you drive them around, the sooner they will run out of gas for your grandkids."
Vehicles are about image. Decades of media repetition has added perceived safety to many buying decisions. When there were 3 billion people on earth, in 1967, seat belts were as rare as racing stripes. Guys probably got pulled over for wearing them. "What you worried about, son? What's all this racing equipment for?"
So, "Future Safe" and "Pedestrian Safe" could have been added to the mix of positive images for vehicles to project, instead of all this "Terminator" crud we got. When Arnold was trying to pry a personal Hummer loose from the Army, we should have bought him off with a James Bond car instead. :-/
Then too, it would be nice is the average consumer had a grip on critical thinking, and some real choices that would make a smaller new car more attractive than a larger used car for the same price.

Frank,

Perhaps I'm not being clear.

I said that American consumers are influenced by misleading advertising. That GM attempts to mislead them. But some things wake them up like high gas prices or bad experiences with quality and then they question the reliability of the advertising and make different choices, like more fuel efficient cars as an example. Some are mislead, possibly most, but not all.

Bob lutz said that there was no profit in "green cars", I am refuting this by showing that in spite of all the advertising for huge cars people have historically embraced smaller, more efficient vehicles. Those cars were profitable here and in Europe and Asia.

My point is that if you align customer needs with the marketing then more people would buy according to their own interests. GM is in the business of creating gasoline consuming machines. History shows this, they have just gone bankrupt doing this. Now they are going to do it again on your coin.

You said it , not me. I said they were mislead. I think, given good information, people generally make good decisions. But we, in North America, have been fed so much crap for so long it's going to take a lot to wake people up to reality.

By the way, I hope more cars are made domestically. I think that's good for our economy and saves transportation energy. I also think we can make excellent vehicles here but GM has mostly not done so in recent history.

Yes, Buick is in there and so is Mercury but those are exceptions, but again, I said the big three are the pits.

That statement flies in the face of history. It's like saying the Volkswagen beetle didn't exist, or the golf, or the 911, or the Fiero. or the Metro. Plenty of people who could afford bigger cars bought these. Some gravitated to the biggest, yes, but not all and not always.

Large cars have always been preferable to the majority—they innately appeal to the fear and or lack of control people feel over their lives. Pushed around throughout school, stuck in a pointless job with an a-hole boss? Buy a macho truck with a Hemi and intimidate other road users. Afraid of texting drivers (which is only OK if someone does it themselves—it's the other idiots out there who can't drive and text properly) blowing through intersections and killing your precious children? Buy this land ironclad and resist the forces of the evil public that's out to get you! These aren't marketing messages, they're a little more colorful version of what goes through many consumer's minds, albeit probably unconsciously. Even in Europe, small SUVs are being bought in larger numbers. Only gas prices, taxes, and space premiums have made Europeans traditionally favor small cars. MArketing just gives it a little push.

And JD Power and Consumer Reports are garbage. I'll generalize my criticisms to both of them, but they don't take into account REAL long term reliability, cost of labor and parts when repairs are necessary, are dependent on the prejudices and varying tolerances of the public (perception of quality allows them to make excuses for a car and vice versa and a car they're in love with, ahem, MINI, will also catch an unfair break on problems), and apply equal weight to pointless customer "problems" and actual major failures. Famously, a few years back, JDP (or was it CR? I can't even keep them straight) was listing issues of too few or small cupholders on one vehicle and blown transmissions (Land Rover, incidentally—always at the bottom and NOT GM) on another as just being reported problems—they had the same weight since they weren't differentiated. Absurd. I also know the dimwits ranked my old Subarus to be less than great when all 3 of them were cheap, repairable by a monkey on rare occasion they went bad, and tough as nails to a far-better extent than their contemporaries. There's also that boring cars like Camrys discourage abusive driving and appeal to people who drive sedately, artificially pumping up their reliability ratings. My cars were variously jumped, used as battering rams, pegged their speedometers, performed stunt maneuvers, and run at redline in top for 15 hours overloaded with luggage with over 100k miles on it. Never a complaint. Rust killed the first two, but I'll be damned if I let the last one go!

I don't get all the GM bashing. Toyota makes more tanks than they do (the Japanese Hummer, the FJ, never gets criticism), has had more than a few big problems with their cars lately, and they seem to do no wrong. I realize, GM's no saint and Toyota's made more an attempt, but they're also not saddled with all the costs and are in a much stronger financial position where they can take risks like the Prius (which are now sitting on lots). Given the traditionally fickle American customer, they devote their scarce resources on the more sure bet—big cars.

Worst is VW/Audi, yet where's the outrage? I'd drive a Chevette before anything from them (OK, I'd take an R8). Worked on too many, known too many people who've owned them. In fact, though I've known many people with reliable (if not exactly appealing) American cars, far more than those with problems, yet only one that has had a good experience with a VW product built in the last 20 years and even he complains about the retarded part cost. You want to know what's reliable, talk to a mechanic, not a mag that specializes in toaster comparisons.

How did the Japanese steal market share? Americans moved to small cars. Let's look at why. Prior to the first gas crisis, the domestic makers owned the market. The Beetle, while popular was bought only by individualists (to keep it simple). When the first gas crisis hit, the Big 3, raking in the money they made on big cars most Americans loved, were taken as by surprise as the customers. Now people had to wait in long lines and get gas only on certain days and the panic had them looking for alternatives—30 mpg would get them through a couple of ration days, but 10 either made them walk or put them in long lines frequently. It was out of necessity, not choice that Americans bought what was available for small cars—foreign makes being the only ones selling them (for various domestic reasons). Around the same time, substantial safety and emissions standards came into play, castrating the giant engines of the Big 3 and taking away some of the incentive to own them. Not everyone jumped back into an American car with its capped horsepower (insurance companies also played a part) and ugly safety bumpers (though everyone had those). Meantime, what did the Japanese do with their new profits? Invested in product, something the Big 3 had been neglecting to do because it hadn't been necessary (typical American short-sighted business model). The Japanese cars made huge strides in quality and reliability with every generation (a model the Koreans have adopted to great affect as the Japanese are starting to rest on their laurels a little. History repeats), keeping early adopters and gaining new converts as the Big 3 fought to catch up with government regulation, neglecting quality in the interest of cost savings and speed to market. From there, the situation snowballed and combine bad union deals and what the Big 3 are really guilty of more than anything is short-sightedness, a problem endemic to American business, yet GM gets all the bad press. The banks were far worse and required far more money to bail out, but people took GM personally. People get emotional about cars and GM's long descent from greatness hurt and ashamed them. GM and the flag went together—their collapse and disgrace reflects America and themselves. I think the real thing of it is that people are angry at what they allowed to happen to this country in the latter half of the 20th century and in the wake of winning the cold war—where is the promise of peace? A lie. But how could it be anything but when it's human nature to be weak, giving in to base impulses like greed and violence. Perhaps it's a bit of self-loathing, then. Or maybe I'm thinking too much into this and that fly on my wall is simply a fly (though I do believe I detect a robotic eye). I tend do to that sometimes.

evolutionmovement -

I'd agree with 95% of your post. I think the stock market based quarterly earnings model is a big reason for our short-sightedness. This fellow was largely ignored in the 1950's by the Big-3, and welcomed in Japan :

W. Edwards Deming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CarloSW2

Good post E.M. and I mostly agree...

I want to point out that the Big 3 DID have small cars prior to the oil crisis in '73... but some of them weren't very good (ex: Vega- initially). Most customers aspired to own the big models. That the domestic manufacturer's marketing departments largely viewed the small models as an entry-level necessary evil, and not much more than a stepping stone to bigger and better things didn't help much.

Sometime in the '70's (and really picking up steam in the early '80's) after the oil crisis thing settled down somewhat, pickups started gaining in popularity as they weren't subject to the downsizing and converting to fwd that many long-popular car models were. Then SUV popularity picked up too. The American customer did not want to give up their big RWD V8s without a fight and in pickups and SUVs they found an out. This trend caused the consumer and the companies to feed upon each other- the companies noticed the demand and started fitting the formerly utilitarian and sparse pickup truck with all the amenities of a luxury sedan.

It's funny, there is a humongous old car boneyard near here and I noticed when going through it that many, many of the vehicles there (more than half?) have '74 license plates! Yes, a mass dumping of big cruisers in '74 but then as now (as in, last year) it didn't last long and the "gravitational pull" is towards the big stuff.

And that is why Lutz is right.

He is not turning his back on little cars and/or hybrids. He's saying, realistically, that they only represent a portion of the market, not the whole thing. To devote the entire company to them before the customers want them (and before Peak Oil forces it) would spell doom to the company, as other companies would step in to fill the void. Totally un-proactive, yes, I agree. What is needed to turn this stupidity around is an educated consumer base.

I guess my opinions fall somewhere between Frank and Orange4boy. Marketing does influence people and what they buy, do, and think. If it didn't, companies would not spend the money. I think both Orange4boy and Frank both overstate each side. Individuals tend to be rational in their decision-making process, even if that process is based on cultural and social factors, not just raw facts. Groups (read cultural and social factors) tend to be irrational. Thus we have people buying cars that are designed to impress the neighbors AND meet their actual transportation needs.

The irony is that this forum is populated with people that do care about energy and fuel economy. But many of us, myself included, are honestly motivated by a desire to save money as well. How many of us will buy a new car rather than a used car? Why should the car companies listen to us? We're not giving them any money! So many people that do buy new cars are buying ones that will help them keep up with the Joneses.

Chuck you are right, the car cos have no reason whatsoever to listen to the likes of me, they do not even know I exist, because not only do I never buy new (well- once, 15 years ago), I never buy dealer service, I never buy dealer parts, I never buy anything... they hardly get a freekin' dime of mine.

Hell I was never in the market for a new Metro, even though I really like them.

How did GM lose that market share in the first place? Wasn't from the Germans & Japanese bringing in "full size" offerings, now was it? They brought in the smaller cars, which a lot of Americans bought BECAUSE THEY WANTED SMALL CARS. The perception of better quality came later. Then later still, when the Japanese owned the small car segment and had developed their reputation for quality, they could take still more market share by adding "full size" models to their lineup.

Hardly. If it was just because of the perception of quality, the Japanese &c would have switched entirely to building "full size" models. But they haven't: they still build and sell a lot of small cars, because that's what a lot of Americans (though of course not everyone) actually want to buy.

I've no idea. But those "full size" models are what percentage of the import market? (And aren't even the "full size" imports generally smaller than their US counterparts?)


Again, no idea. Probably a greater percentage than US-made. At least around here the 80s to mid-90s Toyota 4WD pickup is probably the most common sight on dirt roads (I don't do off-road myself) and construction sites.

Yes. See here: Corporate Average Fuel Economy: How Automakers Rank - Cars.com and note that the CAFE rankings are somewhat biased in favor of Detroit because of things like credits for E85 capability.

Are ANY cars selling well these days? Maybe the Tesla :-) But the higher FE models seem to be doing better than the guzzlers...

See above.

P.S. I looked at your CAFE link... I don't think it's enough of a black and white issue, at least with what they presented, to draw a conclusion from it so I won't at this time.

Since I've always owned small cars (and I mean really small, like the Austin-Healey Sprite), it's very tempting to believe that, but I don't quite. It's part of the story, but not all of it. There's been a lot of creative marketing, selling not just the size but false suggestions of safety and adventure, like your nine-to-five sitting in the cubicle cowboys.

But there were a lot of individualists back in the '60s and early '70s :-) There were other small cars being imported, plus the whole set of British/Italian sports cars that got killed off by the big bumper laws. Toyota had been selling its Stout pickups on the west coast (years later, I had a '68 that I revived from an employer's junkyard) and had introduced its "Sport Truck" before the oil embargo hit. So it wasn't just that the Japanese &c jumped into a market created by the embargo: they were here before, and poised to take advantage of the opportunity...

Frank, your sudden philosophizing is giving me a headache. :p

And I meant the existing line-up would be converted straight-away to full hybrid, with electric-only options. No hybrid ICE's with over 35 peak HP output, lots of diesel options, and not one thing under 30mpg city or highway EPA.

And of course, since I already had an axe to grind with Detroit over the performance of their recent vehicles, nothing with less than the equivalent of 10lbs per HP. 3,000+ lbs cars with 110hp engines? Bite me, Detroit.

Ok, I'm done ranting now. :D

The '60's and '70's had the rise of the "counterculture" so yes there was a popular backlash against "the way things were".

Then it died.

I've almost always owned small cars too. I am acutely aware that we are not the majority. So there ya are.

I do enjoy cruising in the '59 on occasion though. In '59 it was the biggest Chevrolet ever offered. Today it is dwarfed by all the pickups and SUVs. :rolleyes:

My beef with GM here - and the other American makers also - is that they did not LEAD.

Huh? Capitalist theory and whatnot might say they don't have to lead, but only need to make money for the shareholders. Bunk, I say.

Selling big cars and trucks to Americans is like selling beer or other mental recreational aids to students. It's easy. And its a LOT easier than selling them an education.

The manufacturers failed us. They should have figured out how to make fuel efficient reliable cars and sold them to us. They should have said, "You want an unreliable gas hog? Go find someone else to make it! We're going to give you reliability, fuel economy, and safety. Made right here in the USA".

They could have saved their skins but they went for the easy sell instead. They got what they earned.

Unfortunately, as Pogo said, "they are us", because so many of us are shareholders through our mutual funds etc. There's plenty blame to go around.

I can go back to cranky old codger if you like. ;)

I wouldn't buy one and I have reservations as to whether a whole lotta folks would.

I'm confused and stunned by Lutz, but i agrees with the statement above 'students/beer' in someways I'm glad Opel/Vauxhall are being seperated from GM it will give them chance to succeed. The issue I see is one repeated throughout this thread.
1. everyone wants as much for as little as poss -size, power, gadgets etc but everyone including us euros do
2.there is no selling the benefits of a a more economic car it doesn't have to be a tiny,slow crampt rattle box. there are family station wagons/sedans (fusion size) out there (most with links back to US Manufacturers) that do 45-50MPGus. I as much time and effort went into selling those instead of atruck bursting through an exploding building or out of a airplane -you never know they might sell better.
3. Saftey Big isn't always safest - trust me seen the data and the real life accidents I've seen a 2/3 head on between a renault modus (tiny french super mini) v's a Toyota tundra - guess which came out worse?
4.Quality, I know above this there are threads knocking VW, but as a VW employee- in quality they are leaps ahead of the GM EUROPE ideals, which when I was there were considered by some as excessive by GM US. At work I don't think (would have to check)we've bench marked a US car for years in terms of quality (granted different perceived market) but from the cars I've driven in the US its just surreal, I mean the trailblazer I had in Houston had about 97 miles on the clock - the dash was loose, arm rest was creaking the carpets didn't fit..... there was a whole list of things that wouldn't be release out of a GM europe factory -then again I'm a proffessional picky B*stard!!!
5. Fuel+CO2 seriously $3/ gallon!!!!!!!!! at we're on a $6 gallon here!!! if that was the case in the States, firstly there would be a coup, but secondly there would be a long cold hard look at the EPA figures. Next, Tax we have a system that every year we buy our road tax (pays for maintaince etc of roads so we're told) and thats based on the CO2 kick out , more CO2 more cash, anything sub100g/km is free!!!!!!!

I've decided to I think I'll stop pondering the US market it just seems to be completely polaric compared to the rest of the world!

Whoa I'm not sure I want to go anywhere near this.

Auto manufactures in bed with oil companies? Never!

Whose that at the door this time of night with shiny black shoes?

The true problem globally seems to be that "this quarter profits above all else" is the focus of business but a poor measure of success.

If only we could think of our impact first.

I agree there is far too much of a 'desposable/newest is best' culture globally - just take the iphone as a priem example! its not restricted to the Auto industry

It amazes me that even after complete and total meltdown, bankruptcy, bailout and total ownership by the government the same idiots that ran the company into the ground at still in charge at GM. What is it going to take to bring in new outside management?

zero sales

I've always wondered, if the Big 3 include their sales to Government agencies in their sales numbers? I would think, I don't know for sure, that MOST local, state and federal agencies use only American vehicles. I would think they would want to reflect an American image. I know all the city and state vehicles I see here are all American, though I suspect some agencies out there use "import" brand vehicles. So, if they do include the sales to these agencies in their figures, it's really misleading. I'd like to see a list of vehicle sales to the public "John Doe" consumer only.

When people here at my job complain about "import" brands I always ask them this question. If someone was to GIVE you a FREE loaded-out brand spanking new 0 miles Impala or a FREE loaded out brand spanking new 0 miles Camry, which would you choose? I'd take the Camry.

Personally, I have a Scion XB and a Chevrolet S10. I spend a lot of my time doing minor maintenance to my S10, such as replacing the door hinges the went out and caused the door to sag and not close properly. Putting in 3 sets of U joints due to a factory defect in the 2 piece drive shaft it came with. Radio quit on me. Clutch spring snapped. The jack broke on me while I was rotating my tires. Just minor annoying things like that. Oh, and my Scion XB...all I've done is change the oil the last 4 years. No issues what so ever. * shurg

They'll buy vehicles that have more power and better economy than the competitors, assuming they don't have anything against GM specifically.

The saddest thing about that idea is an awful lot of "American" cars are built in the other americas (Canada, Mexico.). And a lot of so called Japaneses cars ( Honda, Toyota, Nissan) are built in the US. People who, by policy, buy "American" are not paying who they think.

Amazing how long this thread is when we all mostly agree about the industry. I'm also amazed people read my long post! I would've included some of the other points people brought up, but tried to keep it brief(ish). That's why I write novels and not short stories.

Not to keep beating the point (VW—God I hate them so much!), but I think the European cars in their home markets are probably far more reliable than when they arrive in the US. That or the Europeans have a much higher tolerance for blown engines and such. I agree the American cars have traditionally been poorly made, but perceived quality and reliability are two different things. My friend's second nightmare Audi A4 (he's finally learned and is buying something else) looks nice, the door shuts with a solid thump, and the interior is a great place to sit ... on the side of the road awaiting a tow truck to take you to a dealer that will say the 1.8T is toast with 55k miles due to a poorly designer oil pickup, and no, it won't be covered as it's out of warranty. Easily three-quarters of the cars on the side of the road I see are VWs built since the mid-nineties (including 2, yes 2 that burned up in the breakdown lane—New Beetle and recent Jetta). I painted a VW badge on the fire extinguisher I carry because of that. On the other hand, I've known plenty of clapped-out trashed American cars that look like refugees from a Hollywood chase movie that still, somehow, get their owners need to go. Sure, you don't want to drive it or even look at it except to laugh, but it works. Hell, some of them could still embarrass better cars in a straight line ... until the door opens up on you and you spill out onto the highway because the bench seat bends towards the pavement and the seat belts are unusable decoration (an old friend's Nova, though I never actually fully fell out).

I am partly playing Devil's advocate here—I'm a guy who bought the Subaru Legacy with the Japan VIN over a US one. My sister had a US one and there really was a difference in perceived quality and solidity.

Hello,

I am driving a 1999 1/2 Jetta and we bought a new Jetta TDI wagon to replace the Subaru that got totalled in a car accident in the winter (the Subaru was worth far more than I thought after 6 years and 100k miles).

People who complained about not buying American with my Subaru, I told them I bought a car made in my state, how about them? I never had any maintenance issues and would have sworn i would have destroyed the clutch.

The driving factors when we bought our current car? Had to be able to transport the wife and me, the two kids (well, one is going to college this year) and our stuff to the east coast to visit family. It also had to get the best mileage doing it.

We selected the TDI over the Prius (and Honda Civics).

Hell, it wouldn't even have to be a NEW Toyota :-)

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.

This is just anecdotal information. I can give just as many design problems with US manufacturers. Exploding Pinto's (correcting it would have cost Ford $6 per car so they decided the loss of life was worth it), Ford buying the cheapest tires possible for their vans which killed occupants when they disintegrated, poor oil distribution in GM 6.5L diesels, abysmal GM auto diesels, Vega's, Chrysler anythings, etc, etc, etc.

It's just my opinion, but if I had to have a reliable car I'd buy this order: 1)Japanese, 2)Korean, 3)European, 4)American.

And here is probably the best example of all. Volvo used to have a reputation for reliability, but after Ford bought them they became known for being unreliable.

Volvo had quality issues long before ford took over.

On average, yes.

Agent K said it: one person is smart. You can talk to him, reason with him. "People" are dumb, panicky animals, and you know it.

That said, I'm looking hard at buying a Jeep. Maybe a Scout, if I can find one in good shape.

ooooooh trust me, that aint likely,:p

Granted but thats a warranty length issue, and Market specific (i think:( ), did it have enough oil in it?:D:thumbup:


I hope you guys don't end up with an industry like ours was that when competition arrived (germans/japanese) in the 60/70s we put our fingers in our ears and kept making crap- even when the Germans and Japanese took over we still screwed it up LEARN FROM US change, and other peoples ideas can be good!