I’d just slipped the nozzle into my Cadillac XLR-V. A dark Merc SL550 rolled up, its driver eyeing my Bowling Green Batmobile. As he busied himself with the credit card ritual, every few seconds his eyes darted sideways to the Caddy. “Mind if I look inside?” He sat behind the wheel, running his fingers across the interior surfaces. “Nice,” he pronounced. “Comfortable. And it’s easy to see out. There isn’t as much storage as my SL, but I’d be OK with that.” As he exited the XLR-V, he issued his verdict: “I wish I had the courage.”
“It’s been completely reliable,” I assured the SL guy, figuring he was wary of GM’s reputation for mechanical “mishaps.” “I’ve had it for over 23,000 miles without any problems.”
“That’s not what I meant,” he said. “I wish I had the courage to buy a car I’d have to explain to my friends. I love the style; I really admire it. But no one would understand if I bought a Cadillac. You have more guts than me.”
Americans scraped their way through the Depression, prevailed in two global wars, hung tough for 45 years of Cold War, went to the moon and opened our markets to help lift the world to prosperity. And now it comes to this: a man who likes a car designed and made by Americans in the United States– which he can clearly afford– is squeamish at the prospect of explaining an American-made automotive choice to his peers.
It may be unpopular to say it, but the existential threat to Detroit’s Big Three has a consumer component. There are 360 degrees of blame. Consumers must step up too.
Detroit’s products have changed. Whether you credit government intervention, consumer activism or foreign competition, there are no more rusting Vegas, exploding Pintos and 8-6-4 Cadillacs that can’t do math on the fly. As this website has pointed out on numerous occasions, product quality data says pretty much everything offered to American car buyers is mechanically reliable. Even if that salient fact hasn’t yet reached American consumer’s ears, reliability is not as important as it once was. Car choice often descends into pointless arguments over interior plastics, comparative depreciation and social acceptability.
This is why American manufacturers haven’t enjoyed the sales resurgence their new, improved products deserve: prejudice. American consumers share an irrational belief that American-made goods are inherently inferior to those produced by Japanese, German and even Korean manufacturers. A VW may find its way into the repair shop twice as often as a Chevrolet, but the German-branded car is still perceived as a higher quality product simply because it’s German.
A recent study by J.D. Power revealed that 80 percent of America's new car intenders won’t actively cross-shop either domestic or foreign, depending on their preference. While you can blame this horrific statistic on Detroit’s previous sins, it’s still a blanket condemnation of the Americans consumer’s idea of fair play. “You gotta put Mercury on your list,” the ad practically begs. And so it should be. Again, it may be unfashionable to suggest, but there is a penalty to pay for this blind bias against home-grown (or at least sold) products.
The United States is the only First World country projected to be substantially larger in population at the end of this century than it is today. The theory of comparative advantage says we should let our uncompetitive industries die. But of course, economists always neglect the human factor of politics. We have global responsibilities. We will continue to be a magnet for those with hope, and must accommodate an expanding, diverse population. We need a full-spectrum economy, not one divided between wealthy and struggling.
Manufacturing jobs are the bridge. As the US Department of Commerce reported in March, 2007:“Auto manufacturing remains one of the economy’s best paying industries. Production workers’ average hourly earnings were projected to reach $30.02 (excluding benefits) in 2006. Wages were 79 percent greater than the national average for all manufacturing industries.”
They also note that reductions in employment by GM, Ford and Chrysler will not be made up by transplant hiring. Beyond that, transplant sales do not support the tens of thousands of domestic high-salary headquarters jobs that a Detroit 3 purchase does today.
A holistic understanding of our mutual social contract suggests that we should at least give Detroit a fair shot at our patronage. In a 16 million units annual new vehicle market, can we find one million more buyers for the best, most competitive domestic iron?
Having driven the primary competitors in the volume car biz, I’m convinced that if a million import bigots dropped their bias against domestic iron and truly reconsidered what constitutes meaningful difference in a car comparison, they’d make the right choice– and not regret it. And we’d all be stronger for it.
So true, so true. The bias against the US manufacturers is unbelievable, even from the consumers who do come in the lot. There are those willing to give another chance. At my dealership, the Lincoln MKX is doing a great job at getting import buyers to switch back.
Great editorial!
Detroit lost an entire generation of buyers starting in the mid 70’s, its effects are still felt today. This lost generation is influencing an entire demographic segment.
The idea of having to explain “how could you buy an XLR-V when an SL500 is a safer choice”. Is a poignant example.
All cars are inexorably shifting from a mechanical platform, to an electronic platform with the quirks and glitches associated with all things electronic. Who is rating the electronics in cars?
“Import bigots” is priceless.
I’m living proof of said bias. My personal history with domestic cars has completely taken them off the table for future car purchases…I won’t even consider them. Unfair? Maybe…but to me they aren’t doing much to win me back either.
1) 10-year, no-excuses, no-BS warranty. At least as good as the Koreans, if not better. And actually honored without grumbles by dealerships.
2) Interiors that don’t suck. I cannot tell you the number of GM rentals i’ve driven with 20k on the clock that felt like they were on death’s doorstep. I don’t care why, it is not my problem. I want to know the car is in it for the long haul. Fix it.
3) Kill half the dealerships. Employ an undercover team at HQ that goes out and actually examines the dealerships for oily service writers and Tarlek-ian salesmen. Then close them down. Don’t say it can’t be done, I don’t care, as a consumer its not my problem. I want good service for the second-most expensive asset i’ll ever purchase.
4) Guaranteed trade-in price to offset catastrophic depreciation. Can’t do it? I’ll happily go over to the Honda dealer where I know the residuals will be high. Why should I waste my $ on the domestic’s poor business practices? Give me the reassurance that even if the car is a POS, it won’t be a financial bloodbath.
If these steps were taken – and the product wasn’t terrible – it would not take many years for the domestics to reach the level of esteem that the Koreans have achieved (ie, not top-rung, but not dismissed out-of-hand by most consumers either.)
Gotta agree. BMW makes some awesome cars, so does Mercedes.
But for my money, I’ll take a new Z06 Corvette and watch them all drool. And if I drive like an even slightly sane person, I’ll get between 25 and 27 MPG on the highway and have the ability to embarrass just about everything else on the road. No matter who makes it or how much it costs.
Not bad for “American Junk”.
By the way… If anyone is interested, the very best of the best in the Audiophile World of high-end electronics is completely in the Domestic Venue.
So will everybody PLEASE stop bashing everything “American”?!!!
Just remember… When you disrespect all things American, you’re disrespecting yourself as well.
My first issue with Detroit is their preference for pimp rides which show a complete disconnect from how the rest of the developed world produces cars.
Domestic brands tend to hold onto to dated transmissions, engine designs and suspension components until the buffalo bleeds or Lincoln screams.
Third, but not least, the dealer experience at most domestic brands is pure KIA.
I’m sorry but purchasing a car is not an investment. The only way to cut down on losses is to get one with the highest resale value and domestics are unfortunately not doing so well in that department. (neither are some German cars). Maybe they are overpriced to begin with?
There might be one or two domestic brands with good resale (perhaps the Wrangler) but America has one of the best road networks hence the target market is slightly limited.
One of Detroit’s main problem in wooing American customers (as I see it) is this:
In the 1980’s to the late 90’s American cars were the only ones to be seen in. But in the last 10 years or so, globalisation crept into the North American market and suddenly it wasn’t fashionable to be seen in Detroit steel. Nothing against american cars, but people suddenly had an image to maintain and now are staying away from Detroit in their droves. Most have horror stories from the car to the dealers and to be honest, that’s a problem I don’t think anyone can solve, once you burn a customer it’s likely they won’t come back, better off wooing the next generation. But now the current generation don’t want to be seen in american cars because it’s just not fashionable. So now Detroit have 2 generations of customers not buying their cars!
It can’t be helped, that’s just the way fashion works, just ask anybody in the clothing industry. Burberry in the UK is a highly respected brand abroad, but people in the UK wouldn’t been seen dead in Burberry, foreign labels are much more fashionable (Hugo Boss, D and G, DKNY etc). Detroit do have some world class engineers and left to their own devices they would come out with world class cars. But accountants and managment always know better, hence, we end up with (in my opinion) vulgar cars like the Cadillac Escalade or the Chevrolet Aveo (a budget car which tightwads would turn their noses up at!) Detroit do have the talent and flair to make the next world class car, but don’t have the freedom or budget thanks to years of mismanagment and, believe it or not, some customers don’t like to patronise a company like that and would rather buy a car from a company that’s moving forward (i.e Toyota) which brings me back neatly to fashion.
Detroit’s only hope is to DICTATE the next fashion rather than imitate it. Oh and fix their perception gap, reliability, treatment of customers, management and dealers…..!
“A recent study by J.D. Power revealed that 80 percent of Americans refuse to even consider buying a domestic car.”
Wow! Is it really that high? I bet this is just for cars and not SUV/Trucks
I can’t even get people to look at a Ford Fusion. Maybe, since Mulally is on a renaming kick, Rename the Fusion to “HondahFusion”.
Rollingrock, those are just bad steps. You might as well ask for the sun, moon, and stars on a silver platter.
1. Would you expose yourself to having to fix problems caused by abusive and neglectful owners? A no BS, no excuses warranty does just that. Warranties are supposed to guarantee the workmanship of a vehicle, not give you a free engine because you failed to change the oil for 15000 miles.
2. I made it a point at last year’s auto show to sit inside every domestic car to see just how bad the interiors were. Perhaps my standards aren’t as high as everyone else’s but they sure didn’t feel ready to fall apart. Neiter did the Escape I rented. Gutless, I’ll admit that. Out of curiousity, which vehicles did you rent that felt ready to fall apart?
3. You are aware of franchise laws that vary from state to state that protect most dealerships from being shut down, right? You do remember how much it cost GM just to shut down Oldsmobile, right?
4. GM heaps loads of discounts on their cars. Now they’re supposed to pay you even more if the trade-in value is low? Aside from this being ripe for fraud, it’s just silly. That’s like asking Honda to guarantee a replacement Civic since they populate 8 of the top 10 stolen cars list.
You can’t just dole out simple solutions for complex problems.
Typically, as the writer of the editorial did, the car in question was not a bread&butter car. XLR-V, no less.
The Corvette falls into the same category. Go to the GM Message Board and see all the truck owners swear by their Silverados and bitch about the Tundra they wouldnt be buying anyway.
But how about buying a Cobalt over a Civic? A Malibu over an Altima? Aveo over a Scion?
GM could make the most reliable, dependable cars in the world right now with impeccable fit and finish. No matter. If the car lacks consumer appeal, if the driving dynamics are not what people enjoy, it’s all for naught.
There are reasons why 80% of the US public do not buy domestic cars. 2 generations later, they’re not even on most peoples radar screens. And the puclic is to blame? Our former enemies have been forgiven, but those customers that used buy domestic feel the companies havent supported THEM, and since many feel they were screwed by our own, no need to reward them by giving them another chance to do the same.
Work in a dealership as I do, you hear it from older former domestic car customers all the time.
I own an american car (plymouth neon) and a japanese one (Subaru WRX STi) as well as a japanese bike (suzuki gsx-r 600).
The neon I bought used for $1k a few years ago with 122k on the clock. It’s not a bad car, fairly reliable and cheap to fix. I went with my wife at a constant 55mph on a trip to WI from Chicago in the right lane fora 2-3 hour trip and averaged 38-39mpg. The car now has 156k on it and I really have nothing majorly bad to say about it as far as reliability. But this is NOT the only thing that is important to me.
Here are my comments
1) 3 speed auto ? 3 SPEED ??? WHY? If it wasn’t bargain basement I wouldn’t have bought it. Never would have even considered it new.
2) electronic nothing. It even has a tape deck, not a cd and it’s a year 2k model. No power windows, no power doors, no way to unlock the back doors from the outside.
3) The outside mirror positioning sucks. It doesn’t work well (it came broken & still is broken).
4) It’s automatic. Another reason I wouldn’t have considered it. Some american cars you can’t even get a manual as an option.
5) 0-60 in 11 means it can’t get out of it’s own way.
It’s fine for the wife who maxes out at 30mph in the city and is a super-over-cautious careful driver who just needs it to get from one place to another.
I bought my Subaru due to no American company making a rally bred car. 0-60 in under 5, for 30g’s with all wheel drive & dccd.
I don’t think any american manufacturer makes anything that competes with it (Don’t mention mustang GT’s. They are fatter & slower and have much higher depreciation & cost basically the same, new). I was also looking at an elise at the time but couldn’t justify the extra $10k and higher insurance.
Sportbikes…I have a gsx-r 600, 2005 that I paid just over $8k out the door for. Where are the american manufacturers ? Buell ?
Perhaps if American companies made something in _any_ of the classes of vehicle I want to buy, I might consider them.
Very interesting editorial. My wife currently drives an ’02 BMW 325xi with over 90k miles on it. She plans to replace it in about 6 months when it will be over 100k. When I suggested she look at the new Caddy CTS she just laughed at me and said “Are you kidding?”. This is the hurdle the domestics must overcome.
This is a thoughtful, well-written editorial. It addresses an important topic. It deserves responses from us that are equally trenchant, not diatribes.
I am going to buy two new cars in the coming year, one a small hatchback and the other a four door sedan. I plan to keep them for at least 8 – 10 years. So, the following questions are not rhetorical.
Is there an American equivalent to the Mazda 3 or the VW GTI? Right now, I’m not aware of anything, ‘tho perhaps the coming Saturn Astra might fill the bill?
And… is there an American equivalent to a four-cylinder Honda Accord, Nissan Altima or Toyota Camry? Maybe the coming Chevrolet Malibu?
Any and all (well, almost) suggestions would be welcome. Despite poor experiences with Detroit and American dealerships in the past, I’d be willing to try one more time.
Count me as one that wouldn’t own a domestic. Averaging 60k miles a year running service taught me that the domestics were junk. This may no longer be the case but the dealers alone keep me away.
If there is such a thing as a lost generation for Detroit then I’m the poster child.
How many people know that small Japanese cars from the mid-1970s exploded at the same rate as the Pinto? Ford got in trouble not for the explosions, but because their engineers worked out a solution for the gas tank rupture problem that was ignored by management. An irresponsible press picked up the story and invented sensational tales equaling Pintos to hot nitroglycerin.
BTW, a friend’s father owned a mid-70s Pinto. As I recall it was not a bad, car when compared to the other 70s cars(they all pretty much sucked).
I’m with Ken Strumpf.
I suggested to my wife replacing my Nissan Maxima with a new Pontiac G8. She laughed hysterically. And, her father used to work for GM…
We’ve purchased 3 new cars in the past 6 years. At no time did the domestics make the short list, as we’re both a cheapskates (and as qa said, cars are not investments) but willing to pay a little more for safety features, as the kids are on board.
Fall 2001: mid-sized sedan, short list Camry, Passat, Altima, as those had the most safety features for for $20k. No domestics had side curtain airbags, so no go.
Spring 2004: minivan, short list Sienna 8 psgr. Nothing else was even considered – you mean I was supposed to look at the pre-CSV GM minivan?
Winter 2007: small cheap vehicle that could fit 3 car seats simultaneously, short list Mazda5 and Kia Rondo.
Me, a bigot? 3 in a row means I suppose so, but simply stated, domestics didn’t make products worthy of our hard earned dough.
Being a car guy, most of my friends and family turn to me for automotive advice, (anyone else experience this on a daily basis?) and I try not to have a biased opinion when they ask me “What should I get?”
The hard part is not that all American cars suck, they don’t. The hard part is convincing people of that. A friend recently came to me asking what car he should get, he was in the market for a midsize sedan, with a 4 cyl and manual tranny. Tough choice to get him into a domestic with a manual!
In the end we went looking at Altima’s, Accords, and Fusions. He was immediately turned off the Fusion until I casually mentioned that it was essentially a Mazda 6 under the skin. He got the Fusion, and loves it.
Funny how the best domestic cars seem to be based on foreign designs/platforms. The Astra is getting alot of attention for being a competative domestic car but thats because it’s an import!!
As KatiePuckrik mentions, it really is all about fashion. American cars are now unfashionable to the point that anyone who actually cares about fashion avoids Detroit nameplates like the plague.
Also, more and more people are only exposed to them because they have to rent one. That gives zillions of people (Americans and foreign folks alike) the idea that American cars are dull, cheap, uninspiring plastic cars. But the thing is, you can easily make that very argument about the vast majority of American cars being sold today.
And then there’s the plummeting resale value…
“I wish I had the courage.” The statement by the Mercedes driver pretty much sums up the 80% who wont’ consider domestic cars these days. They’re a bunch of mindless, robotic conformists that buy the same thing their friends do, afraid not of their product failing them but afraid of being unique and different and buying something based on their own best judgement and needs.
That’s pretty sad when you think that the strengths we Americans like to pride ourselves in are individualism and an independent, creative, pioneering spirit. Our consumers instead have become a bunch of timid sheep, afraid of stepping out of their comfort zones and trying on something different. If that’s truly the case, then there’s no hope for the Detroit Three, and no hope for this country.
I’m not certain about this 80% figure – I think that the statement should be “80% of import intenders/buyers would NOT even consider a US brand vehicle.”
I know I’m in the 100% category of “never again”. But then, I’d pretty well bought mostly American branded stuff since 1973 until 2002, So I’d say 30 years is “enough time to get it right” wouldn’t you? Especially considering the fact that this 30 years was the time-frame in which the Japanese car manufacturers improved and took so much market?
So, Detroit Inc, where was your competitive spirit? Oh yeah, you were too wrapped up in your own little dream world where import brands didn’t matter, and you were only in competition with each other….
So, Detroit Inc dealers, where was your customer service spirit? Oh yeah, you were too wrapped up in YOUR own little dream world where you could treat customers as you wished (poorly) because they’d be back – or maybe they’d trade around between the big 3 Detroit companies (and since the other dealers were doing the same thing, you’d gain some, they’d gain some…)
So for me, it really doesn’t matter what the Detroit 2.8 do any more – I’m simply not interested in considering any of their stuff for purchase.
It wasn’t even a case of “burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice shame on me”. More like about 12 times (I’ve honestly lost count) new and used US stuff.
Buyers have been screwed by incentive rebates and frankly the poor resale value too many times. So it is not entirely irrational to not buy a US car, nor is it all the dictates of fashion. Then again, the dealer experience is ridiculously bad compared to the imports (try and buy something good like a ZR-1 and they gouge you, anything else and they try and screw you another way).
And the domestics have never tried to really revolutionize the experience. Yes, dealers unfairly have franchise laws to protect them, but GM could have adopted the no-haggle approach across their line. One way to get rid of dealers is not to kowtow to them.
As a fellow Subaru owner (Legacy GT) I’d echo the comments of Robstar and several others, as American manufacturers simply don’t make anything that appeals to me. Where is the small to mid-size sport sedan with RWD or AWD and a manual (and the handling to match)? I realize 95% of Americans want a FWD automatic, but they’re losing my business because they don’t offer a car that I want to drive. Should the G8 (or any other RWD Pontiac sedan) materialize, I’ll take a look at that if I’m in the market, but even then it is going to be a bit too large for me. The Neon (and now Caliber) SRT-4 fit most of that, but FWD? No thanks. The AWD Fusion? No manual. Does Mazda count as American?
All would be forgiven if we could just be sure that American cars are reliable. The oft-cited statisticss that show improving reliability are, to the oridnary consumer, useless. I want to to know for my make AND model, how reliable it is. And the question of “how reliable it is” can only be answered by long-term data, not this 90-day foolishness. Three-year data is a good start, but to reassure consumers, it must be given by model. Consumer Reports is the only source (that I know of) that provides this type of info, and according to their research, Japanese cars still have the best long-term records.
Of course, models change a lot over the long term. That’s the whole point of the US automakers’ current round of chest-thumping: the cars are different now, we promise! Maybe they are. But they have to make reliable cars across their lineups for at least six years before they can hope to regain consumer trust. No one wants to be the schlubb who falls for the next K-car.
As far as the whole social contract thing goes… my obligation to my fellow American does NOT include spending $25k on a car which could leave me stranded by the side of the road and facing a big repair bill.
You want to help your fellow American worker? Vote for higher taxes to pay for programs that train them for work where they can be competitive, and to pay for supporting them and their families until they can perform that work. But don’t ask me to spend a huge chunk of my income on a bad product that could regularly make me miserable.
I hope the Malibu turns out to be the next Camry. But I won’t hold my breath, because it will take at least six years to be sure.
ollingrock, those are just bad steps. You might as well ask for the sun, moon, and stars on a silver platter.
1. Would you expose yourself to having to fix problems caused by abusive and neglectful owners? A no BS, no excuses warranty does just that. Warranties are supposed to guarantee the workmanship of a vehicle, not give you a free engine because you failed to change the oil for 15000 miles.
By no-BS I didn’t mean “fix no matter what”, but rather that historically, domestic dealerships do everything in their power to avoid having to do warranty work. This trend began in the 70s when Detroit was slinging really shoddy junk, and the culture persists. I’ve had no such problems with Subaru, Toyota or other non-domestic brands.
Out of curiousity, which vehicles did you rent that felt ready to fall apart?
I rent a lot of cars at work. Cobalts = not good. Ions = bad to the point where i can’t believe anyone buys them retail. Aveo = shedding parts while i was driving (door handle). Grand Prix = interior with unfinished metal that actually cut me. I could go on, but I think anyone that rents a lot of cars knows where i’m coming from. The Grand Marquis was nice, too bad it handled like a parade float.
You are aware of franchise laws that vary from state to state that protect most dealerships from being shut down, right? You do remember how much it cost GM just to shut down Oldsmobile, right?
When a patient has gangrene in their foot, you don’t chop off small bits of their foot and leg as the infection rises. You chop off the whole damn thing in one fell swoop. it is the only way to save the patient. GM dealer network = necrotic, black, lifeless. Muster the cash, take the earnings hit for a quarter and do what needs to be done.
4. GM heaps loads of discounts on their cars. Now they’re supposed to pay you even more if the trade-in value is low? Aside from this being ripe for fraud, it’s just silly. That’s like asking Honda to guarantee a replacement Civic since they populate 8 of the top 10 stolen cars list.
In fact, back in the 1980s, i do recall Cadillac offering guaranteed resale value on the Allante. That car was hopeless though, so it didn’t help much. But surely it could be done for the CTS, because it is a competitve product. Right? What better way to get risk-averse people to give it a try.
I’m kind of sick of the domestics pointing to the short JD Power surveys and saying they’re as good as anybody. 90 day JD Power surveys says you can get it off the line without it breaking. That’s expected – it says nothing about the long-term quality of the car. As a number of others have pointed out, after 60k miles most domestics feel like they’re ready to fall apart. I keep my cars 5-8 years and over this time period domestics do not hold their quality.
I’d like to see a comparison between the Caddy and the imports in the same segment with 100k miles on it and see how it compares. Resale says not so good.
Have the domestics made improvements? Absolutely. Are they better vehicles than the imports over the long-term? I don’t see it.
Its not just perception. Quit wasting time beating your chest on how good you are and make a better vehicle.
I really think that for me, a 24 year old, this is my father’s bias. Some in my generation have picked it up, but I think the “perception gap” will fade with time. Problem is, my generation turns to their parents for purchasing advice and this is where the bias gets passed down – the Big Three made absolute crap in the 70’s through the mid 90’s or so, and those years cemented their image as subpar cars.
In pretty much every segment, US automakers offer an appealing option, if you don’t mind taking the chance that the automaker you buy your car from won’t be around in 7 years or so.
Today’s buyers will eventually drive their Avalons into the grave and tomorrow’s buyers don’t really care half as much about their cars as they do their iPods. So long as the Detroit automakers can keep producing competitive vehicles and stay at the forefront of technology integration, the pendulum will swing back home (especially as the dollar decreases in value and foreign car prices, particularly European, increase).
Let’s take my Mercury Sable as an example.
47K the tie rods went. There was no grease, not a drop, in the ends. rear stabilizers broke, flimsy carbon steel with no rust prevention. Tiny brake rotors meant brake jobs every 15K. ABS light came on in the rain, faulty waterproofing on a critical connector (for something as critical as brakes). Head gasket went at 78K miles, exactly how is this related to owner abuse I asked the dealer? transmission lost the overdrive due to cheap c-clip breaking in two. This cooked my transmission as I attempted to get home rather than shellout 1500 dollars to a transmission shop whose only answer was”it has to come out for us to determine what is wrong with it”. Turn signal control fell off at 49K, maybe I should make fewer turns. Oil leaks everywhere. AC blower a victim of faulty brushes , but that’s OK because we will let the owners pay for a new one that is redesigned, removing Ford’s responsibility for another defect.
This contributed to cliff face depreciation so bad I was grateful for a 400.00 trade-in.
These defects are faulty design and engineering, not the fault of the UAW or even the dealer network. And we are to trust theuir brand new cars and engines won’t have gotchas? Take a chance with your money, I won’t
My brother owns a Cadillac and a Mercedes. And he is proud of it! Mind you he makes his living as a marketer. Like many owners, my brother is living his childhood fantasy, when both these makes represented personal achievement. Today, few automobiles shout more loudly and clearly to the rest of the world that the owner knows nothing about automobiles.
As most Caddy and Merc owners have never owned a Lexus, Acura or Infiniti, they don’t realize they are drinking warm coffee and eating day old doughnuts.
I do have to agree with the people on here (as someone who got burned by Detroit), that although Detroit may be making some decent cars recently, lest we forget the amount of junk which has come from them. There are so many horror stories out there, that it’s got to be more than a coincidence! You cannot realistically expect to burn millions of people for years with shoddy products, then make a decent car and expect people to buy it. It’s also the reputation we’re buying too.
Detroit has burned many people and saying “we’re good now, why don’t people trust us?” is like Kenneth Lay starting a new company and wondering why no-one wants to invest in him! Buying a car is the best part of £15000 (or $20000 adjusting for US prices). I’m sorry but if I’m lashing out that kind of money I want a guarantee or a history of exemplary service and reliability. SAYING you’re better than before and quoting some awards isn’t enough. You want my business back? EARN IT! Which brings me neatly onto Detroit’s second biggest problem:
Where has their competitive spirit gone…..?
You must forgive me, but I believe that the War Against the Transplants is as misguided as was blaming the country’s woes on the Irish/ Italians/ Chinese/ Mexicans / insert other ethnic group here back in the days of yore, when it came down to the fact that not everybody wins in a free market society.
What Detroit forgets is that the customer is always right. That is no cliche — the consumer owes no company anything except for the money that is required when s/he decides to exchange it for a product sold by that business.
If consumers don’t like Detroit vehicles for whatever reason, let them. It is the job of the Detroit automakers to change that fact if they don’t like the resulting decline in sales.
When consumers decided that they didn’t like Citroen, Peugeot and Renault, the French bid a hasty retreat. Ditto for FIAT, that could convince millions of Italians that an unreliable box was worth buying, but not Americans. When Daihatsu couldn’t cut it, sayonara to them — being Japanese didn’t help. When Yugo became a laughing stock that could make a Ford Tempo look good, it went back home with barely a whimper. That’s how it goes.
This is a tough market. If you build crap, they just won’t come. And I’m sorry, but peddling the Vette Z06 as if it is fairly representative of the main is a bit like claiming that the pedigree of a Ferrari should have been reason enough to have bought a FIAT. (That was not a lost opportunity that I regret passing up.)
On the whole, American mainstream vehicles are also-rans in basic segments that American consumers want to buy. As noted above, if buying a compact or midsized car, just for starters, there is not much incentive to buy domestic.
Like it or not, some of the best domestics today are coming out of Marysville Ohio and Georgetown, Kentucky. They are built with international designs, assembled with US labor and US parts, and pay dividends to stockholders around the world. If that’s where the consumer wants to cast his or her ballot, let him. If Detroit wants a bigger piece of that action, they need to stop whining and start making their customers happy. Otherwise, let them follow FIAT and Yugo out the door, and give the winners their rightful due.
Great editorial, it exposes the bigotry and unfair bias against the big 2.8, but I argue that they still need to reconsider their offerings. One thing that bothers me with American design these days is how ‘safe’ it is. There’s so much beancounting and pouring over the focus groups that even the most basic car configurations are considered risky.
For example, a friend of mine was recently looking for a small wagon. He used to drive Cherokees off road, but grew tired of that -so he wasn’t interested in a crossover or a tall wagon. That’s too bad for the big 2.8, since they’re all caught-up in a overlapping lineup of cute-utes and crossovers these days.
Which American automaker is producing a descent compact wagon? I recommended the Vibe (when was the last time you saw an ad for the Vibe?), but not the Caliber (fisher-price pig-ugly). The new 2008 Focus won’t be available with a hatch, at least not here anyway. At the end of the day, not knowing what their price-range was, my top 3 picks were the Volvo V50, Mazda3 and Suzuki SX4. At least 2 of the 3 are Ford products by extension, but that may change in the near future.
If the Big 2.8 are looking to expand their market share, they have to stop ignoring significant market segments, even if they’re perceived to be low-volume. Come out with a killer product and the market will find you. Offer innovative incentives (like class-leading warranties and guaranteed trade-in values, as other commentators stated) and you’ll move metal.
It just takes time for most people. The problem is not only that a lot of the American cars with reliability problems are still on the road. I rarely go a week without hearing someone at work or home complaining about a fuel pump dying on a 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee with 27k on the clock, or some such nonsense (just the most recent example).
They’ve got to get out of the woods and stay there for a while before you see the popular opinion change. Look at how long it took Hyundai, and the lengths they had to go to (BIG warranty). They succeeded because they were consistent.
With the Big 2.8, I’m just not seeing that. The stats may say otherwise, but to me, a 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee didn’t roll off the line that long ago, and I would expect more than 27k out of a fuel pump.
Don’t mention mustang GT’s. They are fatter & slower and have much higher depreciation & cost basically the same, new
Robstar,
I own a Mustang GT and I wouldn’t suggest one to someone looking for an EVO or an STI. Mustangs are fatter and slower, but a different kind of beast all together.
However $25k for a GT vs $33k for a STI isn’t “basically the same” If you get a loaded GT convertible, then yeah – but now you’re looking at a vehicle that is even further from an STi.
Oh, and the Impreza and the Mustang both get the same 5-star depreciation rating from ALG. I bought mine new because the used prices were so high.
Not to stray too off-topic: I do have a lingering anti-domestic bias. My Civic Si was the best vehicle I ever owned (at least on paper): ridiculously high residual value, good reliability, lots of features, great transmission, etc.
As good as my Civic was, I enjoy my Mustang more. If I stuck to my Japanese-brands-only policy, I would have missed out on a lot of fun.
The 80% statistic cuts both ways. 80% of domestic buyers wont consider imports either. IMO this is mostly just people avoiding complex decisions. If you limit yourself to whatever GM and Ford have to offer in a segment your decision is a lot easier. Same if you only want to look at Honda and Toyota.
Recently, friends found themselves in possession of more cars than they needed, so they had to choose which one to sell. They chose to keep a 1992 Honda with 190K miles on it over ’99 Neon with 90K miles on it.
Their reason, “the Honda felt good to drive but the Neon felt like it was falling apart” and they had been paying repair bills on the Neon but not on the Honda. Their Honda still felt solid and was getting better fuel economy.
When my friends and neighbors stop telling me stories like this (never mind what I read on TTAC or other forums), I’ll be looking at Detroit.
Phil Ressler appears to have the far-too-usual mindset of the Detroit Fan Club… He assumes that import purchasers are making irrational decisions about what to buy based on whether or not a car is foreign or whatever and making decisions that are not justifiable. That’s certainly not the case with me. I’m not biased, as the article suggests, against articles of American manufacture. I work for an American manufacturer and we make really good stuff; we have product performance that is measurably superior in many ways than most, if not all of our competitors and we’re competitive on price. I know of other American manufacturers that are the same way.
I’m biased in favor of what has worked for me and against what hasn’t.
I no longer buy VWs because their vehicle didn’t hold up and, while I still LOVE Volvo 240s and 940s and I felt that I got very good value from them (if I had lots of money, I’d own one just because I like them), I have to admit that my Toyotas hold up better (lower maintenance costs, better long-term durability and the car holds its solid feel longer and better). I don’t plan to buy one as my basic transportation.
Factor all that in and you find that I’m biased against Ford, GM and Chrysler AND ANY OTHERS THAT DO NOT MEASURE UP and it’s their own damned fault. It wasn’t worth it to them to build good, reliable cars that held up well (Volvo was OK – Toyota’s just better) and service them properly when they didn’t hold up and so, they lost customers.
In contrast, Toyota and Honda have worked hard to creast vehicles with lasting value and are now reaping the rewards of retained customers who will pay a little extra for what they see as a really good value.
If you want to effect a total turnaround, I recommend you lobby for changes in tax laws that mean executive stock options are worthless unless the company does well long term (10 years), that short-term profits on stock trades are PUNITIVELY taxed and that long-term holding are dealt with generously. As it stands now, the stock markets are about making money on trades. We have to eliminate that mindset and make the stock markets the places for INVESTMENTS.
That might rid America’s boardrooms of the short-term thinking that got Detroit into this mess before the rest of our industries follow Detroit down the tubes.
Thank You.
I don’t think we’re looking at an Anti-American bias, but simply that people are looking for value and many American cars do not represent the kind of value they want. The XLR, in Corvette form, is an exceptional value; one trades some interior “luxury” for absolute class-leading performance when you compare to a Cayman or 911 and since the Corvette has not been subject to fire sale rebates, the depreciation is reasonable.
The Fusion is at the other end of the scale and is a high value American car, but is stuck with the general air of rebate malaise which is glued to virtually every regular Ford, Chevy or Dodge. When you oversupply the market, you cheapen your product in the eyes of the public. And while Honda markets the Accord as both a Honda and an Acura, there is significantly more brand differentiation there than between a Fusion and a Milan, or a Chevrolet and Pontiac.
In the end, what shows through for too many American cars is that the design team was under the direction of the accounting department.
@ Rollingwreck
4) Guaranteed trade-in price to offset catastrophic depreciation. Can’t do it? I’ll happily go over to the Honda dealer where I know the residuals will be high. Give me the reassurance that even if the car is a POS, it won’t be a financial bloodbath.
This is unnecessary. The market clearing price takes all information available into account, and residual values are available and therefore accounted for in initial sale prices. That is why Dometics and Korean make vehicles generally sell at lower prices than Japonese makes and why American and Korean manufacturers have to pile on the the incentives.
Get residuals up, need for incentive spending declines.
For all those that our proclaiming the superiority of non Detroit vehicles and how they will never go back, don’t you realize that THIS IS HOW YOU GOT BURNED THE LAST TIME? I still remember my first ride in a friend’s brand new 1977 Honda Accord. It was a fine automobile for its market and price point, and certainly like nothing else on the market at that time. And, I remember how confused I was…”this..this, is a JAPANESE car, how could it be so good, but, of course, if i bought one i’d have to explain it to my friends and family, how could i possibly face the derision….” And my next car was a 1980 Chevy Citation (as Dr. Phil might say, “how’d that work for ya…)
Lack of consideration of Detroit brands by domesticaraphobes not only hurts the domestic manufacturers (and may take one or more of them out before it’s all said and done) it hurts THEM because they are irrationally limiting your choices. Like they say in the financial world, ” past performance is no guarantee of future returns”. It’s true with cars too. Are Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. going to fall off the log. No, of course not, but their global aspirations are stretching them (more recalls, no 6-speed auto in the new Accord, etc.) and the domestics ARE catching up, and in some cases passing them.
All the domestics are asking for is for you to find your way into a showroom, and find out whether they have the vehicle that meets your needs, and get the facts about it vs. the competition. You may be surprised.
I did exactly that with a friend who is in the market for a small hatch/wagon. My recommendation: Volvo S30, at least until the Astra comes out. Can’t wrap my brain around a Caliber, and GM and Ford come up bupkus. If my friend were looking for a full size SUV or CUV, though, I expect the outcome would be different.
Sorry, but taking this XLR experience as representative is just silly. Merc vs. Caddy is only about the premium market, and I don’t think anyone can argue that Detroit forfeited that market long ago. Caddy is clawing its way back, slowly, but GM’s even managing to screw that up by pushing out too much product and forcing themselves to discount heavily, just like they always do. As for Ford and Crysler, do they even make premium automobiles anymore? I hadn’t noticed.
Ford, GM and Chrysler are low- to mid-market car manufacturers, and that is where they compete for the forseeable future.
quasimondo,
It is precisely because the Big 3 will not consider simple solutions to complex problems that they find themselves in their current situation.
THE CONSUMER DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR COMPLEX PROBLEM.
The consumer has their own complex problems to deal with, and they don’t need more complex problems inherent in buying goods that the market deems sub-par (perception is reality in a market environment, get over it)
All the domestics are asking for is for you to find your way into a showroom, and find out whether they have the vehicle that meets your needs, and get the facts about it vs. the competition. You may be surprised.
As Mike Karesh found out on TrueDelta.com, import intenders do more research online before buying. Why bother wasting valuable time going into a showroom when you can start excluding cars over the Internet? Here are links to the crash test results of the pre-CSV GM minivans, I only knew about the latter at the time I was minivan shopping:
EuroNCAP offset crash test of the Opel Sintra, with video:
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_sintra_1999/62.aspx
GM withdrew the Sintra from EU market, whose sales were already flagging, after these results came out. Americans were blessed with the design for another 5 years, only to be replaced by TTAC’s inaugural TWAT.
IIHS offset crash test of the Pontiac Trans Sport:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=67
Domestic turnaround is only one part of the equation…the competition would have to suck – and I don’t know if that’s happening quickly enough.
If all things were equal, and GM made a car like the Lexus model we bought, with a dealership experience like Lexus, resale like Lexus, everything is as good as Lexus, price…EVERYTHING is the same – I still buy the Lexus.
(I picked Lexus and GM as examples, but feel free to replace them with your favorite domestic and import brands.)
GM has f–ked me over (and others, obviously) repeatedly.
So in the scenario above my incentive to purchase the GM over the Lexus is…uh, there is none. Two brands, all things equal, one brand has burned you and everyone you know over and over. What would possess someone to spend money with that company in that scenario?
So domestics can’t be “as good as” the competition. They have to be better. For a while. Maybe a long while. Then and ONLY then would it appear on my serious shopping list. And that’s not a guaranteed sale, but at least I’ll consider it seriously.
I understand what the SL guy meant when he said “But nobody would understand if I bought a Cadillac.” The brand is part of the problem. Like I said in some other thread, for everyone I know, domestics == cheap. And there’s no easy fix to the problem.
It’s not just styling, quality or materials. It’s the whole experience. The dealer showroom, the customer support line, heck, even the website. It’s hard to separate the different aspects of brand perception, each element feeds off the other.
What does it mean, when import salesmen walk up with an air of complacent confidence, knowing I’ll buy their cars, when the domestic salesmen are fatalistically cynical, half-expecting me to walk off at any time?
What does it mean, when Ford Edge ads claim to be quieter than Lexus, then I check online and find their claims aren’t on the level?
What does it mean, when the Big 2.8 will, almost at random, decide to give employee discounts to everyone?
This is branding. The Big 2.8 have dug this hole with poor quality, and brand perception starts and ends with quality. But they shouldn’t expect that just because they can build some examples of decent cars, that magically all is forgiven. It’s great that some of their cars are good. “We’re just as good, honest!” is not a reason to switch.
I don’t respect domestics. Stone me – I’m an import bigot. The styling makes me laugh. Having Jill Wagner ambush ads at all hours of the day makes me laugh. If you want respect, act like you deserve it.
If Detroit wants to convert me, they should start with the Corvette. The Corvette Z06 is a great-looking car with good handling. It’s an unbeatable value. The Corvette has an instant credibility that requires no explanation. They stayed true to the original styling, while continually refining it and putting more muscle under the hood. But I live in a metro area, so I won’t be getting one anytime soon. If they could convert some of that magic to a four-door saloon, with the quality to match, I’d buy it. For now, the only domestic I’ll consider is a Mazda 3/6. It’s almost a domestic.
This is a great article and the comments afterwards make it even better.
Forget about the XLR V-series, I’m sure the new Malibu will be better than the Camry inside and out. The perception gap will keep consumers away, not to mention that GM’s lineup is not competitive at every price point. Until the incentives roll in. And the cycle of “buy Detroit because they are a great value” comes in.
I try to recommend winners like the Aura, Corvette, Fusion, etc to my friends, but most everyone looks at me like I’m nuts.
And then they’ll tell you a horror story about their parents and their Diesel Oldsmobile, Taurus head gaskets or Chrysler transmission woes: its human nature not to make the same mistake twice, especially when tens of thousands of dollars are on the line.
Detroit can fix it, but it needs time. I hope they can turn it around before the creditors demand blood.
Where does this “unfair” meme come from? Am I supposed to play the game “fairly” by only paying attention to the machine and forgetting the infrastructure like dealers and parts availability? That’s just not in the cards. If I have a ration of crap from a dealer I might put it down to perversity, but if five or six dealers (GM) treat me badly I begin looking upward to the mother ship.
Sorry, Detroit, until you match Subaru in every point of the ownership experience, my money goes to them. Not “fair”? Take a do-over when you boned me on my Pontiac 6000’s transmission (failed within warranty but fobbed off until that was done), -then- we’ll talk.
Captain Tungsten wrote: “All the domestics are asking for is for you to find your way into a showroom, and find out whether they have the vehicle that meets your needs, and get the facts about it vs. the competition. You may be surprised.”
Surprises are exactly what I got from Ford. I do not want any more surprises. When I go on a driving vacation, I want to return on the day I planned driving the same vehicle that I was driving when the vacation started and without spending any time in dealership waiting rooms along the way.
Bob Lutz (or whomever) can tell me that GM (or FoMoCo or whatever) is just as good as Toyota but I’ll wait for independent verification, thank you.
I perused the first few comments to see how others responded to this editorial. At first blush it appears I’m not on the same page although it could be semantics.
At least for me, and I’m quite sure for quite a few people this isn’t just a bias. This is the result of an earned reputation. The General and it’s domestic cohorts foisted automotive crap on the American consumer for years culminating, IMO in the early 80’s. If you were unlucky enough to have a purchased a Caddy or virtually any other domestic brand during these times you probably know what I’m talking about.
The bias you see now is earned. They will need many years of making good product to even come close to recapturing lost market.
I will believe that they are making a comeback when one of them has the gonads to stand up and admit it, apologize for it, and thank Toyota et al for forcing them to be better.
I have a suggestion for TTAC.
Get hold of 3 or 5 year-old examples of imports and domestics, and do a comparison.
3 year old Malibu vs. Camry vs. Accord vs. Altima
LeSabre vs. Avalon
Cobalt vs. Civic vs. Corolla
SL vs. XLR
Stand ’em up and shoot it out. Let’s see how the interiors, exteriors, drivetrains, and accessories have held up in real-time, real world situations. Solicit the input of TTAC’s readers who probably own the cars. Add resale value into the mix to see what the real cost of ownership has been.
My household is Honda-only. We didn’t even consider a domestive when I bought my Acura TL, not when we bought our new Pilot in April. Believe me, we really wanted to look, but there were no comparable domestics.
When we bought the Pilot, we looked at the Acadia, but the price was far higher, and the quality wasn’t there. Everything seemed designed to last until the warranty ran out. My wife wasn’t willing to be the test fleet for GM. She was, however, willing to look at a new Hyundai Vreacruz, even though it’s also a new vehicle.
Think about that for a minute. We had more confidence in a Korean car than an American car. It’s astonishing that it’s come to this, but reality is a tough thing. The greatest manufacturing companies the world has ever known are now viewed as inferior to a Korean company that has about a 3 year history of competitive cars.
This debate goes to the heart of why the domestics are dying. “Perception Gap” is merely the term we use to describe the fact that for many of us, domestics=junk.
I really wish I could buy American. I want to support our domestic industries and the jobs of my fellow Americans. But I’m not going to do it when the product is inferior, or when the resale value is going to cost me thousands of dollars down the road.
Phil, are you 213Cobra?
It is precisely because the Big 3 will not consider simple solutions to complex problems that they find themselves in their current situation.
THE CONSUMER DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR COMPLEX PROBLEM.
The consumer has their own complex problems to deal with, and they don’t need more complex problems inherent in buying goods that the market deems sub-par (perception is reality in a market environment, get over it)
If all problems could be solved with simple solutions, the world would be a beautiful place. Maybe in the world of sitcoms where everything can be resolved in a 30-minute timeslot can you just wave a magic wand and say, “make it so,” and problems will vanish in a puff of smoke, but when it’s taken them 30 years to dig themselves into this hole, it’ll probably take them 30 years just to get out of it.
One other point:
Sajeev said that he expects the new Malibu to be the equal of the Accord/Camry/Altima.
It may be, but when 15 dealers in Atlanta run full-page ads discounting them from Day One, it will only reinforce the “Perception Gap”.
Add to this the fact that thousands of them will be built as strippers for the rental fleets, and you can see where we’re headed.
I am with Ralph SS on this one.
Phil Ressler’s article is well-written but it relies too much on a weak point, namely JP Power. If the author could cite longer-term statistics stating that Detroit iron as well as the whole buying and ownership experience were up to par with Asian cars, then I’d be inclined to support his view.
A brand depends on reputation. Detroit shot its reputation and thus most US car brands are shot. Re-building a reputation takes years of unblemished peformance. This article would be justified in, say, 2010, if by then American car companies had proved they are in it for the long-term.
Sorry, Phil Ressler,
in a consumer business brands are extremely important. The strong brands are now Toyota, Honda and some of the Europeans. Detroit’s brand power outside of Detroit has been burnt. Do you really think a California high tech executive is going to dump his European fashion mobile for something as archaic as a Cadillac? I’m afraid those Cadillacs will stay in the museum.
First, if anyone thinks that the bias is JUST fashion they are missing the point. Second, fashion is part of the game! Chrysler made a nineties comeback because they started making better looking cars like the neon and sebring. Now those cars are considered ugly. Why? Too many of your products fall apart and sure as heck, they will be regarded as ugly and cheap. Perhaps this is why outside of Corvettes and trucks, there are very few persistent styling cues on the domestics.
Lastly, if anyone is worried about keeping domestic manufacturing jobs, they need to get over it.
We already have the transplants as a solution, and in the end, there will be less and less manufacturing jobs anywhere. Robots will get these jobs, so train your kids to do repairs, not assembly (it will be a few more generations before the robots also do repairs).
Making up a rule that says manufacturing jobs are necessary for a good economy is even sillier than having a rule not to buy domestics. The world changes, perception (and economic theory) follows. Detroit should stop the whining and change the products and wait.
“American consumers share an irrational belief that American-made goods are inherently inferior to those produced by Japanese, German and even Korean manufacturers.”
It isn’t irrational if that belief is based on years of personal experience. You seem to be giving the auto makers a pass for all the horrors they have inflicted on their customers over the years. I would never encourage an abused wife to go back to her reformed husband.
Published warranty cost data still shows the US brands putting out far more money for warranty repairs than do Toyota or Honda, so the argument that they have reached mechanical reliability parity is false. Consumer Reports data also refutes the assertion that everything sold today can be expected to have similar reliability. Since the basic premise of this article is doesn’t hold up, the rest falls apart.
Finally, calling people with whom you disagree on their vehicle choices “import bigots” is rude and offensive. It is odd that a website which has rules against using personal and inflammatory terms when referring to the site’s content persists in using such terminology when talking about other people.
I had a couple of good Detroit cars, but most were terrible; poor designs, haphazard assembly, frequent repairs, and ruinous depreciation. Worse, the manufacturers and dealers were ethically challenged. My first Asian car was excellent as have several since. Why would I change back?
I will reconsider when an Asian car disappoints or their manufacturers and dealers adopt Detroit’s scummy, immoral business philosophy. There is evidence this is happening. Owner forums report even lofty Lexus now has quality issues. Research its transmission woes and customer tales of mistreatment.
The market is Japan’s to lose. Detroit should position itself to capitalize on the first Asian stumble by producing good looking, mechanically competent, well assembled cars with good warranties and developing a new image for quality and integrity.
Regarding the “Perception Gap”, it has a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. For years it existed in motorcycles, only the polarity was reversed: It was Japanese motorcycles that were considered “junk” and “jap scrap” while Harley Davidson was praised as the pinnacle of motorcycling style and desirability.
Here’s how it happened: Generally speaking, Japanese MC companies made a wider variety of motorcycles in different sizes and styles – everything from 50cc mopeds and scooters up to 1,000cc touring bikes. They were generally significanly less expensive than the Harleys of their day. Because they were less expensive, they were purchased by people who had less money to devote to maintenance, indoor storage, etc, while Harleys were almost always purchased by people who had the cash to keep them well stored and well maintained.
On top of this, the Japanese had a tendency to “update” their models every year, making the previous year’s model obsolete (and making it tough to find parts and accessories for the no-longer-in-production models.) All of this caused resale values to plummet, which meant that a person who could barely afford a motorcycle could afford a used Honda or Yamaha, but couldn’t get within a country mile of a used Harley, unless it was, literally, a basket case. So poor bikers (like me) would buy these used, abused, poorly maintained bikes and ride them around until they fell apart. The general appearance of these bikes (compared to the well loved and shiny Harleys) contributed to the “jap scrap” reputation.
To add to this, the Japanese bikes of the 70’s and 80’s often affected an awkward styling that attempted to mimic some features of the Harley Davidson, without changing the basic layout of the bike (which was completely different from the HD design.)
Keep in mind that in terms of design and engineering, the Japanese bikes were equal to, or (in my opinion) clearly superior to HD, but because the HD was desirable and the old Kawasaki was not, resale prices reflected that fact.
Eventually, the Japanese learned that what American riders wanted most was a copy of a Harley, and they started making them in droves. While they still sell for less than the HDs whose designs they ape, I’ve noticed that resale values are no longer the grand-canyon-style cliff that they used to be.
But people will still pay more for a Harley than they will for an equivalent Japanese bike, simply because the HD is perceived to be of higher “value.”
The comments about the nature of a market economy are spot-on. There will, by the nature of the system, be a loser in a market economy. Not to say that we’re looking at a zero-sum game, but in the end, some party will lose enough to preclude their continued existence.
The common refrain from pro-detroiters is that we owe, whether by way of patriotism or xenophobia, the 2.8 consideration of their product. The fact of the matter is that detroit is responsible for its current woes, not the consumer, not the perception gap, and not its competition.
Detroit and its fanboys demand that we ignore the shortcomings of the product and invest (or in light of resale value woes, dump into a hole) thousands of dollars in an uncompetitive product. Those of us who appreciate that this is a competitive system and choose a product on its merits, rather than our assigned guilt/patriotism, are called bigots. If sacrificing my choice to the whims of a moribund, sickeningly entitled detroit HQ and their equally contemptible unions is patriotic, then I’m proud to say that the label doesn’t apply to me.
A very interesting analog would be comparing other products in similar consumer markets. Home electronics will suffice.
Sony produces a DVD player that looks garish, lacks competitive bells and whistles, and constantly melts discs. The product would be laughed off of the shelves, and rightly so. But, if that component was instead a GM DVD player, we owe it, as our patriotic duty, to overlook the product’s shortcomings. And, as mentioned above, any unwillingness to do so is decried as un-American. We are bigots for embracing the economy as it should function. Detroit is responsible for 3 things: manufacturing the product, marketing the product, and selling the product. When they can do those things better than the competition, they will move product out of showrooms. Until then, we’re somehow expected to finance incompetence with our own sacrifices?
I, for one, will not be sacrificing anything at the alter of “buy American.”
starlightmica: sounds like you made a good decision
jet_silver: The only “fairness” you should be worried about is if you’ve given a “fair” shake to all the vehicles that would meet your needs. If you’ve been treated badly by GM (or other) dealers, you did the right thing by walking. But how will you know what the Detroit ownership experience is, to compare to Subaru?
altoids: your 4-door saloon may be out there. How will you know if you won’t look at it?
Kixstart: where are you expecting to get this independent verification? And why would you replace your own judgement with such a thing?
zarba: I thought about it for a minute. Still doesn’t seem rational. And that surprises me less and less these days. As starlightmica says, more and more people do internet research these days, and as Karesh is letting us know, there is a lot of horsepucky out there on the internet as well. Internet research isn’t a complete substitute for taking a look yourself.
Ralph SS :
October 1st, 2007 at 11:40 am
…
I will believe that they are making a comeback when one of them has the gonads to stand up and admit it, apologize for it, and thank Toyota et al for forcing them to be better.
Well said. For most people, I think it’s all about risk management. Why should they risk their $30,000 on something that might be just as good, when other companies have proven track records? The 2.8 will have to prove themselves all over again.
I find it offensive that anyone says it’s the consumer’s fault. If someone gets burned over and over again by the same company, then the person would have to be six shades of stupid to trust the company again.
I think the heart of matter is this: the US consumer is a large, diverse group. The 2.8 have been targeting smaller and smaller segments of the market and have been competitive in those areas. But there’s are other demographics that the 2.8 just haven’t been competitive in, and probably never will be. It’s the vast majority of people who want relibable, safe transportation.
They look in horror at the attitudes of some UAW workers and wonder if a disgruntled one is going to assemble their car. They wonder if some beancounter is going to choose a part that only lasts 2 years instead of 20. And they don’t want to step into a GM dealership.
If the 2.8 don’t want to play in this space, then they’ll have to come to grips with the reality that they will be a niche player and not a mainstream one.
PCH101-“What Detroit forgets is that the customer is always right. That is no cliche — the consumer owes no company anything except for the money that is required when s/he decides to exchange it for a product sold by that business.”
Bullseye!
On to the editorial.
The author needs to look at the data on relaibility from top to bottom, not just watch Bob Nutz point out only the high points.
Yes, the domestics have some good scores, they also have some of the worst scores.
The bulk of their product is average.
Their best competitors “average” vehicles are well above the industry average, and very rarely below.
The average consumer is not going to jump from what they see, justifiably, as a “sure thing” for “might get lucky”.
Anyone can cherry pick data and “prove” their point to the ignorant.
A full examination of the data shows Detroit, though improved, is only half way there.
BTW, an old rule of thumb is the 80/20 rule. You can get 80 percent of the top results with 20% of the effort. Detroit, the low hanging fruit is gone, now comes the HARD PART-CONSISTENCY.
It’s win or lose.
Consumers, IMHO, operate on TRUST more than market gurus think. Trust needs to be EARNED and half measures do not override disasters of the past or the excellence (no, not perfection, I didn’t say perfection so cool down) of their competition.
There is a REALITY gap still in place that FUELS the perception gap.
The perception gap WILL NOT disappear until the reality gap does.
Tallyho,
Bunter
Continuing my post above, I actually feel the “perception gap” myself. My only recent direct experience with domestic vehicles was the 1999 Ford Ranger pickup that I bought new in July of that year.
My indirect experience (with rentals, fleet cars, and second-hand experience from friends and relatives) is that the things that generally go bad on domestic cars are not the core powertrain items, but peripheral luxuries like power windows, power seats, and stereo systems, as well as fit-and-finish items like knobs falling off the dashboard or plastic panels detaching from the interior sheetmetal. Because of this I specifically wanted my Ranger to be as simple as possible. I ordered it with the small (FFV) V-6 and a 5-speed manual tranny and 2wd. The only “luxury” I wanted on it was air conditioning.
The only actual problems I had with it were:
1. Rear leaf springs that sagged noticeably under a sub-maximum load (the camper shell I put on the truck.) I would attribute this to either the observation that most people who drive small trucks drive them unladen, so softer springs would give a softer ride for 99% of the drivers. The other possibility is that Ford cheaped out and just used the same leaf springs for the heavier extended cab truck that they used for the lighter regular cab truck.
2. Seat was too soft: I had this re-stuffed twice before I finally gave up. It wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t the firm comfy seat my previous vehicle (a Mitsubishi Montero) had.
3. A check-engine light came on at about 65k. Fixed under the extended warranty (which in restrospect I should never have wasted my money on.)
That’s it: 4 years and 93,000 miles with no other problems, and it was actually a pretty good “road trip” vehicle. With 2wd and the 5 speed tranny I got as high as 26mpg on a long-distance trip, and averaged 19-20 in the city and 21-24 on the highway.
So, with that experience, why did I choose to go with a Toyota for my new truck? Well, the main reason is because I wanted a 4×4 and the Ranger is simply an inferior 4wd platform. It has less ground clearance, less suspension travel, and less torque than the Toyota. Worst of all, it has the awful “push-button” transfer case, which I hate (my Toyota is a 2004, the last year the Tacoma had an honest-to-god lever-shifted T-case.)
And finally (my main point), Detroit still doesn’t get the MPG game! Detroit has not figured out how to get decent power and decent MPG. They can do one or the other, but the Japanese have been doing both for over 20 years. My Tacoma, with a V-6 and a 5-speed, gets 20 mpg in the city and as high as 24 on the freeway. Go onto any Ranger web site and you’ll see that the 4×4 guys routinely complain about MPG in the 10-12mpg range. Even assuming that most of these guys are leadfoots with oversized tires, that’s abysmal.
I got excited about the HHR (since I love panel trucks) but when I saw one up close I realized it wasn’t a truck at all but simply a dressed-up car platform with no real “truck” capabilities.
I remain open minded, though. If Detroit would make a decent small truck with a powerful and economical engine, I would seriously consider it. As has been said here before, there is a market for a small, economical, reliable truck. Nobody really makes one like that any more and I can’t believe I’m the only person who would be interested.
Captain Tungsten, I will get independent verification of Detroit’s claims from Consumer Reports and from the reports of my friends and, if I can find it, from warranty payout information (but warranty costs can be kept low, in part, by dealers stonewalling customers).
Why would I replace my own judgement with outside information? Frankly, that seems like either a stupid or disingenuous question. I’ll do that bcause I don’t have the money to buy a fleet of cars and do my own MTBF studies and then pick the winner. I’ll do that because I don’t trust Bob Lutz to be looking out for my best inerests. I’d be stupid not to check with other owners, in aggregate, and see what their experiences have been.
Detroit’s problems are proof that there is only one truism in business that is really true. ‘Word of mouth will make or break you.‘
As someone upstream said, even people like myself who were willing (tentatively) to return to the big 2.8 fold are treated with incredulity by other people. I mentioned to my wife that I thought a Ford Five Hundred would a great car for weekend trips and camping trips and she just looked over at me and said ‘Ford? FORD?!!!’. To people who don’t follow the industry, and look at the stats, the Big 2.8 are about as welcome in their garage as a family of rabid raccoons.
Actually, I think American cars are looking really nice. Some of them (but not ALL of them) actually drive very nicely. But the article does not address the ownership issue. Those who, at one time or another, owned American vehicles will tell you stories of bringing in their cars in for routine maintenance and after paying good money for the service receive their cars back in worse condition than when they brought it in. Or bringing their cars in for something that could be done in 5 minutes and having to book a 2 hour appointment only to return and find it not done on time. Or a small part that stops working (like, in my case, the LED display of the odometer) that requires expensive replacement of a whole package of parts (the entire dash gauge module had to be replaced). The American companies need to focus on selling cars to not even the next generation of car buyers, but the generation after that. I was an American car owner because my parent’s experience with American cars was good. Now, even my parent’s won’t touch an American car, nor my children’s generation unless they have absolutely no choice. Ahh, the power of the free market.
Sorry, I already posted, but the more I think about this article the more angry I get. That last paragraph is just downright insulting to this website’s core readership, and the editorial staff ought to be ashamed that it was ever posted.
The entire premise of this article is flawed, as many have pointed out. It presumes, just as the Big 3 do, that consumers don’t know what they’re doing. How absurd! Good foreign brands (take Hyundai for example) paid their dues, worked hard, and spent decades developing their reputations. Especially the premium brands. Our domestic companies have let their premium brands suffer and die from neglect.
Seriously, what domestic car would you recommend for someone looking at a BMW 3 series and Audi A4? The Cadillac CTS? Sure, anything else? Thought not. What if they wanted all wheel drive and a station wagon, and not a bloody SUV? Nothing to offer? Thought not. What about for the person looking at a Merc S class or Audi A8? A Caddy DTS? A Lincoln Town Car? Puh-lease.
I know I’m cherry-picking high-end cars, but that’s the example cited in the article in support of this supposed bigotry, isn’t it? How can you look at a domestic landscape that makes maybe 3 or 4 legitimate high-end cars total, two of which are 2 seaters (Corvette and XLR) and all are offered by GM, and say that BMW, Lexus, Merc and Audi buyers are just biased? Because one guy said so at a gas station? It’s just a silly assertion. It’s worse than silly – it’s lazy.
I’m late to this discussion. GM/Ford are clearly improving, and not just in the marginal, specialized categories. The Outlook is probably the first mass market GM car I have ever seriously considered; the value proposition is massive considering the high quality of the vehicle. But I still share strong reservations based on historcial lack of durability and reliability of G, vehicles.
There is stil too much crap in the system, too many gaps and holes and poorly executed vehicles, for me to get over my well-founded biases. That’s the problem with promising so mucn and failing to deliver for as long as the Big 2.8 have done so — the hole you dig with customers is so big that you are forced to prove more than your worth to get them back.
Interesting how the basic leading argument example of the Cadillac CTS-V vs. Mercedes Benz SL550 still fails to hold up. In every single way that both cars operate, the Mercedes is superior. It has a better ride, better handling, better interior quality (!!!), and superior (non supercharged) power delivery. This article makes some good points, but the reality is that most American products aren’t as innovative or as high in quality as their Japanese counterparts. Who on earth would choose a new Sebring over the new Accord? Think about it.
” OldandSlow :
October 1st, 2007 at 7:39 am
My first issue with Detroit is their preference for pimp rides which show a complete disconnect from how the rest of the developed world produces cars.
Domestic brands tend to hold onto to dated transmissions, engine designs and suspension components until the buffalo bleeds or Lincoln screams.
Third, but not least, the dealer experience at most domestic brands is pure KIA.”
EXACTLY.
RE: Captain Tungsten @ October 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
“your 4-door saloon may be out there. How will you know if you won’t look at it?”
Trust me, I’ve looked. What would you recommend? The closest I’ve seen in a Ford Mondeo, which is responsive car with a nice interior. Good pricing. Unfortunately, I just don’t like the front grille. The ovals remind me of the Taurus disaster.
But that’s besides the point. It’s not my job to look. It’s not my job to dig around a GM dealership, trying to find nuggets of gold. It’s not my job to drive a domestic, insisting to my friends “hey, don’t knock on the car, it’s actually good.” It’s not my job to become a 24/7 domestic defender, knocking down critics left and right. I owe them nothing.
My own experience with Honda has been good. The word-of-mouth is good. The press is excellent. Why would I throw that away to “look around”? People (and animals) herd for a good reason. We can make generally good decisions without spending too much time. People are voting with their feet and pocketbooks. Like someone else said, the customer is always right, get used to it.
Those of us that are pro-domestic can talk until we are blue in the face to our anti-domestic friends on this site around why we think TODAYS competitive domestics are worth a look.
Doesn’t matter the facts and data (rational) or appeal to greater US economic security (emotional)arguements; it WILL NOT make a difference to these people!
Prior bad experience, vanity / snob appeal, lack of intellectual curiosty or a combo of all are too cemented at this point to make short / moderate term inroads. Makes for great TTAC conversation (albeit circular)and a useful work distraction but that is about it.
That said—for those of us that are pro-domestic and / or open minded—-we have a wide selection of stylish and high quality domestic vehicles to choose from in most segments—-and it is only going to get better. If the Big 3 retain us with terrific product and fix their cost model—they will be able to stabilize their business and make a go of it.
Maybe 5-10 years down the line when there is enough of a positive “trend” from an anti-domestic perspective…they may give a fair shot to domestic iron.
I suppose I encapsulate the problem, we have 2 American cars, a Ford Escort and a Saturn SL2. The Escort gets the job done, was a decent used buy 10 years ago, and been mostly reliable except. The Saturn on the other hand, sucks, compared to the Ford, and most imports its ergonomics and seats are horrible although it’s still better than an Ion.
The problem is that we want to replace these cars and Detroit has nothing we want to buy. The Ford Focus wagon, that we drove in 2004 is gone from the lineup. There is nothing in the US comparable to a Mazda5 unless Saturn starts selling Vauxhall Zafiras, and as another poster mentioned, no AWD turbo rally replicas. If I needed another truck, or maybe a muscle car, then I would buy Detroit, but outside these niches what is there?
No worries. Smoke, mirrors and false flag waving.
The social contract ended when Americans became hyphenated to extort advantage and the Unions became a joke when they actively advocated illegal immigration to increase revenue at the expense of their own membership.
Products assembled in a environment of total corruption may look good under showroom lights, but the qualities built into them show sooner or later.
Who on earth would choose a new Sebring over the new Accord? Think about it.
Why, being the objective consumer, would you blatantly dismiss the Sebring (can’t be for looks, the Accord is just as ugly)? It’s almost like a collective gag reflex whenever somebody merely mentions GM, Ford, or Chrysler. The chrysler minivans my parents drove never had transmission problems. Same for the Sables and blown head gaskets, both for the 3.0 and 3.8 engines, never happened. In two years, I’ve put 70K on my Explorer without a grumble. And then there’s my brother’s Jetta that has all kinds of problems, including a pothole that broke the engine mounts, and my sister’s Maxima that we were never able to clear the Check Engine light or find out what was causing the random misfire.
You can complain about poor execution in brand management, you can complain about rebates killing resale value, you can complain about too-soft suspensions, but I’ll never buy this idea that they’re unreliable when I feel more confident taking my Explorer on a cross country trip than I do taking my Mitsubishi.
Sajeev,
Having inspected a preproduction Malibu, I can tell you it easily bests the Camry inside and out. Interior fit and finish attain Japanese levels, but with much more character. I did smack my head popping into the rear seat, but was comfy in the extreme once inside.
If driving dynamics are competitive, then GM may do better than incremental market share gains. The new base level Accord is drab by comparison, but features incredible new advances in safety, along with superb engines, and exceptionally well developed rides.
The real problem may surface in two years when a chastened Toyota focuses on the family sedan segment. By flexing its various competencies it should have the ability to sweep aside all contenders at will.
Toyota really does have the competitive power that the big three imagined they wielded in the mid 70’s. I expect they will soon be taking Detroit to school again.
As a consumer, I take real exception to the idea that I have an obligation to give a manufacturer with a checkered reputation a chance. My obligation is to protect my own bottom line, not to become an evangelist for a brand that’s had a slapdash history, but whose PR agency swears that they’re much better now, honest.
I’m reluctant to shop domestic makes. Partly, it came down to no American cars in my price range offering anything like the package of features I wanted, but it’s also attributable to my suspicions about their quality.
I don’t think there’s necessarily a meaningful difference at this point in initial quality. The dilemma when it comes to quality and reliability is not in the first 90 days or even the first 30,000 miles — it’s when you get beyond that. I’m reminded of when I was in college, and discussions between friends who had small American cars (Dodge Shadow, Ford Escort) and those who had your better small Japanese car (Corolla/Civic). The problem the domestic owners faced was that at low mileage, they’d liked their cars, but as they got old, they seemed to disintegrate. On the aging Japanese cars, things inevitably wore out, too, but there was still a basic feeling of engineering solidity — a sense that you had a sound car with parts subject to wear. With the domestics, it felt like they’d been engineered to last for a certain amount of time, then turn back into pumpkins, so to speak. It came down to subtleties of engineering and manufacture, the kind of thing you don’t necessarily notice unless you take something apart yourself.
Whether this remains a valid distinction or not is harder to say, but these impressions die hard. It will take a generation of good, well-built products to overcome.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler — and Jaguar, and Hyundai, and even VW in recent years — have earned their reputation for slapdash assembly and dubious long-term reliability. If they want to change those perceptions, they’ll have to earn that, too.
CaptainTungsten: If you’ve been treated badly by GM (or other) dealers, you did the right thing by walking. But how will you know what the Detroit ownership experience is, to compare to Subaru?
It’ll be interesting to see how Detroit persuades me to investigate anew. So far, zilch.
Social Contract? Let me explain the only social contract:
The ONLY reason automakers exist, and the ONLY reason unionized autoworkers have jobs, is to satisfy the wants and desires of consumers.
If they are failing to do that — for ANY reason included the remembrance of crappy cars past — then they have failed in their existence, and it is imperative that the companies go out of business and the unionist lose their jobs as soon as possible, because the economy NEEDS those resources to be doing more productive things.
LamborghiniZ z: “Interesting how the basic leading argument example of the Cadillac CTS-V vs. Mercedes Benz SL550 still fails to hold up. In every single way that both cars operate, the Mercedes is superior. It has a better ride, better handling, better interior quality (!!!), and superior (non supercharged) power delivery. ”
I have to say I reached the exact opposite conclusion when I test drove both cars in August. The Caddy is not only infinitely cooler looking (which is after all most of what these cars are about), I also preferred the driving dynamics and the interior layout.
Ultimately, I went for another 911, which puts me I suppose in the category of people who say they would go domestic if only competitive products were on offer. Although expecting Detroit to start producing overpowered rear engined sports cars is probably a stretch.
One last thing: I also checked out an ’08 Corvette, which was the first one the dealer had on the lot. Contrary to past practice, this was a stripped LT1 model rather than a the kind of overstuffed with options cars you expect Detroit to burden its dealers with at the beginning of a new model run. Consistent with the bad taste I’m displaying in preferring the Cadillac interior to the Mercedes, I also thought the base Corvette interior was perfectly fine, even without all the optional leather now available. In fact, it was a lot nicer than Porsche 996 interiors I’ve lived with in the recent past. It was a bit surprising given the bad press the ‘Vette interior has received over the years.
It all kind of makes me wonder if loyal import buyers are really even capable of evaluating domestics fairly.
I drove a Neon for four years after I turned 16. It was loud, rough, and ugly but I’ll be damned if I didn’t have a hell of a fun time driving it. Manual transmission meant I could squawk the tires in 2nd. Now I drive a 1st gen Protege that’s everything the Neon wasn’t.
I’m going to be in the market for a new car relatively soon. Tops on the list: WRX. I would have no problem buying a domestic; I like the Fusion but it doesn’t have a manual 6-cylinder or true AWD.
The customer is king.
Making a product that the customer wants (reliable, good-looking, great gas milage) is great, but it means crap if the people selling and/or supporting it are total assholes.
The hard-sell dealer tactics need to stop. I’ve been to dealers for less than two minutes and have had to leave. And I was in need of a new car. They lost me and will not go back.
I used to work on the service drive of a Chevy dealership. I’ve seen the nickle & dime tactics fist-hand – and this was widely considered to be a ‘fair’ dealership. I’ve seen customers walk away in disgust. They won’t be back either.
The customer is king. Always.
Make the car great; treat the potential buyers very well. Treat the people who actually bought the car like royalty. Love them. They will never go anywhere else. Their families won’t go anywhere else.
The finest advertising you can get is word-of-mouth. Give a damn about your customers; treat them like they run the business – beacuse they actually do.
The customer is king.
Amen to the disproportionate adverse criticism of domestically produced autos.
When I drive an expensive import I get the distinct feeling I am being asked to pay for more than is being delivered. However when I drive a domestic car I am always amazed at how much you actually receive for what you have to pay. To me the imports are not worth the premium in price and that premium is just something that some people want others to know they can pay.
It’s a shame too, because I always think of us Americans as being results oriented instead of status oriented. Guess I am dead wrong on that perception.
I was just reminded why I have an import once more today.
Brake pad warning light on – go to service center – appointment at short notice exactly when I wanted it arranged online, nice chairs in the “cafe”, wifi, free coffee and danish at the start. All over in 1 hour.
Former experience at Ford service center – plastic chairs, no internet, ghastly coffee in polystyrene cups and nothing more. Slightly cheaper but…
Its 99% about the car but there are other aspects too.
I find the arguments supporting Mr. Ressler’s arguments, both here and elsewhere in the blogosphere, to be interesting. They can be generally distilled as follows:
-The customer is stupid
-The quantitative data that illustrates product disparities are wrong
-It is unpatriotic to do business with the competition
-Past experience and reputation do not count if the experience is negative
I’m sorry, but you can’t run a lemonade stand effectively with that mindset, let alone an automobile manufacturer.
The customer should always come first, no matter what. It is not the job or obligation of the customer to please the enterprise. The commitment is strictly a one-way street, with the burden being on the seller. If the seller disappoints, then the buyer should rightly take his custom elsewhere.
Since when did American free marketeers create a handicapped parking space for American industry? Nobody took pity on Peugeot when it left the market, so why should I take pity on General Motors? It’s a multinational corporation that has loyalty to no flag, and certainly doesn’t care about us. If they were true patriots, they wouldn’t have allowed the competition to defeat them so easily. Apparently, the interests of the American consumer were not worth fighting for.
I’m biased and I admit it. The first two cars I owned were a Ford Mustang, and a Ford Bronco II. They both started falling apart between 50,000 and 60,000 miles, and this was suspiciously right after the warranty. Crappy fuel pumps and being stranded in the Sierra on multiple occasions in both vehicles. I’ll never forget that since I was just starting out in life and was getting reamed by repair bills. My parents had already quit on Ford late in my childhood – we had a Pinto and an LTD station wagon. They warned me, but I didn’t listen. Then I tried a Nissan pick-up and the thing ran flawlessly for 8 years. The few times I needed dealer service, they were organized, clean and courteous. Since then, I’ve owned a Toyota, an Acura, and now, an Infiniti. I’m 39 – Ford threw me away at age 24.
My wife feels the same way about German cars as I feel about Ford. She too switched to Nissan and now also drives an Infiniti. The only reason she doesn’t drive an Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus is because they are so common; her word is ubiquitous.
I will certainly look at the Cadillac CTS next time out, but most likely, I’ll stay Japanese; why would I change from something that works? Besides, after 4 dependable vehicles, Nissan has earned my loyalty; Acura and Toyota have provided 1 apiece. Ford is 0 fer 2. GM can lure me in with the right product, but I’m skeptical. As for Dodge/Chrysler, well their styling is often over the top with pseudo machismo. I don’t want a Magnum, Crossfire, Nitro, Avenger, Charger, or Ram; these names are cartoonish. Big, bold, swaggering and stupid – I don’t want a car that relfects our foreign policy,yet Dodge seems to embrace these qualities. No thank you. The saddest part for Ford/Lincoln….my wife and I are entering our peak earning years, and they are not even an option. They lost us.
Sure, this is anecdotal, but I have seen a lot of similar stories.
Pch 101, you forgot:
– My anecdotal experiences are more valid than the quantitative data collected by others.
– Critisizing the 2.8 is akin to truly wanting them to fail.
The author does not give credit to the imports for improving the Big 3’s reliability. Without them, we WOULD still be driving rusting out Vega’s and exploding Pintos.
There may be bias in this group against donestic cars, but I have seen the same bias of pro domestic car buyers. They will not even consider a car made by a company that is not headquartered in the US. They have good experiences with the domestics and do not see any reason to look at the foreign models. I even know those who had problems with their vehicles and will not look at a foreign nameplate. At least those who switched to foreign cars did so because they were mistreated by the domestics. Those who would never be caught dead in a foreign model, let alone allow one in their driveway, are more biased against foreign models than those who were burned by domestics and would not go back to a domestic model.
Katie’s thought that Detroit has to dictate the next automobile fashion rather than follow it is spot on.
Still, before the shit really started hitting the fan, Detroit spent decades upon decades taking its customers absolutely for granted. It’s only natural that when they come begging, we potential customers say, “grovel, bitch.”
-Matt
Social Contract?
When ONE party breaks a contract it is broken.
The domestic automakers, management and labor, broke this one 30 years ago and have only taken half steps to fixing the issues.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, the consumers are still the bad guy because they decided to leave this pathic co-dependant relationship.
Let’s remember who set fire to the house before we point fingers at those who grabbed their family and left. The ball is in Detroits court to win us back.
Again, the data says they have IMPROVED not completed CLOSING THE GAP.
Time to finish what you started and stop whining.
All my love,
Bunter
AGR,
Yes, the same.
Everyone else,
Since I began buying new cars in 1980, 3 have been imports, 2 were Jeeps (one AMC, one Chrysler), 3 have been made by GM in the US, 9 were US-made Fords. The prices of these vehicles ranged from $8,000 to $100,000. Most were driven over 100,000 miles while in my possession, and the rest were driven into high five figures. It’s now 2007. So in the last 27 years, I had travel interrupted just once in that time, by a blown head gasket in a 1984 4-cylinder Jeep CJ7. Oh yes, I did later buy another Jeep, which was completely trouble-free despite my earlier experience with AMC. I forgave the head gasket. For their segments, I bought competitive American cars. Anyone can have an “import experience.” I also chose my dealers the same way, and have been consistently treated well, in the six metropolitan areas where I’ve bought cars.
Point is, while a comment prompted by my XLR-V in turn prompted my editorial, the sentiment has been registered with me up and down the various classes of cars I’ve driven. The current context of my experience may be high-end, but I could have written the same article at any time since roughly 1985. Only the car involved would change.
Some respondents say that JDPower data only indicates initial quality; they want to see what happens 3 to 5 years hence. OK, but for the mainstream, instead of this coterie of automotive esoterics, JDPower *is* the arbiter of quality. It is the actionable metric. Funny thing that during the long downward slide of the Detroit 3, JDP data was widely cited as proof American cars were poor. But somehow, that same metric is not actionable now that the Detroit 3 have battled back in the JDP methodology. A moving target for acceptance is also a hallmark of bigots.
jthorner: Finally, calling people with whom you disagree on their vehicle choices “import bigots” is rude and offensive. It is odd that a website which has rules against using personal and inflammatory terms when referring to the site’s content persists in using such terminology when talking about other people.
Please understand, I don’t lump everyone who buys an import into the “bigot” camp. People who genuinely shop domestics and end up in import vehicles after genuine comparative evaluation aren’t bigots. But how else do you describe a consumer who judges a vehicle before experiencing it, because of who made it? I have no idea whether you or any other individual reader deserves to be tarred with that brush, so don’t take it personally unless you see yourself in the description.
Lastly, if anyone is worried about keeping domestic manufacturing jobs, they need to get over it. We already have the transplants as a solution, and in the end, there will be less and less manufacturing jobs anywhere….Making up a rule that says manufacturing jobs are necessary for a good economy is even sillier than having a rule not to buy domestics.
First, I’ve never advocated a “rule” to buy domestics. I want no regulation; no government role in this. Second, it is naive to believe that manufacturing jobs are unnecessary for a balanced economy, or more important, for a balanced society and for global poise. While it is possible to have a financially tenable economy without significant manufacturing, it is much more difficult to sustain a burgeoning mainstream middle class without the added value aspect of manufacturing. We cannot have the same social stability in a large, growing, socially diverse country if we have a highly paid professional class of lawyers and financial managers + a creative class of software developers, animators and entertainment content developers + multitudes of low wage service workers of various types, with “knowledge workers” exclusively comprising the middle. Manufacturing adds sinew and muscle to a variegated economy, essential for absorbing a continued influx of immigrants and new citizens with widely-varying skills. Robot repairs will not add the value primary manufacturing does.
Everyone who cites the specifics of their prior experience with a domestic car, or points out the realities of brands and human behavior, has missed my point. Defending consumers does not change the fact that Americans stand to lose the Detroit 3 and we each have it in our power to prevent that loss, by buying competitive Detroit iron.
In a market where detractors of the Detroit 3 point fingers at GM, Ford and Chrysler executives; where the unions blame management, management blames labor costs, funded work idling & health care; where everyone is saying others have to stop making excuses, so do consumers. In other words, put some skin in the game.
We can’t fairly shout that the Detroit 3 must change RIGHT NOW and then claim for ourselves that we’re entitled to years or decades of skepticism before being won back. That makes the Detroit 3 goners. The transplants do not make an economic contribution equal to what’s lost if the Detroit 3 are destroyed.
My original title for the editorial was “One Million More.” As in let’s swing, through consumer choice & self-interest, one-eighth of the US import automotive market to competitive domestic models. Now. Sure, it would be great if everyone on TTAC in the US bought a competitive Detroit 3 offering for their next vehicle purchase. Better still if we use our expertise to point those seeking our advice to include serious consideration of competitive Detroit 3 products. What the Americans among us can’t do is exempt ourselves from a larger social proposition just because we’re “special” here at TTAC.
Some people say nothing made by the Detroit 3 interests them. OK; can we admit this is an esoteric community compared to the mainstream. However, we don’t represent the mass market. Does anyone here really believe that half of Camry, Altima, and even Accord buyers can’t be equally satisfied by a current generation Detroit 3 offering? Do you believe that all Tundra and Titan customers cannot have their needs and wants met by a quality domestic alternative? Are all those Toyota, Lexus, M.Benz and BMW SUVs bought on objective performance assessments?
Yes, we need reform in labor, health care and executive conduct. Have at it. Even more perfect products must come to market. Detroit has to learn marketing all over again. But guess what? All take years. Americans in their own market can affect the survivability of the Detroit 3 *right now* by shopping and buying competitive Detroit 3 vehicles. How do we immediately change the circumstances of this situation? With our purchasing power.
For the American economy to retain these companies and keep their economic leverage, there must be forgiveness for past shortfalls, recognition of reform, a willingness to evaluate what’s in front of us today, and to risk some cash in the form of depreciation. What doesn’t fly is to think that you’re insulated; that Americans won’t personally pay for continued erosion or destruction of the Detroit 3. The social and economic costs will reach the national level, and will render your depreciation risk on a $30,000 vehicle trivial.
Phil
I was turned off from domestics based on family’s experience with them, and my kids will probably influenced by what I buy. My parents actually bought domestic cars up until the early 80’s. They had a ’77 Olds Cutlass Supreme, which was OK but did find itself in the shop a good number of times more than their Volvo 240. They traded the Olds in for a Honda Accord in ’88, which they had until 2006. The Accord would’ve kept running, but they just decided they wanted a new car. In contrast to the Accord, they had a 93 Plymouth Grand Voyager, which, before it had 100K miles on it, had its transmission and engine rebuilt, the brake system replaced (after it failed), and the ECU replaced. And just looking at how things were laid out, like the climate control and the headlight controls, as compared to the Accord, you didn’t get a sense of cohesiveness in the design. Needless to say, my parents were very adamant that the Grand Voyager would be their last domestic, and now they have a Honda Pilot and a Nissan Maxima instead. And I have followed suit, owning a 2000 Honda Civic Si, which had no issues before being totaled at 65K miles, and an 07 WRX, which also has had no issues as of yet.
The bottom line is that not only did Detroit turn off a generation of buyers (my parents) but also at least a generation (me) or more (my kids) from buying domestic cars. And, to this day, the products they put out are, at best, average compared to the competition. Usually, you hear of one con with domestic cars (for instance, the interior) which makes the whole product seem like a pained compromise. Until Detroit makes a product that is better than the competition, there is no way they are going to win back customers after the hell those customers were put through for 2 decades.
Like i said earlier, If Kenneth Lay came to you and asked you to invest $20000 in his new business venture and that he’s “learnt from his mistakes at Enron” most people wouldn’t give him the time of day!
So why are we being made to feel guilty because people won’t invest $20000 into a company which has burnt them in the past? Because we’ve been told they’ve learnt their lesson? Not good enough for me.
I don’t buy this “social contract” mentality. Best product for my needs with a reputation to match. Sorry Detroit, you lost me…..
Phil, your response misses the point. The Detroit 3 aren’t the little guy. Yeah, they’ve lost market share, and GM lost the title of “biggest” by vehicle sales, but in spite of all the bad things you cite that we consumers are doing, they still represent just under half of the US market. 3 domestic companies make up just about half of US sales, and N other companies make up the remaining half.
Why is this supposed to make me feel bad for buying an import? Why is half the market objectively not enough? Because they’re losing money? That’s their fault, not ours – if they hadn’t gotten so bloated they could actually respond to falling demand and we wouldn’t be talking about the death of the Big 3.
If half isn’t enough, how much market share do you think they deserve, exactly?
PcH: I find the arguments supporting Mr. Ressler’s arguments, both here and elsewhere in the blogosphere, to be interesting. They can be generally distilled as follows:
-The customer is stupid
-The quantitative data that illustrates product disparities are wrong
-It is unpatriotic to do business with the competition
-Past experience and reputation do not count if the experience is negative
Speaking for myself, the customer is *not* stupid. The quantitative data is what it is. I don’t believe nor have ever said it’s unpatriotic to buy imports. I do believe it’s time to let the past pass.
I believe TTAC members drive their purchases on the details. The market at-large is not us, and does so less. Customers can have high intrinsic intelligence and still buy blindly, or be slaves to brand and social perception. In fact, the educated class seems especially prone to both.
On the issue of patriotism: If you think I am promoting patriotism as a reason to buy, you seriously misunderstand me. It is in the self-interests of Americans to include competitive Detroit 3 vehicles in their vehicle shopping and buy accordingly when objectively convinced.
Past experience can be a reference or an anchor. At this point, the best Detroit 3 vehicles are so much improved from those that created poor perceptions in bygone years that past experience is largely irrelevant.
CeeDragon:
– My anecdotal experiences are more valid than the quantitative data collected by others.
– Critisizing the 2.8 is akin to truly wanting them to fail.
The import-loyal can’t have it both ways. On the one hand people here cite all their bad domestic car experiences, which if extrapolated are far beyond the statistical reality of past poor performance. So which is it? Does personal experience trump actual incidence when it gives you ammunition to attack the Detroit 3, or are you willing to be purely data-driven?
I am not, nor ever have, advocated holding back criticism of the Detroit 3. Constructive criticism is good. Spiteful criticism can still be useful. But blacklisting good cars from your shortlist because of who made them when your domestic self-interest is otherwise, is….well…not in your self-interest.
Phil
In two or three years, my 63-year old mother will be in position to buy her “last car.” Years and years ago, I can remember always owning a Mercury (the last one being a 1976 Montego that we owned for the better part of 13 years…ran forever!). That ended in 1981 with our first Toyota. Since then, that’s been it for her. Period. One Corolla, then a 1993 Camry, now a 2002 Corolla. When she comes home from Germany to retire, I’ve promised to buy her a car, brand new and a cut above what she’d ever consider for herself. I really wanted to get a (now) new C-class, but the reliablity of MB has lately left me worrying. I desperately, desperately want to love the Mercury Milan, as the rear styling reminds me an Alfa Romeo, for some reason. But I’m haunted…haunted by boring Taurii…by uninspired Crown Vics/Marquis…by troubled Focii…so what will I do in two years? Probably look at the new Accord and maybe the Mazda 6 for something a bit different. Yeah, I know the 6 and Milan/Fusion/etc..share alot of the same underpinnings, but still. Perceptions will continue to exist as long as product is only equal to the competition. Chrysler tanked with the Sebring. Not sure WHO thought that was a good design. GM is struggling even with promising cars. I drove the new Aura (I’m a closet Opel fan from way back) and was disappointed in the execution of the interior. I’m a little more optimistic about the Astra, but only because it’s a near-100% transplant of the Euro version. I wanted to love the Cobalt, as the four door bears a striking resemblance to the previous version Astra, but again…execution fell short. Again, really want to love Ford and GM, but until they consistantly build vehicles that are markedly better than the competition, the money will most likely go to somebody else.
We can’t fairly shout that the Detroit 3 must change RIGHT NOW and then claim for ourselves that we’re entitled to years or decades of skepticism before being won back.
Why not? Isn’t that how brand reputation is made (or re-made) in the first place? Many of the imports started off as trash, but worked diligently for decades to achieve the reputation they have today. Detroit will have to do the same if it expects to atone for their past mistakes. And if they can’t survive long enough to do it then its their fault, not ours.
213Cobra,
Thank for confirming that its one and the same.
Most folks that experienced domestics from the mid 70’s onward are understandably upset, feel deluded, and dissapointed. Some of the domestic vehciles were extreme POS. When a manufacturer dissapoints an owner with the product, that dissapointment lingers for a long time.
The older folks that experienced domestics in their days of glory have a different perspective, opinion.
Although I have an affinity for domestics, I have not driven one on a regular basis in countless years, nor do I drive Japanese, or Korean, what’s left? The “what’s left” is not perfect or trouble free or maintenance free or exceptionally high used values.
All vehicles have issues, each manufacturer has strong points, and weak areas. It always comes down to how its resolved for the customer.
Its encouraging to see domestics make an effort to improve their situation, with better product offering which are competitive and comparable to the competition.
It will take time, and a concerted effort from the domestics, accompanied by some bold design to WOW prospective future customers. The domestics are swimming upstream, they know it, so does everyone else.
OK, I’m a bigot. I accept that. My bigotry extends beyond cars, but let me come back to that point later.
First, let me say what I’m not.
I’m not a member of the country club set, so I don’t have to explain my ride to Sumner and Tricia. I don’t have to explain my purchase to anyone (well, except my wife). Just because some guy you ran into at the gas station doesn’t have the balls to make his own purchasing decissions is no reason for me to throw out years of personal experience when making mine.
I am not responsible for the perception gap. It’s not on me to step up as a consumer and help Detroit with it’s problem. All 360 degrees of responsibility are located in Southeastern Michigan.
I am not cursed with a short memory. When I read –
“Detroit’s products have changed. Whether you credit government intervention, consumer activism or foreign competition, there are no more rusting Vegas, exploding Pintos and 8-6-4 Cadillacs that can’t do math on the fly. As this website has pointed out on numerous occasions, product quality data says pretty much everything offered to American car buyers is mechanically reliable. Even if that salient fact hasn’t yet reached American consumer’s ears, reliability is not as important as it once was. Car choice often descends into pointless arguments over interior plastics, comparative depreciation and social acceptability.”
– I think, what about all those F150s spontaneously combusting hours after they’ve been parked?
I am not (too) gullible. Just because some website I discovered a couple months ago runs an editorial claiming the reliability of American vehicles is on par with the Japanese cars is no reason for me to chuck years of personal experience out the window.
I am not fashion concious. I don’t buy designer labels, and I don’t buy my cars to be in step with what my freinds think is cool and trendy.
I am not an economic illiterate. Why talk to me of a social contract when the D3 have been busy moving as many jobs as possible to Mexico? I’m suppossed to buy a Mexican made Fusion instead of a “foriegn” car made by Americans in Ohio? My reading of the social contract says support those companies creating jobs in the US, not the one’s moving operations overseas.
Now, let me get back to bigotry. As I said, it involves more than cars. I will no longer buy a piece of power equipment with a Briggs and Stratton engine. I will only buy Honda powered equipment. No, I don’t know if BS has improved thier 2008 power equipment motors, and I’m not going to find out. You find out, then when you’ve had no problems for 7 years, maybe I’ll try one. Personally, I’m sick of BS’s starts on the 14th pull quality. My lawn mower is Honda powered, as is my snowblower. I’m looking for an edger and a line trimmer that have Honda engines (anyone know of any?) Yes, this is bigotry. So what? Life is too short, and money is too hard to come by to be fair.
“For the American economy to retain these companies and keep their economic leverage, there must be forgiveness for past shortfalls, recognition of reform, a willingness to evaluate what’s in front of us today, and to risk some cash in the form of depreciation.”
I disagree. Instead, I would put the responsibility on the manufacturers, and say: “For the American automakers to retain their customers and keep (or build) market share, they must ask forgiveness for past shortfalls, reform their product, and create a purchasing & service experience that makes it easy to spend our cash on their product.”
Besides, isn’t it a bit soon to be waving the “problem’s are fixed, come on home” flag? Did you not read the TWAT awards?
“OK, but for the mainstream, instead of this coterie of automotive esoterics, JDPower *is* the arbiter of quality.”
That is a very poor argument. I know a whole lot more non-car-guys/gals who look to Consumer Reports for information than who pay any attention to JD Power. Your original article said that people are ignoring domestic brands based on an “irrational belief”. Now when challenged on your premise you backpedal by saying that the majority of people don’t look at the full available data set. Bzzzt.
Note also that the 80% don’t cross-shop data point cuts both ways. It says that the majority of people have a brand preference already based on their past experiences, etc. Is it unfair to the Toyota Tundra that the majority of Ford truck owners go back to the Ford dealer for their next truck? The data you referenced applies across the board and thus doesn’t really apply to this situation.
“A holistic understanding of our mutual social contract suggests that we should at least give Detroit a fair shot at our patronage.” For decades the Detroit makers abused their end of the social contract. They happily built and sold to their countrymen shoddy products and failed to stand behind them when the problems came to light. Why don’t you write about their failure to live up to their end of the implied contract?
Look, if you wanted to say that some of the current domestic products are pretty good and that even though customers were burned by GM, Ford or Chrysler in the past they owe it to their countrymen to give the home team another shot then you would have some credibility. But, the crux of the article is that people who don’t consider domestics are in and off themselves the problem and that their lack of consideration amounts to bigotry and is based on irrational thought. Those are harsh words, and certainly not the sort of words one would choose to woo people back into the showroom. The data offered up does not support the conclusions drawn. You haven’t made your case, and the use of the term “import bigots” remains highly offensive.
Besides, isn’t it a bit soon to be waving the “problem’s are fixed, come on home” flag? Did you not read the TWAT awards?
Well said. This whole argument somehow reminds me of 1984…
“Our cars are competitive; our cars have always been competitive.”
brownie:
Phil, your response misses the point. The Detroit 3 aren’t the little guy. Yeah, they’ve lost market share, and GM lost the title of “biggest” by vehicle sales, but in spite of all the bad things you cite that we consumers are doing, they still represent just under half of the US market. 3 domestic companies make up just about half of US sales, and N other companies make up the remaining half.
Why is this supposed to make me feel bad for buying an import? Why is half the market objectively not enough? Because they’re losing money? That’s their fault, not ours – if they hadn’t gotten so bloated they could actually respond to falling demand and we wouldn’t be talking about the death of the Big 3.
If half isn’t enough, how much market share do you think they deserve, exactly?
All companies that experience falling demand look bloated while they’re adjusting. Quite often we lose them completely, like DEC and Wang, or they morph into different businesses that lose their impact, like IBM. The Detroit 3 have a different level of impact nationally and they are all in crisis simultaneously. Their threats are no longer merely erosion of market share in the face of declining quality. Their threats are now existential in the face of dramatically increasing quality. Time is short because money is short.
How much market share is enough? Can’t say. The market will sort that out. Somewhere north of 50% and south of 70% is probably the right neighborhood, socially and politically. On pure economics, operating where they are, profitably, is enough. Can they be viable at under 50%? Sure, if they have enough time to shed load, transform their lineups and broker a way to share their health care burden.
The Detroit 3 are on a precipice. They have anted up many competitive products while they still have dreck products to kill. There’s no guilt to owning your import. I’m making a very straightforward proposition: shedding negative prejudice about Detroit 3 cars and following that with objective inclusion of their competitive offerings when making your next purchase is in your interest. If import ironclads will do that, I am sure enough additional Detroit 3 cars will be sold to give them the cash and time to either earn larger market share, or adjust to smaller slice of the pie. They must win on the merits; we must be willing to allow them to prove progress.
The salient point is that never before have the threats to the entire Detroit 3 been existential at once. I can’t think of a single way the United States and everyone living here are better off with that existential threat succeeding. So, when you next need or want a car, what are you going to do with your purchasing power, or at least your time? It buys more than a car, if you choose to direct it for an additional purpose. Really, that’s for you to answer and no one else. I’m just pointing out something in your self-interest worth considering beyond brand, status and interior plastics.
Phil
213Cobra a/k/a Phil Ressler, wrote: “Some respondents say that JDPower data only indicates initial quality; they want to see what happens 3 to 5 years hence. OK, but for the mainstream, instead of this coterie of automotive esoterics, JDPower *is* the arbiter of quality. It is the actionable metric. Funny thing that during the long downward slide of the Detroit 3, JDP data was widely cited as proof American cars were poor. But somehow, that same metric is not actionable now that the Detroit 3 have battled back in the JDP methodology. A moving target for acceptance is also a hallmark of bigots.”
1. What makes you think JDPower is the arbiter of quality? I look to CR.
2. Is Detroit back on top? Buick and Cadillac got some high marks but, so what? How many Chevys does GM sell vs upmarket models?
3. Do I want to do business with a company that gets a few JDPower hits or one that *consistently* gets good marks? I’ve worked on QC systems and I look for consistency. Toyota and Honda are consistently in there. You can tell which pages of CR they’re on by the color of ink used.
4. The target is *always* moving.
One thing I fear you are correct about is that JDPower is the “actionable” metric. Real quality issues don’t involve “actionable” metrics that come from polls done a few months or years after the car leaves the plant. A company with a real quality ethic doesn’t need an outside survey to tell it what to do, it has already figured it out by the time the survey is done. Companies with real quality ethics look at their early failures and do something about them – right away. The manufacturer can see warranty claims coming back in and can fix the underlying problems and go back to the original *processes* that led to these problems and fix them. GM, Ford and Chrysler ignored the quality issue, apparently using their dealer network as a bulwark of defense against warranty claims, rather than as a source of useful information, until The Q Issue bit ’em on the ass and then it was too late for an easy fix.
We had similar problems at a place where I used to work. We sold plenty of stuff and did OK but nobobdy was concerned about the quality until one of my friends started looking at warranty claims and realized that we weren’t making any money on certain products; in fact, we were losing money on them. Luckily, customers still had good reasons to buy the products but the blunt raelization of dollars and cents at risk came along in time to build a whole new way of thinking about what we were doing.
One of GM’s chief cost disadvantages vis-a-vis Toyota isn’t labor cost; it’s warranty cost. That hurts, GM *should* have known about it for years and still nothing’s been done.
Now, you may think it’s unreasonable for us to sit back and wait a few years for Detroit to *prove* they’ve got it down but it’s my money and I want that proof.
There is a shortcut available to Detroit: a better warranty transfers some of the risk back to Detroit. If the cars are as good as they say, then what’s the problem? Warranty costs will remain low. More well covered cars on the market will attract more used value buyers which will enhance the resale value of the Detroiters. Well, there’s the dealer service denial issue but we must start somewhere.
As for the underlying assumption here that I should be using my money to keep America strong, well, that’s a good idea. One way I can do that is by cutting my automotive expenses, as I have (by switching to Toyotas) and putting the money saved into investing in new companies that may be building America’s future (like cellulosic ethanol technology, wind farm construction companies, hi-tech companies or other manufacturing companies with a commitment to the US) rather than just wasting my money buying Korean imports marketed as “US” brands.
How interesting that most defenders of domestic cars use pseudo-psychiatry and name-calling in describing those who have given up on them, while the import owners use hard-learned personal experience to justify their conversion. Could it be that real-life AVERAGE experience favors the imports??? I have owned cars from Mercury, Ford, Honda, VW, Volvo, Audi, Nissan, Subaru, Mazda and Mitsubishi and the only ones that really pissed me off were the Ford and VW products. Everything else was totally bullet-proof.
And if you care about driving dynamics, good MPG, reliability AND cargo space – well, good luck finding all this is anything from the Big 3. I don’t care about status, I don’t care about fashion. I don’t give a flying f**k about what anybody else thinks about what I drive. I do care about a good ownership experience and decent resale value and when Detroit gives me that, I’m there.
The devil is in the details.
Something I saw today in an Spanish street: A brand new, shining, ultra-new plates, Chevrolet Lacetti (formerly -since 2004, for G*ds sake- known as Daewoo Lacetti).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Lacetti#Europe
Golden Chrevrolet logo on the trunk and on the hatch. “Chrevrolet” name on the hatch. Fine. I love small hatchbacks, and I thought “This is a beautiful inexpensive car”.
I am curious, and a bit nosy. I was waiting for an appointment, so I took a look at the interior of the Chrevrolet Lacetti.
Dou you guess what I saw on the steering wheel hubcap?: THE DAEWOO LOGO!. I had an immediate thought: These guys can not even get right the logo in the hubcap. I can imagine a prospective buyer thinking “What the he*l is this flower in the hubcap?”.
Another piece of information: European Crash Test data available for the European Chrevrolets: http://www.euroncap.com/carsearch.aspx?make=260db6d4-0b9e-49e4-aeb9-ddaceac2fb5a
…for the Darwinian buyer interested in his/her genetics this is baaaaaaaad.
Please take a look at the contemporary competitors passive safety ratings in the same category:
http://www.euroncap.com/supermini.aspx
For Chris* sake: Even Kia and Fiat are catching up with the rather demanding NCAP “40% overlap” frontal crash test. Moreover: Even the made-in-Romania bargain-basement Dacia Logan gets more points that the best Chevrolet car tested by NCAP http://www.euroncap.com/tests/dacia_logan_2005/221.aspx
It is a sad thing to see a once proud American company failing like this.
Katie it would be quite a surprize if Ken came looking for funding as he was um “put in receivership” in 2006.
I would like a CTS as its a V6 with a 6 speed and is rear wheel drive and not a BMW.
Speaking for myself, the customer is *not* stupid. …The market at-large is not us, and does so less. Customers can have high intrinsic intelligence and still buy blindly, or be slaves to brand and social perception. In fact, the educated class seems especially prone to both.
I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. Claiming that consumers “buy blindly” is a polite way of saying that they are stupid.
Here’s the problem: both the well-informed and uninformed tend to go against your position. The only people who seem to be “pro-domestic” are those who put loyalty above both objective data and subjective consensus.
You seem to resent that your favored companies are no longer tastemakers and that the culture runs against them (and by extension, yourself). Anyone who disagrees is assaulted as a “bigot,” implying that their position is based upon ignorance and wrongheadedness. Regardless of the elegance with which you express your sentiments, the argument ultimately rings hollow and has no basis for support.
It is in the self-interests of Americans to include competitive Detroit 3 vehicles in their vehicle shopping and buy accordingly when objectively convinced.
There’s no reason for Americans to commit their hard-earned cash on this ill-gotten, unproven thesis. To burden themselves with products they don’t want or need is not a sacrifice that they are obliged to make. It’s a business transaction, pure and simple, and they conduct business as they see fit.
I don’t recall signing any “social contract.” (Rousseau must be doing cartwheels in his grave seeing the perpetuation of Detroit welfare defended with his nomenclature.) In any case, these companies breached whatever contract they had with us long ago, and there is no statute of limitations on the right to withhold trust or forgiveness.
If you go by CR, note that they had to come out with a separate Top Picks list for the D2.801 because none of their products made the Top Picks list for the second year running. And half of those vehicles aren’t actually built in the US.
We’ll see if D2.801 get shut out again next spring, wouldn’t be surprising if you’ve been reading the monthly issues. The Ford Focus, of all vehicles, was CR’s best small car for a couple of years.
Of course, there’s always the 2nd round of TWATs, coming up soon.
Often incentives play a bigger role than the actual product in influencing consumers, especially when the consumer is considering a lease.
In lower line vehicles the loyalty factor is 50% consequently many consumers jump around from one manufacturer to another.
Well, apparently you’re not budging, so whatever.
But since you brought it up… Computer manufacturing moved out, the US survived and thrived. Textiles went to Asia, the US survived and thrived. Steel production went overseas, the US survived and thrived.
Car manufacturing has partially moved overseas, and the US is doomed.
Sorry, don’t buy it.
jthorner:”But, the crux of the article is that people who don’t consider domestics are in and off themselves the problem and that their lack of consideration amounts to bigotry and is based on irrational thought”
I would also posit that bigotry and irrational thought cuts both ways.
The “Tags” (both implicit and explict)some in our TTAC community have layed on those that buy domestic are also unacceptable.
Maybe I’m just really lucky. I’ve owned nothing but GM vehicles of the era when they were supposed to be absolute crap, and have had very good, reliable cars–not one of them still in warranty.
My first car was a 1983 Oldsmobile Delta 88. Fantastic car. I got it with 121k miles on the odometer, and I parked it 7 years later in my mom’s driveway (she loves that by the way…) with 208k miles. It still ran great, but I just didn’t feel like spending the couple grand it was going to take to replace most of the front end which was simply worn out. Sure, some things had stopped working, like the cruise control and the passenger side window, but in truth, most of those things seemed to go wrong once I started parking it outside in Vermont, in winter. Severe cold does nasty things to cars. Though it never failed to start and never left me stranded on any of those cold, cold days.
My next car was a 1994 Cadillac Fleetwood, which I got with 70k miles already on it. Only one fluky repair in the 35k miles I drove it. I then traded it with my dad (who needed a family car more than I did) for his 1990 Corvette, which had just shy of 100k miles on it, and I put 50k more miles on that. This was by far the least reliable car I owned, and even it wasn’t that bad. On a per year basis, the repair bill was in the neighborhood of $500, which isn’t that bad for a complex car with that many miles on it.
In short, my experiences may be atypical, but it also does not mean I’ve not experienced foreign cars, despite never owning them. Just as there are good American cars, there are crap foreign cars, even Japanese ones. For example, the 1996 Nissan Altima my mom owned, and that I often drove, was a piece of crap. It wasn’t significantly less reliable than any of my GM cars, but it wasn’t screwed together any better, either. It was appliance transportation at its worst: soulless, ugly, not good to drive, and cheap-feeling.
I agree with the editorial that there is a perception difference. Most Japanese cars get a pass as being good, even if they individually may not be. Even more stark is the perceived quality of European cars. Under virtually any metric, European cars (whether they hail from Germany, Britain, Sweden, etc) are less reliable than American cars, and cost more to buy and own. But because they seem nice and because there’s status that is conferred in expensive items, people perceive them to be better than they are.
I think there’s also a lot of so-called cognitive dissonance in vehicle purchases. For example, someone who is predisposed to think that Japanese cars are better or more reliable will tend to overlook or minimize problems that they would not if driving an American car. That is to say that their perception is shaped by their desire to justify their purchase. I don’t want to diminish the actual differences in quality: the Japanese have, on average, made more reliable cars than the Americans in the past 10-20 years. However, denying the existence of any perception gap would be just as foolhardy. American cars are not as bad as people think, and Japanese cars are not as good.
It’s a lot like the difference between getting an undergraduate degree at Harvard versus a state school of less prestige. Will you get a better education at Harvard? Maybe, but more likely than not you’ll get just as much education as you want to get, which means you may get a better education at the state school. But upon entering the working world, a Harvard degree will be valued more highly, and you will benefit from that. Foreign manufacturers have benefited from the perception that they are higher quality, regardless or whether they actually are.
Here’s a good test. Detroit wants you to compare the best of what they make, and compare it to it’s Japanese or German or Korean competitors.
That’s too easy. Everybody can have a home run now and then.
Instead, take the worst of what Detroit makes (please).
Are you honestly going to tell me that the worst vehicle GM makes (say, the Chevy Uplander, or maybe the Chevy Aveo, or maybe the Pontiac Grand Prix) is as good or better than the worst thing Toyota makes (um…the Sequoia maybe?). Obviously, we are talking different categories of vehicles, but which does a better job of fullfilling it’s market segment?
When the worst GM (or Ford, or Chrysler) vehicle is as good as the worst Toyota or Honda, then you can tell thier line up has improved overall. Until then, the “commitment to quality” or whatever isn’t anywhere near complete.
jthorner:
I know a whole lot more non-car-guys/gals who look to Consumer Reports for information than who pay any attention to JD Power. Your original article said that people are ignoring domestic brands based on an “irrational belief”. Now when challenged on your premise you backpedal by saying that the majority of people don’t look at the full available data set. Bzzzt.
Consumer Reports has its influence. However, its subscription and pass-along numbers don’t make it anywhere close to a mainstream influence. Moreover, as an someone with involved knowledge of many product categories they test, I’ll say that the outcomes of their tests in other categories undermines my confidence in their automotive testing. Anyway, more people pay no attention to CR at all than who reference it.
Yes, some people are ignoring specific domestic models on the irrational belief that their maker cannot change for the better. I’m sure most of those folks are certain they are thinking rationally.
For decades the Detroit makers abused their end of the social contract. They happily built and sold to their countrymen shoddy products and failed to stand behind them when the problems came to light. Why don’t you write about their failure to live up to their end of the implied contract?
Absolutely true. Why didn’t I write about that? Because I think that perspective has been well-covered here.
But, the crux of the article is that people who don’t consider domestics are in and off themselves the problem and that their lack of consideration amounts to bigotry and is based on irrational thought. Those are harsh words, and certainly not the sort of words one would choose to woo people back into the showroom.
Americans who won’t consider current competitive domestics are part of the problem. Not the whole problem by any means. But not absent contribution either.
Phil
> Americans who won’t consider current competitive domestics are part of the problem. Not the whole problem by any means. But not absent contribution either.
Respectfully I disagree. Why should people spend time researching the new Malibu, test driving it, maybe leasing one for a week or two to see if they can live with it, when past experience says Chevy doesn’t get it, and I’ll be happy with a Camcord?
The problem is that we’ve reached this point – where people just won’t spend their time shopping a domestic. But the problem isn’t the consumer. He’s making a rational choice with his time and effort and money. He’s being an efficient shopper. Blaming the customer isn’t going to help the situation.
Side note about eyeballs & circulation:
TTAC 13k/day
C&D 1.3 million monthly
CR 4 million monthly in subscribers, plus web cross-promotions with MSN Autos, Wall Street Journal, etc. Free publicity in the national news annually when the April car issue comes out.
Considering that new car sales are going to be about 16 million this year, that’s hardly small potatoes. CR is capable of making/breaking a vehicle – the previous-gen Hyundai Sonata got quite a boost when CR named it the most reliable car. Suzuki Samurai, anyone?
(If Aura XR got a great review from them this past spring, instead of the middling one it actually got, would Aura sales have bumped?)
Claiming that consumers “buy blindly” is a polite way of saying that they are stupid.
Sorry, no. They are not one and the same, though co-incidence is possible. I am not claiming co-incidence.
Here’s the problem: both the well-informed and uninformed tend to go against your position. The only people who seem to be “pro-domestic” are those who put loyalty above both objective data and subjective consensus.
The Detroit 3 have about half the market. I don’t think all of them are buying on loyalty alone, just as I don’t think all the import buyers are buying on brand alone.
You seem to resent that your favored companies are no longer tastemakers and that the culture runs against them (and by extension, yourself). Anyone who disagrees is assaulted as a “bigot,” implying that their position is based upon ignorance and wrongheadedness. Regardless of the elegance with which you express your sentiments, the argument ultimately rings hollow and has no basis for support.
This is not accurate. I don’t resent any of what you claim. I don’t personally care about who are considered tastemakers, nor do I try to be one myself.
There’s no reason for Americans to commit their hard-earned cash on this ill-gotten, unproven thesis. To burden themselves with products they don’t want or need is not a sacrifice that they are obliged to make. It’s a business transaction, pure and simple, and they conduct business as they see fit.
Nothing I’ve written asks anyone to “burden themselves with products they don’t want….” I’ve suggested including *competitive* domestic vehicles when shopping, evaluate objectively, include in your assessment whether small differences are worth undermining domestic companies, and then buy what meets your needs. I said simply that I think there will be enough Detroit 3 purchases made on the merits and a holistic view of your self interest, to remove the existential threat long enough to ensure the Detroit 3 complete their transformation.
Phil
starlightmica : Actually, we picked up another 1000 uniques, thanks to the UAW strike. So we're up to 14k a day! Right. Carry on.
I’ve suggested including *competitive* domestic vehicles when shopping, evaluate objectively, include in your assessment whether small differences are worth undermining domestic companies, and then buy what meets your needs.
The marketplace is already shopping in the fashion that it sees fit, whatever that may be. The successful automakers will tap into whatever that is, and shape themselves so as to appeal to that vein.
Those firms that stubbornly demand the customer to change for the sake of the enterprise will fail. They have no right to demand anything from the customer. It is a one-way street, and the Detroit firms are heading in the wrong direction.
I said simply that I think there will be enough Detroit 3 purchases made on the merits and a holistic view of your self interest, to remove the existential threat long enough to ensure the Detroit 3 complete their transformation.
You want to have it both ways, yet again. You want to argue that if Americans become better shoppers, they will flock to their GM, FoMoCo or Chrysler dealer. Once again, you condemn the customer who refuses to see things your way. You presume that if only they were not incompetent or “bigoted” that they would see things your way.
This is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. The consumers owe these companies nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
It is the businesses that have the burden, not the consumer. The customer is always right, and any business that fails to recognize this deserves to fail today, so that better companies can fulfill the need. This is still a free enterprise system, which means the customer is in the driver’s seat. If that driver’s seat happens to be in a car built outside of Detroit, then that is Detroit’s problem, not the consumer’s.
I have mixed feelings on the import vs. domestic debate. I’ve had some wonderful cars and some absolute junk from both sides.
Our last 3 Ford products have been very good vehicles. Ford will be on our short list the next time we are shopping for a vehicle. They seem to have learned thier lesson and are trying to turn things around. It is hard to argue with the kind of mileage we’ve gotten out of them.
I have yet to own a good GM or Chrysler product so I’ve got a definate wait and see attitude with them. GM can say they are better now, but I still remember self destructing engines and transmissions that were junk at 120K.
And us Gen-Xers are influencing the next crop of car buyers. My children saw the family Nissan start up every time and go where it was supposed to, until it was killed in an accident. The Buick that replaced it spent a lot of time on jack stands with the hood up, and several trips to mechanics and the transmission shop.
I was taking my daughter to a friends house last week. A new Caddy passed us going the other way. She said: “Wow, that’s pretty. I want one when I grow up.” My response: “Honey, you can get a better car for what they charge for those”.
Y’all, the perception gap starts young.
It’s understandable that people would never go back to a brand that burned them. It also makes sense to go with what’s reported to be safest and most reliable. It even makes sense, although less so, to go with what’s more stylish. The result, however, has been a blindness on the part of the import buyer.
Run the pricing numbers on truedelta.com of the Fusion against the Camry and the Accord, then pick up your Consumer Reports. You can make a small case for resale value in the import, but that’s about it. The Fusion costs significantly less and shows excellent reliability and crash tests across the board. Yet, how many people will unquestioningly buy a Camry or Accord without looking at a Fusion?
Same with the F150 vs. the Tundra. Take a look a the Tundra’s riveted frame vs. the welded through F150 and tell me you feel safe putting your kids in the back of that Tundra’s cab. Take a look at the bolt size, the steel, the dampers. Take a close look at how many rpms you’re spinning before you get all of the horsepower and torque Toyota promises.
Burned or not, trendy or not, there’s 2 domestic products that are just as durable or better than their import counterparts – and less expensive. But the import buyer will never know.
I’ve owned both domestic and imports, in fact, I currently own a Toyota and a Mercury.
In my personal experience, most of the imports were overrated, and many of the domestics were underrated. In the big picture, there is really not that much difference in my experience.
The editorial was correct in saying Americans love to dump on their own companies – maybe that is a self-reflective thought on how they might not be putting in 100% at their job, or not doing the best they can do – I can see them thinking, “Surely the Japanese/Koreans/etc. must work harder than Americans, if other Americans are like myself. Therefore, their products must be better.”
It is odd how many modern Americans do not really like the place of their birth, and for some, it is reflected in the products they buy.
I can definitely understand that those who work for the Detroit 2.8 or are just fans of the them are passionate about giving them another chance. I can understand how the notion of the 2.8 being reduced to niche status in the US is hard to think about. There’s a notion (maybe not explicitly said, but definitely implied) that losing the Detroit 2.8 would be one of the worst things to happen to this country.
I think there’s something worse, which is losing our basic definition of capitalism: let the marketplace decide the winners and losers. If a company can’t cut it in the US, then they shouldn’t be in business.
I hope the 2.8 rebound, build great cars, and capture 99% of the market (okay, 1% for BMW :)
But if they don’t change their ways, they’re not going to get my money.
In some sense, it’s about values. But not the values of Patriotism, rather about consumer-oriented Capitalism.
How many ways can this same arguement be made?
As said before it is time to see the damn forest and stop looking at each individual tree already!
Question:
How many Americans came back to Detroit in 1985, 1995, or 2005 and still got their a$$ burnt by the big 3?
Each and every decade since the 1970s we have been seeing the same song and dance coming out of Detroit, “We are better give us a shot again” or “Support your own country and buy domestic” yet GM, Ford, and Chysler have continuously delivered up poorly built, defective, unreliable, crap that is all but worthless after only 3 years of ownership.
Forget about Corvettes, Mustangs, a XLRs, these things are more akin to toys than actual cars. WHo cares if you can build a play thing for a retiree? What about Mom and Pop America which you have been failing to please for the last 3 decades.
Is it any wonder why folk in the USA have turned their backs on Detroit. Yep just like it would be damn near impossible to forgive your own brother if you caught him with your wife, Detroit used to be family until they decided to screw us over.
Today their is a big F-you factor regarding the Big3. It is deeper than just the product or service. Too many Americans actually want to see these guys suffer and they enjot it too. People do NOT get over the idea that a company managed to swindle them out of $7,000 in the 1970s, $15,000 in the 80s and over $20,000 in the 90s.
Nope! Not when there is somewhere else to shop!
“I’m just pointing out something in your self-interest worth considering beyond brand, status and interior plastics.”
Phil
As a Cadillac XLR-V owner, who on earth are you to tell ANYONE not to care about brand or status? Because your article articulates that Cadillac is considered inferior to Mercedes Benz? IRRELEVANT. A Cadillac is a PREMIUM brand and the XLR-V is the most expensive Cadillac ever sold. You care about status, and brand.
But you clearly don’t care about interior plastics, as the interior quality on a 2007 Honda CR-V is higher than that of in your Cadillac.
Do not dismiss the importance of the quality of materials. Undermining people that care about if their dash looks like it was made with plastics from Fisher Price is a nice tactic, you make people feel stupid for desiring a quality dash that will hold up and that has a good design, but in reality, it’s something that matters, and something that represents the car as a whole. As the mass that you see every single time you sit behind the wheel of your car, your dashboard, its design, and the quality of materials that make it up, should be high, especially in the segment of the Cadillac XLR-V, and in every segment really. It says something about the car, and something about the company that produced it that it cannot give it a higher quality interior. You should be especially offended, as you dropped 100K on yours.
But since you brought it up… Computer manufacturing moved out, the US survived and thrived. Textiles went to Asia, the US survived and thrived. Steel production went overseas, the US survived and thrived.
Car manufacturing has partially moved overseas, and the US is doomed.
Computer hardware moved out of the US, but we retained the high-value aspect of the business — CPUs, design, software. The assembly of computer hardware never had anything close to the broad-scale economic impact of automotive manufacturing.
No, I don’t think the US is doomed if we lose our car companies. We’ll prosper either way, but differently. I don’t worry much about the US’ ability to continue to create wealth. Instead, I see the US as socially hampered for the worse if complex, heavy manufacturing is unnecessarily lost, and the distribution of well-being in our country will be different in deleterious ways.
Phil
I think that this editorial only partially gets it right. But in general, people would always prefer to buy a domestic car/product, especially Americans. If they don’t, they have good reasons not to do so. Perceived image (as described in this article) is one reason, but not the only one (and it has its roots in real life experiences).
Also, quality does not equal reliability. Realiability is an important aspect of quality, but nobody would call a Lada a high quality car, even though it’s solid as a rock. There’s interior quality, material quality and so on.
So if your regular Chevy is as reliable as a Toyota, but also has a butt ugly and cheap interior, it’s no wonder people are prefering Toyota.
I believe: Offer the American people a competitive domestic car and they’ll buy it.
Phil, you just don’t get it.
You wrote, “Americans who won’t consider current competitive domestics are part of the problem. Not the whole problem by any means. But not absent contribution either.”
Name a domestic that’s “competitive.” If one’s definition of “competitive” includes “competitive in terms of long-term reliability,” then there are few to no “competitive” domestics at this point. And that’s an essential element of “competitive” for many of us.
I didn’t get won over today. I went to lunch in a friend’s GM vehicle. A 2003 with 65K miles. The transmission is slipping. No kidding.
I don’t know why you think CR isn’t influential. I don’t subscribe; I get it at the library when I want to look something up and there’s often a wait for the current Buying Guide (it does not circulate, you get it and read it, take notes and return it to the info desk before you leave the library). By the end of the year, the library copy looks beaten.
People looking for used cars that have fallen off their 5 (or is it 7?) year chart, will ask for a copy from a few years back.
As a Cadillac XLR-V owner, who on earth are you to tell ANYONE not to care about brand or status? Because your article articulates that Cadillac is considered inferior to Mercedes Benz? IRRELEVANT. A Cadillac is a PREMIUM brand and the XLR-V is the most expensive Cadillac ever sold. You care about status, and brand.
But you clearly don’t care about interior plastics, as the interior quality on a 2007 Honda CR-V is higher than that of in your Cadillac.
Do not dismiss the importance of the quality of materials. Undermining people that care about if their dash looks like it was made with plastics from Fisher Price is a nice tactic, you make people feel stupid for desiring a quality dash that will hold up and that has a good design, but in reality, it’s something that matters, and something that represents the car as a whole. As the mass that you see every single time you sit behind the wheel of your car, your dashboard, its design, and the quality of materials that make it up, should be high, especially in the segment of the Cadillac XLR-V, and in every segment really. It says something about the car, and something about the company that produced it that it cannot give it a higher quality interior. You should be especially offended, as you dropped 100K on yours.
This is an interesting rejoinder. I drove every car in the class before buying my XLR-V. I simply wanted a V8-powered, rear-drive, retractable hardtop GT that is reasonably exclusive (not to be confused with expensive) because I like distinctive cars at any price. The Lexus SC is cramped, soft; really a mess dynamically. The Mercedes SL and SL-AMG are overweight, overwrought pigs carrying a quarter ton more mass than the XLR-V. The Maserati Coupe and Cabrio got an eval on the appeal of the Ferrari 4.2L even though they weren’t retracting hardtops. The Aston V8 soft-top wasn’t out yet. Now the Maser….THAT’s an interior and nobody touches it! Everything else, you’re just pontificating over plastics and over-processed leather. But the Cadillac has a straightforward, accessible UI, with excellent surfaces. I think the carpet should be upgraded.
Net is, I drove every competitive import and chose the XLR-V on the merits. It is the first Cadillac I ever owned. I didn’t think of Cadillac as a prestige brand that would have any social cachet here in Southern California. If I cared about status, the Merc SL would have been the obvious choice. I just wanted the right car for me. Really, I simply and completely preferred the XLR-V. It wasn’t a difficult decision. Of course, then I had to explain it to my friends, because they asked, and asked, and asked. Fine with me.
I’ve been in a CR-V. No, the plastics aren’t “better” for their purposes, but it doesn’t matter. At 25,000 miles and 16 months, leather and plastics in the XLR-V appear and feel new. Time will tell, won’t it?
I haven’t seen any cars ever with plastics like those Fisher Price uses, but I do see some Fisher-Price plastic toys take an amazing amount of punishment. I do believe that if you restrict yourself to the cars I suggest are worth inclusion — *competitive* cars from the Detroit 3 — interior plastics are not worth tipping a buying decision.
Phil
KixStart : Name a domestic that’s “competitive.” If one’s definition of “competitive” includes “competitive in terms of long-term reliability,” then there are few to no “competitive” domestics at this point. And that’s an essential element of “competitive” for many of us.
I’m not a Ford appologist, I swear. But, we’ve had one Aerostar that clocked 185K before being traded and a second that had around 215K at trade in. These were mass market ‘everyman’ vans. They ran well, with the usual maintenance. The only repairs were standard wear and tear parts (starters, brakes, waterpump at 190,000 miles, etc.). Our Windstar is still running fine. I drive a Crown Vic with 163,000 on the odometer, I expect a few years yet from this car (good thing since they seem to be discontinuing it). My mother in law has a 170,000 mile Focus, I’ve replaced the clutch and the ignition coil…that’s it.
I realize that my experiences are not a scientific study, but I will certainly look hard at the blue oval next car purchase.
You want to have it both ways, yet again. You want to argue that if Americans become better shoppers, they will flock to their GM, FoMoCo or Chrysler dealer. Once again, you condemn the customer who refuses to see things your way. You presume that if only they were not incompetent or “bigoted” that they would see things your way.
Does this topic cause blindness? I wrote only that if people who currently refuse to shop cars from the Detroit 3 because of brand bias and peer concern include competitive domestic vehicles in their objective evaluations, enough additional sales will swing to Detroit to remove the existential threat against them. I didn’t say people will “flock” to GM, Ford or Chrysler. I don’t suggest any artificial depression of the import market. I haven’t asked anyone to buy anything that doesn’t meet their needs. Nor did I say anywhere that anyone’s competence is in question.
It’s a question of will, open-mindedness, and recognition of larger self-interest.
Phil
Confused1096, telling me you’ve had good experiences with Fords does not make you a Ford apologist; you’re simply reporting what you experienced. I’m happy for you. I wish I’d had the same kind of experience. I wish everybody had. I wish I had the confidence in FoMoCo that would allow me to go out on a limb and buy a hybrid Escape.
I wrote only that if people who currently refuse to shop cars from the Detroit 3 because of brand bias and peer concern include competitive domestic vehicles in their objective evaluations, enough additional sales will swing to Detroit to remove the existential threat against them.
In other words, in your view, they are poor shoppers.
Come now, let’s call a spade a spade — you are condemning the shopping choices of the American consumer.
Let’s repeat after me: The customer is always right. The customer is always right. (Come now, don’t be shy!) The customer is always right. That’s right — it’s always. Not some of the time, or occasionally, or never, but always, 100% of the time.
I hate to be blunt, but you need to wake up and realize that the consumer is not obligated to follow your whims. Stop lecturing and condemning the consumer who rejects your way of thinking, particularly given that they outnumber you by a wide margin.
The Big 2.8 are not empowered to bend spoons or shoot psychic waves at the American people. Americans have tastes, wants and needs. The winners will fulfill those requirements and the losers will not.
Decide right now whether you’d prefer to be a winner or a loser. Your “plan” will confirm the Detroit players remain as losers and put the nail into their coffins.
Instead of taking responsibility for their own failures, this calls for them laying blame yet again on everyone but themselves, even though that doesn’t add a single sale to the income statement. This plan has failed them for three decades now, and is a recipe for disaster going forward.
Berating the customer to buy what you personally want just because you personally want it is a Fantasyland non-plan that requires the consumer to bend of the will of the manufacturer, when that’s not how it works in the red, white and blue marketplace.
It is the company’s obligation to serve the consumer. Any argument that demands that the consumer modify his behavior without a compelling reason is no argument at all. You want to make a sale, you’re going to have to earn it.
I’ve met enough current and former UAW workers over the years to know that I wouldn’t trust them to mow my lawn, let alone build me a car. For that matter, it’s the same for all the big unions. I can always tell that a co-worker once was a member of a union — they’re the one’s you can’t rely on, who always do the bare minimum, who always have an excuse, who know all the best places to hide, etc.
Union workers have done their best to ruin our economy (govt. unions still do) over the years. It’s no coincidence that US economy nose-dived during the height of the unions power (60’s and 70’s) and that it recovered when their power and numbers began to decline. The Big 2.8 are inefficient. Rewarding them for that inefficiency is a great way to weaken the US economy again.
When I began purchasing new cars back in the late 80s it was Fords. My first new car was an 87 Mustang GT. I loved that car for 30k mi till an old man rear ended me at a light and totaled it. After that I wound up with an 86 8v GTI which is still one of my favorite cars ever. After that was passed on to my nephew I bought a new 93 Escort GT. Good car for another 30k mi until it was traded for a 96 Probe GT. We moved home to NY (from SE MI) in 1998 and one car had to go so since the wifes Paseo was paid for we sold the Ford. When the Paseo no longer suited our needs in 2004 (it had zero safety equipment unless you counted the seatbelts attached to the doors) I shopped strictly foreign made cars. Since we finally had some cash to spend (35k budget) no way it was going to a domestic. After driving 3ers, Acura, Lexus we decided on a G35x. We had the Paseo for 12 yrs and it proved to be reliable. Nothing Toyota made really excited me and one drive in the Infiniti convinced me it was the one. This was to become the wifes car so it had to be reliable. 3 years and 30k later I am very happy with the choice. I hope to have it another 5-7 years at least. Will we buy another Infiniti? Maybe, maybe not. That M45 makes my blood boil.
In 2005 we left Manhattan. I needed a car for myself so I bought a new Mazda 6 Sport Wagon, V-6, 5-speed for $20k. Nice car, reminded me a bit of the Probe except that the Probe was a Ford with a Mazda powertrain and the Mazda had a Duratec. In 2 years I had tired of the Mazda and I wanted a slushbox as my commute had changed. This time looking at SU/CUVs. MKX was nice. I wanted to shop a Magnum but none of the local dealers had their stock listed online. This is a must for me, it’s how I found/purchased the Infiniti and the Mazda as well. Find the one you want in stock, contact the dealer and strike a deal. You would think it’s so simple but the domestics just don’t get it (apparently). I contacted the local Caddy dealer about an SRX. They emailed me back 2 weeks later asking if I wanted to test drive a used 2005! That is unacceptable and it immediately disqualified any Cadillac from landing in my driveway. Not to say that I would never buy one but they need to learn how people in their 30s/40s want to purchase a vehicle. It’s 2007, wake up Detroit!
I wound up buying a new XC90 Sport and couldn’t be happier with the choice. I have no qualms about shopping/buying domestic but the business is changing/has changed.
Phil—As stated earlier—-you will not convince these folks despite the articulate and linear approach to your arguement.
It is simply too hard to believe for some that one can own a domestic brand vehicle and be happy.
They cannot believe that we can own domestic brand vehicles that have offered us many years and miles of trouble free and enjoyable service….it is beyond their realm…they just can’t believe it can happen.
They cannot believe that mainstream familes can own a car like a Mustang and not be some young redneck or old codger looking for nostalgia. They dismiss a car that sells 100K+ units per year as niche—-but put a car company with a 2.5 share like Hyundai up on a high mountain for no substanitive reason beyond a warranty scheme. I often wonder if such praise would ever be heaped on this company if it was American ? Not sure.
They cannot see that we have very real reasons that we buy domestics—some of them very well thought through as displayed by your prose. No, they often dismiss us as less than their intellectual peer; as stated in an earlier post—its like the Ivy Leaguer looking his nose down at the State University Grad.
Last, they find it hard to believe that there are a full stable of attractive and competitive domestic products in most segments. They use data from JD Powers and Consumer Reports when it helps their cause, but when said sources say something positive about a domestic (eg Fusion, Outlook)…they dismiss it and find some other excuse not to be open minded.
Phil—enjoy your Caddy and take comfort that there are plenty of folks who get what you are saying.
I don’t shed a tear for them. They can’t offer a better warranty because they can’t afford to, they can’t afford to because they discount their cars, they discount their cars because they don’t offer a better warranty and have a low resale value. Their cars have low resale value because they discount them. It’s a cycle they entered into decades ago and rather than pull out of the nose dive, they continue to slot more medeocre cars into the biggest selling segments and them discount then becuase price is all they can compete on. Could the Cobalt be a Civic SI if GM axed the Corvette? We’ll never know, GM seems to reserve their “good stuff” for the low volume niche markets which have no hope in hell of saving the company.
Disgruntled customer + bad experience + disgruntled customer saying “name one good experience YOU’VE ever had with an American car!” = comments from multitudes of customers who have racked up 200,000 miles on their Reliant K, Aerostar, or Chevette without problems.
All of these types of comments are anecdotal. This is why JD Power data really DOES matter.
umterp85:
You asked for CR on the Fusion & Outlook?
Fusion/Milan/MKZ: Recommended; very impressive and class-leading 1st year reliability, good but not excellent test scores. On the 100 point scale, the Fusion/Milan scored 9-10 points below class leaders Altima, Camry, Accord, and Passat, MKZ similarly trailed its near-luxury competition. Dinged for lack of available ESC, especially glaring on the MKZ. The Ford CD3’s all scored better than the GM Epsilon offerings, likely bad news for Aura-based Malibu.
Outlook: “Best GM product in years”, couldn’t yet recommend as there’s no reliability data; scored 76/100 placing it behind only the Toyota Highlander Hybrid and Honda Pilot in the crossover category and by smaller margins than the CD3 triplets vs. competition (see above). It was also scored against larger SUV’s and was outranked barely by the Mercedes GL. In contrast, the Edge/MKZ scored 60/100.
Summary: good scores, but no Top Picks. Per Ford’s own internal product rankings, do you want a car that’s a Leader, Among Leaders, or one that’s merely Competitive? There’s always thousand$ off and/or 0% financing, if you’re willing to settle for the latter.
I’ve already posted earlier in this thread what happened when I was in the market. The 2.801 offerings were not competitive or nonexistent. (If I need to replace the minivan soon, I’m likely going to get the same Sienna LE-8 that’s served us well, and I’m definitely not going to do it with a crossover.) Here again is the GM minivan EuroNCAP crash video, the product they were offering when I bought mine.
“Run the pricing numbers on truedelta.com of the Fusion against the Camry and the Accord”
I didn’t use truedelta, but did just do a comparison of mid-level trim version of the 2007 Focus and the Accord, both 4 cylinder with automatic and ABS and the Fusion carsdirect.com selling price came in about $800 less than the Accord. The Accord has some of the best resale values in the business for a reason and that $800 will likely come back at trade in time if the vehicle is kept the typical 4-6 years before being traded.
Long term reliability of a Fusion is just a guess, they haven’t been out long enough to know and Ford’s history is that some vehicles are pretty good and some are pretty bad, so who knows.
For $800 more most consumers will pick the Honda, and they are not ignorant fools for doing so.
Yes, I for one “believe that half of Camry, Altima, and even Accord buyers can’t be equally satisfied by a current generation Detroit 3 offering.”
Those three cars have all have multiple strengths. Where are the Detroit cars that are class leading in multiple ways? Let’s look a the the Fusion since it is about the best Domestic competitor. It looks great on the outside. Very sporty.Now wouldn’t you expect a sporty looking sedan to have powertrains to match its looks. No… that would be too obvious. Ford offers a 160hp 4cyl or a 221hp V6. No Manual V6. No ‘shift it yourself’ Autos. Why would I not want the at least equaly sporty looking Altima with either 175HP or 270HP v6? How is the Fusion better than an Altima as a sporty family sedan? And for someone who cares about quality interiors, neither of these 2 cars make the grade.
I will welcome the day when Detroit has a product
in the segment I am looking at that I can seriously consider.
Having worked for both GM and Toyota, there is a difference!!!!
GM does not have the attention to detail that is found at Toyota or Honda.
Mr XLR-V, I believe that if you have the XM antennae on the trunk it’s black, not matching the final coat of the car, just black. You’ll find the same thing on the brand new CTS.
Look at LEXUS, AUDI, HONDA, ACURA, BMW… and the sat fin is body color.
One reason I won’t buy is stereo controls on the right hand side of the steering wheel. Why do I need controls when I can extend my hand an additional 6 inches and reach the faceplate. I prefer to have my stereo controls on the left, so I can shift my auto or manual tranny and adjust the stereo at the same time. or drink my starbucks and flip through the channels.
GM has the cruise control on the left because that’s how they did it back in the days of the cruise control stalk.
What does it take to get auto down/up driver’s window across the entire lineup? You need money, why not kill the GM emblem (2) that you pay the UAW to put on every car.
FORD is another story :-(((
Whose idea was it to have a numeric keypad (0-9) on the dash on the 08 Escape? MONEY WELL SPENT.
pb35:
You say the m45 makes your blood boil. Blood boil as in angry? What about that car makes you angry? I only ask because that car is creeping into my “next car” list….used of course.
As for American cars, as I wrote earlier, I have already been burned twice by Ford. No matter how much they improve, I will not buy another because if I get the 1 lemon in 1,000,000, it will be a “fool me thrice” moment, and I don’t want to deal with that frustration; with the “fool me thrice” moment, I’d have no one to blame but myself, and rightfully so.
Part of me will always pull for the US auto manufacturers though – just like I still secretly pull for the Indianapolis Colts even though I swore I never would when they left Baltimore years ago….those uniforms….among the best in pro sports….I can’t resist.
I hope GM can reinvent Buick. The re-stratification of GM has been discussed here before, and if I remember correctly, people called for dissolving Buick which is probably inevitable unless they move Cadillac strictly upmarket. Still, I’m hoping they can reinvent the brand and make it thrive. I don’t harbor animosity toward the US automakers – I just don’t trust their product.
Phil,
either you are getting paid for this or you are utterly delusional.
The UAW is on the record as far as supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, and in your long social rant post upstream you mention that we should spend our money with the big3 to support immigration.
If you really meant what you typed, I would suggest that it is the duty of any American patriot to ensure the destruction of any entity that supports illegal immigration.
enjoy your Caddy and take comfort that there are plenty of folks who get what you are saying.
The last things that the Big 2.8 needs right now are comfort and hugs. They need revenues, profits, market share, effective zero-defects programs, long warranties, drastic reductions in product lines (in the case of GM) and increased customer satisfaction.
It is this desire for a comfort zone that is killing them and will put them out of business. They need get really, really uncomfortable in a hurry, drink a few pots of coffee to wake up, and get real.
Whining, crying and blaming the customer will not generate profits. Making consumers happy and regaining trust are the only paths to future success. Otherwise, they will fail, and they will deserve to fail, because there is no room for these sorts of progressive failures in a competitive marketplace.
They would have failed a long time ago if they weren’t so enormous that it would take decades before the abuse finally caught up to them. The train has been so long in coming, you would have thought that they would have traded up for a better ticket by now.
Many, many good comments on this article. My two cents is that although I believe American cars are built as well as foreign cars, there are no American cars that I want to buy. I will only buy performance cars, and the only two American performance cars I would buy (Vette and Viper) are too expensive. Think about it… there are no cheap American sports cars anymore. Pontiac Solstice GXP? Ugly piece of crap. Mustang GT? I’d rather not relive some baby boomer’s rose tinted wet dream. Chevy Cobalt SS? I’m not paying 20K for an economy car with a supercharger bolted on. Dodge, um, I guess Dodge doesn’t have any small sports cars anymore. And yes, I know the 350Z, WRX, RX-8, S2000, and Lancer are more expensive, but they don’t make me want to stab myself in the face when I drive them.
Also, under a capitalist economy such as ours, patriotic loyalty is VERY inefficient. I don’t recall reading in my economics textbooks that “The capitalist system is based on supply and demand, except you’re only allowed to demand American goods.” Quite simply, lack of competition hurts American automakers. I think we saw that in the products they gave us in the 1970s and 1980s. That, and a number of much longer economic reasons, is why I disagree with the author’s plea to buy American.
The last time I was car shopping, I was looking for something that could fit a fair amount of cargo, and was sporty. I was buying used and the candidates were a 04 Ford Focus SVT, 03 Honda Civic SI hatch, and a 02 Subaru Wagon WRX. I test drove all three.
The lowest on my list was the Civic because my 01 civic coupe’s manual tranny broke with 45k on the odo (fixed under the warranty I got purchasing certified used, but unacceptable), apparently the SI has some of the same issues.
Next was the SVT Focus. I drove one and it was a really nice ride, quick, and good cargo capacity. I checked up on the reliability on an enthusiast site and was blown away. It was awful! Turns out the clutches and transmissions are guaranteed to break. When it is repaired if Ford used the newly designed part it might last. If not, it will break again. Someone I met on the ‘net ran the repair history of the particular car I was looking at and found out that when the clutch was replaced it was the old-design parts, so the SVT was out the window.
The WRX wagon is what I ended up with. It is such a fun car, and has very useful cargo capacity. I look forward to driving it every chance I get. I plan on driving it until the wheels fall off.
I would have gotten the SVT Focus but Ford refused to stand behind their vehicle and recall the parts. The advice I got from other SVT owners was, they are great cars if you don’t mind sorting out the kinks. And the kinks were$$$. I know these are used cars but this is a great example of why I don’t have a domestic car. In the future, if I’m ready to buy a new car it won’t be a domestic as I don’t want to risk getting the next SVT Focus. It won’t be a Honda either for that matter.
Well, the author’s first premise — “American cars are good enough to earn the customer’s confidence” has been debated a lot. I would say the evidence is not clear enough for most folks, but whatever.
And the author’s second premise? “The U.S. needs a car industry, so Americans should give Detroit a second/third/fourth… chance”?
Let me ask this: why does the U.S. need a car industry? Do nations without a car industry do worse? Look at Switzerland — doing just fine. The UK, having lost its car industry: low unemployment, healthy economy. The Nordic countries, since losing control of Saab and Volvo: thriving, with world-beating social indicators.
I would say that the U.S. economic system is not good for car companies. Non-socialised health care is bad for legacy companies (good for small start-ups, though). Focus-on-the-quarter-style, U.S. capitalism does not encourage long-term investments in risky, crowded markets. The protection that lousy dealers enjoy through franchise law is insane and makes re-branding and de-branding almost impossible.
So, all three Detroit car makers may well disappear sooner or later. It is sad but I think worse things could happen. The U.S. has a vibrant, diversified, dynamic economy that serves its purpose well.
In other words, in your view, they are poor shoppers.
Come now, let’s call a spade a spade — you are condemning the shopping choices of the American consumer.
Actually, I haven’t condemned anyone’s choices. My criticism is directed at specific thinking and processes in a specific kind of consumer that lead to the choice they make. My commentary was explicitly directed to the import buyer who is inhibited by non-material factors from considering and buying cars that they like and will meet their needs, but originate from a blackballed brand.
Let’s repeat after me: The customer is always right. The customer is always right. (Come now, don’t be shy!) The customer is always right. That’s right — it’s always. Not some of the time, or occasionally, or never, but always, 100% of the time.
Actually, the customer is sometimes right but always retains the right to be wrong and act wrongly on wrong information, and still be treated well. I know, seems like a small difference, but anyone who ever sold consumer goods understands the distinction.
I hate to be blunt, but you need to wake up and realize that the consumer is not obligated to follow your whims. Stop lecturing and condemning the consumer who rejects your way of thinking, particularly given that they outnumber you by a wide margin.
While the case I am making is far from a whim, at no point have I suggested anyone has an obligation to me or my ideas. Lecturing? I’m just making a case for using purchasing power for a specific purpose. You’re free to disagree. You might have surmised by now that being outnumbered — if I am — is inconsequential and unpersuasive to me.
The Big 2.8 are not empowered to bend spoons or shoot psychic waves at the American people. Americans have tastes, wants and needs. The winners will fulfill those requirements and the losers will not.
Absolutely true. I’m making the case that there is more than tastes, wants and needs to be fulfilled in a large purchase of this leverage.
Decide right now whether you’d prefer to be a winner or a loser. Your “plan” will confirm the Detroit players remain as losers and put the nail into their coffins.
If the Detroit 3 had 10 years of cash like GM did in the early ’80s, I wouldn’t be spending time on this. But they don’t. Apathy will kill them sooner than an improperly-used breather will.
Instead of taking responsibility for their own failures, this calls for them laying blame yet again on everyone but themselves, even though that doesn’t add a single sale to the income statement. This plan has failed them for three decades now, and is a recipe for disaster going forward.
You are misrepresenting my thinking. I haven’t referenced the auto companies at all, nor empowered them to blame us. At no point do I suggest that blame lies exclusively or even majority with the consumer. The epic faults of the Detroit 3 have been amply addressed by other writers here, and I’m plenty angry at them myself, for what they’ve squandered. But they are mending their ways and delivering competitive products in some mainstream categories. In the face of dramatic product improvement, now consumers’ role in this decline (and its reversal) bears illumination.
Berating the customer to buy what you personally want just because you personally want it is a Fantasyland non-plan that requires the consumer to bend of the will of the manufacturer, when that’s not how it works in the red, white and blue marketplace.
At what point have I asked consumers to “buy what (I) personally want?” That’s correct: nowhere. I’ve simply asked people who refuse to consider Detroit 3 products for reasons of brand or social aversion to evaluate competitive domestic models and when objectively convinced, to buy them. I think enough added sales will result from that simple change of behavior.
It is the company’s obligation to serve the consumer. Any argument that demands that the consumer modify his behavior without a compelling reason is no argument at all. You want to make a sale, you’re going to have to earn it.
I agree, if I am speaking to management or employees from one of the Detroit 3. However, the real prospect of losing these companies entirely when they are making real product progress places a larger sphere of social, economic and political factors on the table.
For the next 2 or 3 years, an automotive purchase in the United States, for better or worse, is not just a decision to buy a car. You can behave as though it is, but reality is these choices will have real and magnified consequences. Everyone individually retains the right to ignore the larger context. This idea of weighing your immediate product concerns against the social and economic context you wish to live in is just another market factor in play. It is as legitimate to factor in as is the ethereal memory of a 20 year old bad experience. Whether you choose to remains your prerogative. Nothing I’ve suggested constrains your free will in any way.
Phil
Let me ask this: why does the U.S. need a car industry? Do nations without a car industry do worse? Look at Switzerland — doing just fine. The UK, having lost its car industry: low unemployment, healthy economy. The Nordic countries, since losing control of Saab and Volvo: thriving, with world-beating social indicators.
I would say that the U.S. economic system is not good for car companies. Non-socialised health care is bad for legacy companies (good for small start-ups, though). Focus-on-the-quarter-style, U.S. capitalism does not encourage long-term investments in risky, crowded markets. The protection that lousy dealers enjoy through franchise law is insane and makes re-branding and de-branding almost impossible.
So, all three Detroit car makers may well disappear sooner or later. It is sad but I think worse things could happen. The U.S. has a vibrant, diversified, dynamic economy that serves its purpose well.
Good questions. If the US had Switzerland’s responsibilities and narrow social composition, we wouldn’t be having this exchange. But I’ll point out that even the Swiss realized they couldn’t afford to lose watch manufacturing and they put irrational effort into pulling their industry back from the brink. In purely economic terms, as in comparative advantage, it made no sense to do this, but the human factors of keeping Switzerland Swiss compelled it.
The issue for the US is retaining economic diversity, native heavy manufacturing, and full-spectrum economic range to provide maximum opportunity for a rising and diverse population while retaining more capital and the greater social equilibrium that manufacturing jobs provide ballast for.
I agree that the US economic system is progressively less friendly to auto manufacturing. Consumers can contribute to changing that circumstance.
The social leverage of scaled manufacturing is more important to consider than the pure economics of retaining it. I agree that if competitive capitalism drives the Detroit 3 under, on purely economic terms, the US can remain economically dynamic and vital. But it will also be socially more divided, which I regard as an unfavorable development.
Phil
…either you are getting paid for this or you are utterly delusional. The UAW is on the record as far as supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, and in your long social rant post upstream you mention that we should spend our money with the big3 to support immigration. If you really meant what you typed, I would suggest that it is the duty of any American patriot to ensure the destruction of any entity that supports illegal immigration.
I didn’t say anything in support of illegal immigration. I fully support efforts to stanch the flow of illegals. We’re going to grow on legal immigration and their offspring, alone. And by the way, this is a good thing. Europe as we know it is on a demographic Long Goodbye. Japan too. But not us. I prefer a full-spectrum economy supporting a full-spectrum society.
Phil
“Run the pricing numbers on truedelta.com of the Fusion against the Camry and the Accord, then pick up your Consumer Reports. You can make a small case for resale value in the import, but that’s about it. The Fusion costs significantly less and shows excellent reliability and crash tests across the board. Yet, how many people will unquestioningly buy a Camry or Accord without looking at a Fusion?”
I don’t know how many, but I’m one such person. Tell me why I should spend precious time checking out the Fusion? Has Ford carefully built a solid reputation for reliability? Is my experience with my Ranger to be discounted entirely? As well as my experience with my Honda?
The whole idea here is that the domestics deserve another look. In what sense is a Fusion domestic compared to an Accord? The Fusion is made in Mexico, which isn’t helping the American economy. Accords are made in Ohio, by American labor. The Accord probably has higher domestic parts content than the Fusion. And after paying the Mexicans $3 and hour (if that) to put it together, they are still only $800 lower in price. Financed over 5 years, that difference is almost meaningless. To me, Fusion is a foreign car. I’m sorry, but the Mexicans just don’t have the cred as car builders that the Japanese have.
What comparission can be made on reliability of a model that’s only recently come out? Camcord has been around for what – two decades or so? I don’t have to wonder about these cars. I don’t have to hope they’ll still be half way decent 8 years from now.
I will do this – 8 years from now if I’ve heard lots of positive buzz about the Malibu, and it proves over many years to be a solid well built reliable car, then 8 years from now I’ll give one a look before I buy. That’s fair isn’t it? But give me one reason why I should be the guinea pig for the “new” malibu? I’ll wait until the car has proven itself.
Isn`t it detroit herself that breeds this bias towards their average clunkers? what kind of reliable domestic home-bred reliability are we talking about? Korean daewoos ,that are sold under chevy badge and are reliable because are 100 percent korean? are we talking reliable mazda 6 -based, mazda trannied, mazda engined ford-lincoln mercury derivatives? look at consumer reports. amercian car reliability has improved. but so has japanese and korean. the question is by how much, and how many stars in each column the due car has received. amercians have done everything possible do create this bias, by rebadging german engineered opels from aussie subsidiaries, regrilling and faking diversity. Should i buy a leaf-springed, live axle caravan I have a choice of honda van? shoudl i by domestic Saturn if it is actually a rebadged opel ? You see, people BUY THINGS, WHERE THEY FEEL THAT THE COMPANY HAS INVESTED HARD WORK AND SWEAT. sEE, DETROIT, WE WANT TO SEE SOME ELBOWGREASE. SOME BLISTERS ON YOUR HANDS. Calling a german built 3.6 liter DOHC a pure detroit iron won`t cut it. What i want is good american car. but it is hard to find these 2 words together. there is only much american-sounding cars, which actually represent the sweat of other countries, whether korea, japan, germany…you name it.
P.S. you mentioned caddy. i checked the prev genm cts, and guess what.. the xterior fit and finish is WORSE than that of any korean car manufactured after 2003. even getz. here we go!
This idea of weighing your immediate product concerns against the social and economic context you wish to live in is just another market factor in play. It is as legitimate to factor in as is the ethereal memory of a 20 year old bad experience.
Primum: Bad car experiences are NOT “ethereal”. I can vividly recall myself suffering with the POS Fiat my dad had 30 years ago.
Secundum: The “social and economic context” you are talking about is this: Dou you want to allow to be fooling around you, in your country, inefficient companys hijacked by a socialist union, companys that in the past sold to the American public extravagant, unsafe, chrome laden, gass guzzling and badly built behemots and cars as the Corvair, the Pinto, the Vega, the Volare, the Citation, the companys that profited from the SUV madness?
“Buy American” is UN American: Sell a product people want to buy and prosper, fail to do so and fail. Those are the rules in a free country.
Tertium: The SUV madness. The big 2.345 PLUS the United Auto Workers worked very, very hard to sell to the American public those engineering aberrations called “SUVs”
Look:
“…an unholy alliance of conservatives who oppose federal energy-efficiency rules and Democrats from United Automobile Workers (UAW) states consistently blocks legislative attempts to do nothing more radical than require SUVs and pickups to meet the same standards as regular cars.”
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030120&s=easterbrook012003
Those entrepenurial organisms (the big 2.4635) and the parasite they host (the UAW) deserve to die.
Phil, thank you for your thoughtful reply to my questions.
Sadly, I am not convinced. To me, your arguments sound circular. You say: People should try American because it’s good for the country. Why is it good for the country? Because it is good for the economy. Why is it good for the economy? Because a diversified economy needs heavy industry. And so on…
Please explain, why is the auto industry more important than the steel industry? The textile industry? Are you for free competition in all areas except for selected ones such as farming, housing, car sales? I don’t get it.
Your Swiss example doesn’t cut the mustard, I think. True, the Swiss have voted to support the (tiny) watchmaking industry. Swatch however is a world-class company that exports a lot. Detroit-built cars are unexportable. And if Swiss watches were as poorly made as Detroit-built cars — well, let’s just say the Swiss wouldn’t give them the time of day, and Swatch would go down the drain like Swissair did.
Back to your leading example: Mercedes SL versus Cadillac XYZ. You say it is bigoted and snobbish when people don’t consider a Cad. But look at the big picture: the Cadillac brand is damaged goods. Has Merc ever built anything as bad as the Cimarron or as pimptastic as the Escalade? Is it really hard to understand people who do not want to buy a damaged brand? Let me put it differently. Would you want to own a perfectly good Ford Edsel, or a Yugo, if it were put on the market tomorrow? How about an excellent car badge-engineered and marketed by Burger King? Would you say “yes sure, and I’ll have some fries with that”?
It could possibly be me, but it looks as if Phil, in this case, is saying that we should give up what we want in order to help the Detroit(ish) Three(ish) Survive.
I just recently purchased a car. I wanted a hatch with decent room and a good, decently powerful motor. Well right there, no Detroit(ish) Three(ish). I settled on a Mazdaspeed3.
So my question is…did I let down American and Detroit? Hardly. Phil, with the upmost repect, you keep mentioning this “holistic approach” and social contract. Well, where is the Detroit(ish) Three(ish) side of the contract. Yes, they make some amazing cars…and send them over to Europe. The fact is, they aren’t holding up thier end of the contract. Was I supposed to give up everything I wanted in a car to help them out? Why didn’t they just make something I wanted to buy? I would have bought a GM product IF they gave me what I wanted. Yeah, I could have settled on a Cobalt SS/SC, but I would have had to give up one of the big things I was looking for. Or I could have gotten an Aveo or Focus hatch…and given up something I was looking for.
The Detroit(ish) Three(ish) are in no position right now to ask us to give up what we want in order to satisfy them.
On the other hand…
I see quite a bit of Domestic bashing that is nothing more than bashing for the sake of it. I see plenty of cheap shots at GM/Ford/Chrysler on here that are done just because it seems like the “in” thing to do. Martin, you ask if MB has ever made anything as “Pimptastic” as the Escalade. Turn on any rap video or listen to any rap song and they fling out names for German and British Manufacturers just as much. I don’t know how many C, E, and S class Benzes I’ve seen rolling around on massive wheels with heavy bass thumping out. I used to work Service side at a BMW dealership, and I have no idea how many 5ers and 7ers we had come in with 20+inch wheels and sound systems designed to work around hip hop/rap music.
I’ve also seen many a shot taken at the Enclave. Try sitting on the phone explaining to a dealership why they have twelve Enclave sold orders in the system…and they need to tell their customers that the back order on them is so high it’ll be another month before we can get it out to them. Or go ahead and take a look at how many sold orders we already have for the new Malibu. Or why the Impala still isn’t on free flow delivery.
I am more than beyond willing to give the Devil its due. GM, Ford, and Chrysler make some excellent products. In my humble, they just don’t make enough. The products most Americans want, we don’t get over here. Its almost hurtfull, as if the Detroit(ish) Three(ish) are treating us like the new step child in a family. The older brother (Europe) gets all the good stuff, whilst we get the hang overs. They are getting the XBox360 with Halo 3, we are getting a Game Boy and Pokemon.
And for whats its worth, I work for GM. Sorta.
Actually, I haven’t condemned anyone’s choices. My criticism is directed at specific thinking and processes in a specific kind of consumer that lead to the choice they make.
Actually, what I think bothers you is not the process, but the outcomes.
In any case, you still avoid the basic issue here that the process is irrelevant. Consumers owe nobody anything, so stop meddling with their “process” — they are entitled to use whatever process they like, even if you don’t like it.
Successful businesses play up to whatever consumers want, whatever that is, period. Your “plan” is not a business plan, it’s a wish list, and a futile wish list at that.
If you want to get consumers to change, you need to give them compelling reasons to change that address their self-interests. What you are asking the consumer to do is to put the interests of Rick Wagoner above their own. Unless you have some magic pixie dust that can make that happen, that is a futile effort that is worth punting now, before any more time is wasted in perpetuating this three decade-long pall that has fallen over Michigan.
What the Detroit fans never do is offer reasonable, viable plans for turning around their favored companies. Until you accept the absolute authority of the customer and the need to serve them first and foremost, you may as well give up because lectures and condemnations of the customer won’t work.
GM is not a religion, it’s a company. Americans are not going to tithe for it just because you say so. It’s much easier to create revenues simply by making products that people want, which includes providing enough reasons to trust them that it is worth the expenditure. But rebuilding a reputation can take awhile when the effort to destroy it has been so diligent.
I just recently purchased a car. I wanted a hatch with decent room and a good, decently powerful motor. Well right there, no Detroit(ish) Three(ish). I settled on a Mazdaspeed3.
So my question is…did I let down American and Detroit? Hardly. Phil, with the upmost repect, you keep mentioning this “holistic approach” and social contract. Well, where is the Detroit(ish) Three(ish) side of the contract. Yes, they make some amazing cars…and send them over to Europe. The fact is, they aren’t holding up thier end of the contract. Was I supposed to give up everything I wanted in a car to help them out? Why didn’t they just make something I wanted to buy? I would have bought a GM product IF they gave me what I wanted. Yeah, I could have settled on a Cobalt SS/SC, but I would have had to give up one of the big things I was looking for. Or I could have gotten an Aveo or Focus hatch…and given up something I was looking for.
In that respect, what was your other non-domestic alternatives? If you look at other cars in this segment, you were pretty much limited to either the MS3, WRX wagon, or a GTI. Why fault the domestics for this shortcoming when Mini, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Toyota didn’t have anything to satisfy your needs either?
@Virtual Insanity :
Chevy HHR comes with a turbocharged 4 cylinder engine and 260 hp.
No one would argue that your MS3 isn’t the vastly superior car. I think the fact that the HHR wasn’t on your radar says something about American manufacturer marketing.
Justin, I was aware of the HHR SS that we will be getting, but it wasn’t on my radar because It is quite possibly the ugliest car since the Aztek. But I do have to agree. The domestic companies’ performance advertising segment is about on par with Nokia’s advertising program.
Quasimodo, I’m not faulting Honda, Nissan, Mitsu, or Toyota because they are not the topic of discussion. I won’t buy a Toyota untill they offer a serious performance car again and get off the Pious earth friendly bandwagon. The only Honda on the face of the planet I would own (S2K included) is an NSX. I did check out the Mini Cooper S, the drive was nice, but I just couldn’t get into the stylying. If we were talking about the problems with ALL auto manufacturers, I would have brought up faults with ALL of them. However, we are discussing the Detroit(ish) Three(ish).
Perhaps another reason that us consumers are unwilling to consider a domestic is they don’t have continuity in their model line ups. Think about Honda and Toyota. the Accord, Camry, Corrola, Civic have been around forever. You know what you are getting when you purchase one. Now think about Ford and Chevy. Impala was a Lumina was a Celebrity. Tauras was a 500 was a Tauras. The escort became a focus, which hasn’t changed for 10 years. The cobalt was a cavalier. The fusion was? oh yeah a contour.
Here lies your perception gap. You can look back to the early 80’s with Honda/Toyota and you know their full size sedan is the CamCord. GM and Ford? I don’t know. What the hell is a fusion? What’s its reputation? I don’t know but conventional wisdom says not to trust a new model until it is proven. Your average CamCord buyer doesn’t even know what the domestics offer because it constantly changes.
A fascinating article that has, understandably, triggered many impassioned responses – this is why this site is one of the best for automobile journalism on the Internet IMHO.
After reading the article, two specific events related exactly to Cadillac makes me want to throw in my $0.02.
The first was the rental of a Cadillac STS last year when I was on a business trip in LA. I’d been looking forward to trying out the new V8 powered STS after having test driven the first gen with the Northstar V8 and coming away disappointed with the platform and powertrain way back when. The STS, I must admit, has a very decent stance and testosterone appeal – especially in black as my rental was from Hertz. But the plot was lost the moment I sat down in the driver’s seat – every bit I touch exuded engineered cost control, especially the fake looking and fake feeling walnut veneer and the cheap feeling switchgears. Nothing inside the car appeal to me in any way…and that is rare as I look for appealing aspects in every car I’ve driven. The one neat touch is the adjustable multi-function display where the XM radio was served up, but that’s about it. The only aspect I couldn’t get a good grasp of was the drive quality, as the LA traffic prevented me from stretching the legs of the Northstar V8 and I didn’t have a chance to take it up Mulholland.
The second instance was a R&T sponsored event where we were invited to test the SRX against the Lexus RX330 and the V6 powered STS with all wheel drive against and BMW 525xi. In both comparisons, the overall quality of the Cadillac specimens were well below those of its Japanese and German competitors. Again, the interior material and fit and finish were below par and the exterior panel fit and gaps were all over the place on the Cadillacs. And then the slalom and driving comparisons only served further proof to me why I have never had a domestic in my 19 years of driving and car ownership since high school and why the last domestic marque that graced any of my family’s driveways was a 1983 Lincoln Mark VI that my father brought home as his company car.
The handling and driver response of the Cadillacs were just atrocious – the entire steering system felt like it was made of rubber linked together by bubble gum – and of course the suspension tuning was rather softer than I’d like (an admitted personal preference to be sure). Even when comparing the SRX to the RX330, the SRX was ‘sloppier’ than the Lexus, which I did not think possible after leasing my wife the LX470 and a mistake we won’t be repeating when the lease ends in 6 months.
So, while the author of the article makes decent points on why buying domestic could be good for the American auto workers and industry which have been hammered in the last 20 years, it is a misguided position in the spirit of the unfortunately myopic “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality to say that we who choose not to buy domestic are import bigots.
Consumers, in a free society such as ours, rightly cast our votes for purchases with our hard earned money, and not with patriotism as the guiding principle for these purchases. And as such, are no less patriotic than his or her neighbors whose driveways are filled with products from Ford, GM or Chrysler.
Lastly, spare a thought for those American auto workers on the assembly lines of ‘those’ foreign makes in Maryland, Tennessee, and Ontario – I’m sure they’re no less patriotic than their fellow Americans and Canadians.
I think it is very telling that GM and Ford market such different (and superior) vehicles in Europe, and it goes well beyond the difference in roads and taste in cars. I think the Big Whatever know full well that they have no hope of competing in a market with far more choices than our own unless they offer a completely credible product. And that means anything from a technologically advanced diesel engine alternative, to manual trannies as an option in every model, acceptable driving dynamics and solid construction and materials.
Clearly, these manufacturers have not come to grips with the advancement in expectation of their own domestic market that enhanced choices have given us. Being a Chevy guy or a Ford guy is a 50-year-old concept that only lingers in NASCAR. They incorrectly think that we don’t judge a car in the same way a European or Japanese consumer will. Sure, some people want to go down to “their” car dealer and trade in for the newest same-old same-old every three or four years, but that demographic is tiny.
I know I would buy a domestic if it was any good, compared to everything else out there. Sure, I’ve been burned before but I also CHOSE a Ford Taurus MT5 over the Honda Accord and Subaru GL that I compared it against the year that I bought it. I did it because it actually drove better and had a manual just like the other 2 and offered more content for the money. It went through head gaskets like no tomorrow and required towing several times, which didn’t do anything for my love for Ford products. But if they hadn’t hit that car with an ugly stick and taken away any hope at a manual, I MIGHT have considered another one. Okay, maybe not. But the point is that the domestics screwed up more than reliability, as far as my buying decision goes. You have to do several things right these days to get any notice whatsoever.
Phil,
I’m glad I didn’t respond yesterday as RF would have had to ‘discipline’ me.
It is refreshing to see both you and PCH live on the Left Coast, both with liberal biases, and yet PCH’s argument is strictly ‘conservative economist’ while yours seems to be more touchy, feely liberal. No flaming here, just characterizing your differences.
I would like to second the fact that this is not a religion and its not personal, just business. I don’t forgive Big Boy for serving shyte food; I don’t forgive the contractor who took off without finishing the project on our house; I don’t forgive Briggs & Stratton for their shyte lawn vaccuum; I don’t forgive Motorola for their shyte flip phones.
I will forgive you for writing this editorial. After all, First Amendment Free Speach, right?! Everybody is entitled to their opinion….even if they are wrong.
GM and Ford have always been able to compete on ‘value’, meaning, ‘cheapest’ model. Not best model, not longest lasting model, nor highest resale, and seldom on performance and/or style. But good or bad, they’ve always come back to “cheap” as their competitive advantage (whether they made money doing it or not). This was a significant advantage after WWII through the ’80’s. But as wealth has grown in the US, nobody ‘just wants a car’ anymore. Dammit, we’re picky! Focus on quality! What happened to “Quality is Job 1”. Oh, that’s right, it was just an advertising campaign. F’ing idiots.
If we’re being honest with each other, the only reason GM and Ford are still in business is because of LOYALTY from their employees (who double as customers) and fleet sales. Without these two ‘angels’, they would have been dead many years ago. You should write to Rick and Alan and the gang. Tell them that you love their new product, and that you think they need to do a better job advertising. Turn the business on its head. No more fire-sale circulars by the dealerships. Improve their internet selling presence. Now that they have some momentum going from the new UAW contract, cut and burn the internal bureaucracy once and for all. Give ’em a kick in the rump….God knows they’ll need it after all the back-patting that has been going on after these recent negotiation victories.
Yes I’m a TTAC regular, and yes I love cars. Even though I plan to drive my current ride for another seven years (ten years total), I’m constantly searching for my next ride. It’s a disease. To use some of that stored-up knowledge and passion, I help friends with their vehicle choices, test drives, and negotiations. If Rick or Alan want a chance of luring me into a showroom in seven years, it starts now. Aura, Taurus, Edge, Impala, Malibu, etc. My bias today is this: There is no way these vehicles are going to hold up as well as Toyondassan over the next five to seven years. Go ahead — prove me wrong.
But there will be no forgiveness for past lemons. Only the earning of a new relationship built on quality engineering, longevity and trust. Or not.
To be fair to the TTAC community, please share with us another editorial when you decide to replace your XYZ-V with something else, and please include your long-term review and the reasons behind ‘moving on’, even if it’s for another XYZ-V. Hey, more power to you.
jd arms
Oops, poor choice of words on my part regarding the M45. It doesn’t make me angry, it excites me, makes my temperature rise (and my blood boil as a result). I look forward to the next gen model as we will be keeping our G35 for a while.
For the record, our G35 has been nearly bulletproof so far. Good luck in your search.
I’m sorry but you wont see me purchasing an American turd ever again in my life(maybe a Chrysler if there not Chinese in the future). This isn’t because of some car from the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s, it’s because of the carp I still own, a damn 2000 DeVille. A 7 year old car, one they still sell. Sure the DTS is getting cut, but what would make me trust this company while they STILL dole out these crappy cars.
I am not about to make a huge financial investment in a company that decided to change things yesterday rather than 10 years ago like they should have. Plus I don’t believe they have made a single change and I think that anyone that believes they have is dilusional. How many times in the past 20 years have we heard “things are different now, our cars are just as good as the Asians” when in fact they are not, not even close. I’m sorry but I have been lied to enough by these pricks, let them go to hell already and leave room for better companies to take there miserable place.
I personnally thing the US will be much better off when they are gone, sure we will go through immense pain in the process but you have to go through a little hardship to get to the good stuff. I think a new and great American auto industry can come from the ashes of these 3, but they need to get out of the fricken way first.
This country is filled with great talent, no reason to think a new American auto company can come out of no where. Oh knows Tesla may be the start of a business trend(I’m not holding my breath as far as Tesla is concerned) stranger things have happened.
I’ll buy American when they make something I’d be proud to own. The only two I would even consider are the Corvette and Viper.
To be fair, reviewers are giving the domestic manufacturers their due credit on models that are indeed competitive with the imports.
This becomes clear as you peruse ConsumerSearch, where they compile reviews en masse, weigh the reviewers based upon their relative strengths, and publish their picks:
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/automotive/index.html
They tally up the number of first, second, third, etc. place finishes each model gets in comparative reviews, and while the domestics have a few standouts (300, Aura, Silverado), the imports still win in a landslide.
On to my point: If domestic product is so darn good of late, how come the vast majority of automotive reviewers still put most of it in 2nd-3rd place in any given review?
MgoBlue,
Why only keep your non-Detroit built vehicle 10 years. My Detroit built vehicles are targeted for 16 years for a car and 12 years for a truck( the truck is driven harder). So far I am batting 100%.
Only vehicle that edid not make the number was a Toyota. Fell apart and left me dead in the road, in the left turn lane in the poiuring rain. No other vehicle has ever done that.
The problem the Big 3 have is quite simple to solve, but is in no way easy. In each organization, the culture of cronyism, politics, lack of focus on product/over reliance on marketing, and most importantly, lack of leadership has killed product design/quality/public perception/long term product durability.
They want to change? Great! Fire 90% of the senior management that got them in this mess. Cull middle management to a reasonable size, and empower them to make design and engineering changes that are connected to the state of the consumer mind (i.e. fuel economy).
Will this happen? Nah. But that’s what needs to happen for the Big 3 to turn it around.
The safe money is on Bankruptcy court.
Actually, what I think bothers you is not the process, but the outcomes.
What you presume is not correct. If the process changes, I will be happy with the outcomes.
In any case, you still avoid the basic issue here that the process is irrelevant. Consumers owe nobody anything, so stop meddling with their “process” — they are entitled to use whatever process they like, even if you don’t like it.
I have no doubt this is what you believe. However, it’s no more than an opinion. Consumers may not “owe” anyone anything, but nevertheless their decisions, particularly in high-cost/highly-considered purchases, can have larger effects beyond the buying decision itself. IF a consumer takes a more holistic view, they might understand the net decision they’re making and choose differently. If not, they haven’t been restricted in any way.
Successful businesses play up to whatever consumers want, whatever that is, period. Your “plan” is not a business plan, it’s a wish list, and a futile wish list at that.
I didn’t write the editorial as a “plan” for how the Detroit 3 should fix themselves. That’s a different topic for another article entirely. I specifically restricted *this* topic to discussing a consumer component inhibiting the market recovery of the Detroit 3. Not *the* consumer component, nor *the only* inhibitor to domestic makers’ recovery. Just *a* too-little-examined inhibitor that some consumers are contributing.
If you want to get consumers to change, you need to give them compelling reasons to change that address their self-interests. What you are asking the consumer to do is to put the interests of Rick Wagoner above their own.
Rick Wagoner’s interests are orthogonal to this topic and irrelevant, except insofar as his interests as an American might coincide with a consumer’s. No, I’ve explicitly outlined why I believe it is in the interests of consumers to be open to considering Detroit 3 products and buy what’s competitive. If they believe that high-value manufacturing is socially desirable in our economic mix, then consumers may understand how their purchasing power is an instrument for shaping the country they live in. If a consumer does *not* see value in retaining Detroit 3 manufacturing, then they will not see this link. If a consumer believes that they and their fellow Americans would be better off without the Detroit 3 as soon as possible, then they will likely see their purchasing power as an instrument to be used for hastening the destruction of these companies. Obviously lots of people just want to buy a car. Fine. Just understand there’s really more to it than that.
What the Detroit fans never do is offer reasonable, viable plans for turning around their favored companies.
Why is it that almost anyone who posits a case for buying competitive American vehicles is bucketed as a “Detroit fan?” I like cars, and I admire cars from all over the world. I’ve owned imports, but fewer than domestics. I’m not a “fan,” but I’ve had no trouble finding satisfying, well-made, durable, excellent performance American cars over the last 27 years. Detroit automakers require massive improvements in marketing, continued improvements in products, and thorough reform in operations and leadership, at the very least. That’s not the topic here.
Until you accept the absolute authority of the customer and the need to serve them first and foremost, you may as well give up because lectures and condemnations of the customer won’t work.
Nothing I’ve suggested denies the authority of the customer. In fact, I am expanding the authority of the customer, if they choose to act in a larger context. Lecture? Condemnations? I simply made a case for people to consider. I have some anecdotal evidence some people find the larger context actionable.
GM is not a religion, it’s a company. Americans are not going to tithe for it just because you say so. It’s much easier to create revenues simply by making products that people want, which includes providing enough reasons to trust them that it is worth the expenditure. But rebuilding a reputation can take awhile when the effort to destroy it has been so diligent.
Almost every automotive manufacturer selling in the US market has competitive models among their offerings. No tithing of the Detroit 3 asked for or required. You get a car in exchange for your cash! For anyone who prefers the survival of the Detroit 3 over their destruction, time isn’t friendly and reputation rebuilding exceeds their time horizon. If you want to influence that situation, act accordingly. If you don’t, don’t. It’s up to you.
Phil
Phil,
From a different perspective you posibly have set a pattern for future TTAC editorials – you have taken the time to not only write an editorial, participate in the discussion, and by the nature of the editorial defend your position.
This editorial has shown the depth and width of the chasm that divides Detroit from the generation it lost, and the people it dissapointed.
I would seriously consider a CTS over a 3 Series or a C Class, but an XLR-V over an SL the jury is debating that one.
Would I do an STS/DTS over an S Class, I don’t think so, but a used STS is one hell of a bang for the dollar, oil consumption and all.
Would I get an SLK55 or a Z06, the Z06 in a hearbeat.
Do I want a manual transmission daily driver under the pretext that I need control – not at all, but I do want a manual transmission performance car that is not used as a daily driver.
We are all different, with different opinions, and different perspectives. Its the same with cars, some are very good, others less good, and they all have their own qualities, and issues.
I still have a Detroit product from the late 70’s, with a small block and a 4 speed built on a Friday of all days, with all the shortcomings of the late 70’s Detroit mentality. At the same time its an endearing car, that strangely enough keeps on appreciating.
Phil, your entire premise here is that consumers are doing something *wrong* and that they should change their behavior.
That’s just nuts. That’s not how the world works. That’s not how Toyota got to be #1.
Why is it that almost anyone who posits a case for buying competitive American vehicles is bucketed as a “Detroit fan?”
I’m sorry, but you just don’t see a fairly basic point: The marketplace has already decided that the products are not competitive. That’s why they aren’t buying them! The marketplace is a big economic election in which votes are cast with dollars, and the sales volumes tell you who’s winning and who isn’t.
You may not like it, but I’ve distilled your arguments nicely. In your view, the customer who disagrees with you is dumb or bigoted, who would naturally agree with you if they weren’t dumb or bigoted. Your argument is effectively a form of name-calling, in which anyone who differs with you is treated as a member of the Kar Klux Klan, rather than as an informed, intelligent person who has reached his/her position through a reasonable process.
In the meantime, I find the American car industry arguments to be provincial to their core. I realize that we use terms such as “domestic,” “transplant” and “import” quite freely when discussing cars, but in the modern era, those are terms of convenience that today are actually fairly meaningless.
Automakers are multinational companies with operations throughout the globe, paying taxes to many governments and paying wages in many currencies. More than half of GM’s production is now outside of North America, while the Hondas and Toyotas that sell in the highest volumes in North American are built in the US and Canada, using parts largely made in those two countries.
Get this: Toyota will put more money into the US federal treasury this year than will GM, because Toyota is paying taxes on US profits, while GM has losses aplenty and therefore owes no taxes. (It’s nice to think that I will pay more income tax this year than will General Motors!) GM is busy shuttering plants, while Toyota is expanding production and employing more Americans. If high quality products, employment and tax revenues are considered to be vital tools of the American machine, I’d say that there’s a lot more patriotism coming out of Georgetown than Detroit.
In all fairness to the Domestic makers in this debate I think we need to deal with the history of the US auto industry and compare it to those of the European and Japanese auto industries to understand why the domestics are in the position they are in today.
The US auto industry as we know it today was built up on the premise of making cars for EVERYONE. This is the land of the ModelT. Our auto industry was designed to make autombiles affordable for everyone in America. GM, Ford, and Chysler, were designed and built up around the idea of; make it cheap, make it fast, and make a whole lot of it!
The European auto industry thrived on making speciality cars for a market were the automobile has always been a expensive propostion for the majority of the population. The majority of the Euro brands we lust for today all began as high-end makers; MB, BMW, Jag, Auto Union. etc. The other popular makers began as niche makers serving much smaller markets, think Saab and Volvo.
The Japanese industry thrived on building cars for the export market or shall we say their main focus has always been to satify the needs of other markets mainly the USA. It was in large part due to the success of their exports that the Japanese became wealthy enough to support a true domestic auto industry of their own.
So Today we have the domestic mass-production bohemoths trying to build “special” cars using the same ole, “make it cheap, make it fast, make a lot of it” model that is failing badly today. The devil is in the details.
The high-end european makers are all still here doing what they do best, selling expensive speciality cars. Note: all of the rank and file european makers (Fiat, Citroen, Peguoet)are gone from this market or in very bad shape. VW looks like it could be next to return home.
The Japanese are doing what they have spent the last 50 years learning how to do. Spliting the difference between the American and European makers. Combining the best of what it has learned from both camps into the winning formula that we see today.
The irony is that the Japanese makers seem to understand American culture in a way that Detroit has forgotten. Americans like a bargin but we also expect VALUE for our money. There was once a time when “made in China, Hong Kong, or Japan” meant “cheap” or inferior. Those Asian have spent the last 30 years disspelling that idea from the mind of the US consumer. They seem to understand that if something looks and feels cheap most Americans want no parts of it, including cars.
Honda and Toyota have make a huge mistake for the domestics to recapture their market share.
In addtion, is not only the car it is also the dealer service, and after sales service that goes into car ownership.
BTW, for all you Ford people why is ok to bash the Japanese when your beloved EGDE/MKX and Fusion is based of a Mazda platforms?
The EDGE hybrid uses Toyota technology. Fusion is assembled in Mexico. Not to mention the many foreign based suppliers that support Ford.
I totally disagree with this editorial. If the domestic auto industry would have put their customers first over fat profits, they would have never lost market share. A smart consumer sticks with brands that offer quality and reliability for their hard earned dollar. If I am happy with my (American built) Nissans, why would I change brands? I am one of many hard working consumers that had multiple poor experiences with domestics and their horrible dealerships. Every sensible nerve in my body cant allow me to take another chance with a domestic car based on those experiences. The same goes for ANY brand – Foreign or domestic (German included). The big 2.8 have had since the 70’s to get their act together and ONCE AGAIN are crying to give them another chance. Even if your quality has statistically improved, I still wont buy. Sorry fellas, It’s just too late now. Fool me once…
Honestly, I think that the American brands are starting to improve little by little. I think the Germans are languishing more than the Americans are this point in quality improvement (except maybe the vw gti). There are a few problems though. As stated earlier, the article spotlights premium brands where cache does make a difference, but that isn’t the only problem. Cache comes and goes, but loyalty is what keeps steady sales. At the moment, Detroit has very little of both.
In the larger scheme, Detroit’s gems are buried in a sea of mistakes and only the most dedicated of autophiles is willing to sort out the differences. If I walk into a honda dealership right now, I don’t know if there is a vehicle that I will regret purchasing on the “everyday” factors that most people look for. I can’t say that about any 2.8 dealership. This is a major cost to most every person that walks into a delaership and a safe choice is a highly valued one.
Secondly, detroit would be smart to slash MSRPs rather than incentivizing the cars. That way a Toyota buyer can browse the internet and see the price differences. Otherwise, buyers crossing over from another brand are looking at two cars that are more similarly priced than in reality and excluding on that criteria.
This stigma does not only hold true to Detroit, I am car shoping in the next year and still have trouble looking at a GTI (though it would be my ideal car) simply due to past vw reliability woes and dealership mentality. And on a personal note, there is little in detroit that really interests me. Chryslers are ugly if you want something smaller than a yacht, GM is still full or garbage, and Ford is handicapping itself with its own subsidiaries. Other than a couple of opelized saturns, GM has not impressed me. If the Astra can give the mazda 3 a run for its money (maybe a 170-180 hp version), than they may have a customer. Ford will isn’t worth a look to me as Mazda is the same cars done better. However, If they bring some Ford Europe cars here, they may get my money. For now, there is nothing that detroit offers that seems a good a combination of factors as an impreza, mazda 3, or civic.
Wow! That’s a lot of comments. I didn’t even read a tenth of them; so, I hope I am not just restating what has already been said time after time. I have owned two domestic daily drivers and four japanese built daily drivers. In addition, until purchasing a new 2003 Toyota Corolla, my mom owned only domestic autos. Based on what my mom went through with her cars and the very poor excuse for a vehicle that my Saturn Vue was, I have written off US cars for the time being. Not one of the US built vehicles was good and only one was acceptable. Call me bigoted, biased, or a snob, but the US car manufacturers have earned their reputation with me. Only superb design and a warrantee that takes away the risk in owning a US vehicle will get me to come back. At this point the US auto makers offer neither.
By the way, I don’t hold German cars in high esteem either. I’d rank them below US cars for reliability, and on a par or maybe slightly higher for styling. They’ve got more styling hits, but also some real misses, IMO.
Well, as long as we are going on anectdotal evidence…
I’ve owned three cars. My first was my first car an 02 Rav4. My second was a E46 BMW 325i, and I am curently on my thrid, a Mazdaspeed3.
The Rav4 had a good share of problems on it. The alarm would be activated by any other key fob, including my girlfriend at the time’s Ford Sport Trac key fob, or my best friend’s Acura key fob. This would leave me stranded many a time as the car would basically lock down, and my own alarm key fob (It was a factory installed alarm from Toyota) wouldn’t be able to disarm it. We had to have the alternator replaced twice under warrenty. Milage was so so. Interior sucked. Service team at the dealership…meh, they were ok.
BMW was perfect. Beyond burning out a tail light fuse and the oil pan issue (not BMW’s fault), I never had any repairs done, and only had it in the shop for scheduled maitenance. Physically it was another story, but again, that was the fault of a deer, not BMW. Went through brakes fast, but I drove the piss out of that car. Track raced it plenty, and it still held up just fine and dandy. Interior had some more wear than I would have liked…but four years of being a college student’s car, it was expected. Put 65k on the clock in the first three years. Service drive at the dealership was outstanding, so much so that I went to work for them for a year.
Mazdaspeed is the new one, only has five hundred miles on it (by me), and too soon to tell.
While we’re still here…my parents have had equally luck with all brands. Mom owned a first year ML430, not a problem. Went to a C320, post merger, only problem thus far (beyond shceduled maitenence), was a fuse refusing to turn off in the seat, sucking the battery dry. Before the ML, she had an Explorer. Mechanically fine, nothing major in the way or repairs, but the service team at the Ford Dealeship was piss poor. Now she is driving a CX-9, and again, too soon to give a real review over reliability/service/etc.
Dad had a Buick as a company car for a while, and he liked it. Never had a problem with it. Then an S600, which I learned to drive on. I miss that car, but it was just getting to much up their in years, and expected problems on a high miliage car like that was starting to get pricey…that and the repair bills post warrenty were in German. So he went to an E320, post merger. Again, no problems. Parents have a great relationship with their service advisor at the Benz dealership, so no problems there. We got rid of that in trade to get my mom the CX-9, and now my dad drives the C320. However, he really wants a new car, and is curently torn between a Caddy STS and a Mercedes E, though I’m pushing him for the C350. However, he just needs something a bit bigger. My rents have owned plenty of other cars than those mentioned, but I was to young at the time to really have any remembrence of them. I know it included an Audi wagon and a Volvo wagon, which to my knowledge, we never had any major problems with.
Oddly…the Toyota was the worst car we’ve owned as of yet. Not a single problem from anything else.
The intensity of emotion in commentary in this thread is fascinating, which is different from surprising. Reaction ranges from AGR’s understanding of my essential message, to Pch101’s vituperative hostility to any part of it, and a wide range of personal reactions in between those extremes. Another day in the blogosphere.
However, many positions taken openly misrepresent my thinking. It may be that in 2007, even 800 word articles are too long for readers to holistically assimilate all the ideas organized around a topic, or it could be my writing.
To review, my text advances a few simple propositions: a/ unwillingness to consider or buy a car you like because you can’t face explaining it to your peers is a pathetic reason to be part of flushing the US auto industry and it’s also a consumer dysfunction; b/ quality and reliability differences have narrowed to the point of secondary criteria in choosing a new car; c/ if trust lags product reality, Americans have good, self-interested reasons to evaluate and trust competitive domestic models now, rather than waiting; d/ existential threats to the Detroit 3 make all hand-wringing moot if you care about their survival; e/ consumers have the power to buy time for these companies to complete their reform.
After my many point-by-point rejoinders to the many challengers here, I’ll try to roll-up the major, distinct, salient points of distortion and opposition and address them:
1/ “This started because of a conversation between two owners of hundred-thousand-dollar cars. What does that have to do with the mass market where Detroit has zip?”
In fact, I could have written this after being spurred by similar anecdotes any time since roughly 1982, when I drove cars in mainstream price ranges. I also have heard similar sentiments from people who have sought my advice on new car purchases. The SL/XLR-V conversation was simply a vivid, real-world opening for the topic. In trucks, SUVs, mainstream 4-door sedans and luxury cars, competitive Detroit 3 vehicles are on the field. Detroit is weak or absent on compacts and premium small cars.
2/ “It’s rude and unfair to call me an import bigot.”
I didn’t call YOU an import bigot. I think there is such a group of car-buyers. I have no idea whether YOU the individual reader is among them. You might have solid reasons for refusing to enter a Detroit 3 showroom to seriously consider their best cars. Or your reasons might not be convincing. The article is billed as an editorial. Editorials point at something in the world and say, “I want more of that; or I want less of that; or, We need to dump X and build Y instead.” Is the vehemence of defense in favor of import purchasing fueled by guilt or anger? I can’t tell.
3/ “Consumers have no responsibility or obligation here. If the Detroit 3 are to survive, it has to be strictly because they leapfrogged the competition and are making the best cars by a wide margin, and even then I’m going to wait for 8 years of reliability data just to be sure.”
For everyone who believes there is no larger social, economic or political context to an automotive purchase than the purchase itself, and who believe that pulling even with the import competition is insufficient for redemption, this is sensible and we have no basis for further discussion. Kiss the Detroit 3 good-bye.
4/ “Markets rule. It’s not my problem; the market is dictating the outcome and it doesn’t look good for Detroit.”
It’s easy to fob off any personal role when the market tide has taken on the look of inevitability. Spare me the simplistic lessons on free market economics. I’m an endorser; I resist regulation and propose nothing of the sort here; you all know fully well that I know how free markets work. You just aren’t thinking broadly enough about the factors that constitute both the “free” and the “markets” in free markets. The consumer has the freedom to define what’s meaningful to him or her for winning purchase dollars. Consumer can factor in or factor out whatever is important to them. Plastics, for example, can be made disproportionately important or diminished as an influence. The consumer has the free will to say “This Honda and this Saturn, or that Toyota and that Ford are just different interpretations of the same thing. I don’t want to be one of those people who won’t buy a competitive product from Americans.” For each consumer, the market criteria for success are what they say they are.
5/ “Patriotism isn’t a reason to buy shoddy products.” Or the variant: “Why are you trying to make me feel guilty and unpatriotic for buying an import car?”
Nowhere…NOWHERE in anything I’ve written have I tied this issue to patriotism. There are no patriotic references whatsoever. Moreover, nowhere have I suggested buying shoddy product. I have repeatedly emphasized the case for shopping and buying strictly *competitive* automotive products from the Detroit 3, if you live and work in the United States. As for guilt, it’s not my objective. I’m just holding up a mirror. What you see is between you and the mirror. Nevertheless, I agree: patriotism is no reason to buy shoddy products.
6/ “You think consumers who aren’t buying American are wrong. There’s no such thing as a consumer being wrong. Consumers can do whatever they want.”
In fact, I don’t think consumers who buy imports are wrong. I think there is a subset of import buyers who restrict their consideration to brands determined by social acceptance, hearsay and reflexive mimicry. There are also many consumers who just aren’t aware of or inclined to consider the larger context of their decision. Absolutely, consumers can do what they want.
7/ “You think people who don’t agree with you are stupid.”
There’s no correlation between intelligence and anyone’s position vis-a-vis my text. More to the point, I’ve not at any time suggested there is one. If anything, the most blatant blind brand buyers who disregard any larger context are among the intelligentsia. They might have good reasons. They *might* also be unaware, callous, narrow-minded, elitist or generally disconnected from their fellow citizens, but I don’t think they are stupid.
8/ “If Detroit hadn’t churned out so many sub-standard vehicles for three decades and alienated so many customers, they wouldn’t be in this mess.”
Absolutely true, and I’ve been disgusted too. But they did, many or most of the people responsible are gone, they are reforming and shipping many competitive products, and now time is short because cash is scant. Forget the fantasy world of consumers insulated from the consequences of their actions. What are you going to do — hold a grudge and let these companies die, or kick in some objectivity and seriously consider what they have now?
9/ “I have the right to buy any car I want for whatever reasons I choose. Who are you to interfere with that right?”
Yup, you’re foursquare correct. But I haven’t challenged that right. I’m suggesting reasons for a class of import vehicle buyers to reconsider their criteria for new car selection. No one’s rights are violated or restricted in any way.
10/ “Detroit doesn’t make anything I want to buy;” or it’s variant: “I want a small car; who would buy a Cobalt or an Aveo over a Honda?”
There is continued weakness in the Detroit 3 small car offerings, though obviously for some, an Aveo or Cobalt at the right price is worth buying. My focus is on the meat of the market, where competitive family sedans, trucks, SUVs, CUVs exist and the numbers are large enough to find a million import sales to convert.
11/ “If you only knew the trouble I had with my GM, Ford or Chrysler car, you wouldn’t buy from them either.”
I’m sorry for your trouble. You can nurse your grudge, or you can contemplate the US without the Detroit 3. If you don’t care about the latter, nurse your grudge. If you do care about the latter, put your grudge aside and buy something from them that is competitive. DON’T buy their crap.
12/ “The Detroit 3 are multi-national companies. Domestics, imports, transplants are meaningless distinctions.”
This is incorrect. The domestic companies have the most economic leverage for Americans, and their employment ranks include HQ. Transplants are better than nothing but their economic leverage is about one-third less than the domestics. And yes, that Mexican-built Fusion has leverage, due to NAFTA and the social benefits of reduced immigration pressure created by employing Mexicans. Plus, the profits come back to Dearborn.
I want a mixed, open market but I also want a domestically-owned automotive manufacturing industry of scale. I believe that consumer objectivity directed to competitive domestic offerings has a role in ensuring both an open market and a scalable domestic industry thrive.
The dead simple reality if this: The Detroit 3 are threatened with extinction. They have an increasing number of products worth considering and buying. Consumers can pull them back from the brink right now, this year, next year, in 2009 and beyond. Do you want to be part of ensuring the recovery of the Detroit 3 or not? It’s a simple question. If your answer is no, that’s your prerogative. None of your freedom has been curtailed. If your answer is yes, then put competitive domestic vehicles on your short list, try them, recommend them, buy them if you’re convinced.
Phil
The intensity of emotion in commentary in this thread is fascinating
I find that indictment odd, in light of your ongoing comments here. You toss about pejoratives such as “bigot” like they’re going out of style, yet then have the gall to accuse of others of a lack of logic? Sweet irony, indeed.
Your entire premise is based upon an illogical conclusion, namely that the consumer must change for the enterprise. How can that possibly be a logical proposition in even the most remote sense? It’s mere folly for any rational person to expect 290 million people to change their product preferences just because you want them to.
Your cybertantrum misses some fundamental realities of a free market economy. Again, why don’t you put your aptitude to constructing some viable, realistic means of making the product offerings appealing enough to win over the marketplace?
I can’t think of a single business, in any industry that ever made a penny, a pence or a shekel by blaming the always-right customer. Not a single one. If one thing should be painfully clear to everyone, it’s that Toyota isn’t rising the top by playing the blame game.
This editorial for the most part just pisses me off but I have to agree with Phil about the bandwagon shopping.
I do find that a high number of American consumers just jump onto the latest hot trend and buy it regadless of how great the product is. Not just cars practially everything in the marketplace. I will never understand this thinking but I see it all the time. Now probably no one who reads this site fits into this but we don’t represent the typical American consumer. Not to be rude but there area a lot of mindless shoppers out there, buying everthing from toasters to cars to houses that way.
Not to be rude but there area a lot of mindless shoppers out there, buying everthing from toasters to cars to houses that way.
I don’t believe that to necessarily be true, but even if I did, it wouldn’t matter.
The point is that the customer should get what the customer wants. If American car buyers want purple fuzzy dice welded to their rear-view mirrors, give it to them. If they decide that purple paint jobs with pink stripes are required, then give it to them. If they want stereos that are iPod-compatible and can pick up alien transmissions from outer space, give it to them. (Just wish you luck in finding the aliens — you may have to build them in as standard equipment.)
The consumer has tastes, and calls the shots when it comes to selecting products. GM should know this, being that it and Proctor and Gamble are the founding fathers of modern marketing and branding, so it’s particularly ironic that it does not seem able today to comprehend basic branding practices that it helped to invent.
It’s very simple — give the customer what s/he demands, and you’ll stay with the market. Anticipate what they want before they know they want it, and you’ll own the market.
This editorial is all about blaming the customer, an effort that only makes sense if the goal is to lose business. Any advice built on the premise that the consumer has inappropriate tastes is a lost argument before it has even started.
I wasn’t arguing with you about the customer always being right. I don’t always agree with that fact but it is true. My point was that sometimes that WANT is to be just like the person standing to there left or right. They want acceptance for their purchase by their peers. I think this may have been where Phil’s editorial was headed but came across as someone trying to convince people buy domestic to save a failing industry.
In Europe, the manufacturers can easily move the manufacturing to the eastern countries, in fact, that’s what happening right now. The wages are 15%-25% of the Western Europe level. In some countries they even understand German already. In USA, moving the major industries to the south is not so easy, right? Maybe you have to dig where you stand and make the old factories really competitive? I don’t see why not America once again could make the world’s best cars.
This editorial is all about blaming the customer, an effort that only makes sense if the goal is to lose business. Any advice built on the premise that the consumer has inappropriate tastes is a lost argument before it has even started.
This is plainly false. I wrote that there are 360 degrees of blame for the plight of the Detroit 3, and a component rests with the consumer; specifically a certain consumer. No content with my name on it is “all about blaming the customer.” The text is not advice to carmakers for how to fix their businesses. It does not remotely suggest to them that they should rely on consumers considering the larger social and economic context of their purchase. It is a direct appeal to individuals who might care (or be persuaded to care) about ensuring that the Detroit 3 get the time and cash to complete their reformation, to see their self-interest in abandoning prejudice against domestic cars & trucks and instead objectively evaluate them and buy the models that are competitively deserving.
Purchasing power in the consumer’s hands is a shaper of the society they want. If people choose to use it to achieve or influence purposes beyond the product, that’s a free market force too, and equally legitimate.
Phil
…They want acceptance for their purchase by their peers. I think this may have been where Phil’s editorial was headed but came across as someone trying to convince people buy domestic to save a failing industry.
As with anything submitted to a publication, it goes through an edit. The original text had more nuance and Robert’s edits made me sound more like Jerry Flint, which was probably the right call on his part for reader engagement on the web.
My original title for the editorial was “One Million More.” Keeping that might have better framed readers’ understanding of the intent of the article. However, I don’t think Robert’s edits did anything to cloud my message; he made it more readable. Also, at 191 responses so far, his minor reshaping of the text escalated reader engagement, which is his business. Robert did give me a chance to contest his edit and I declined to in the interest of getting it out. In retrospect, I probably should have pressed to keep the original title, because while “In Defense of: American Automakers” is surely more provocative, it does change the psychology of the reader’s inference. I did not write this to defend the Detroit 3. Attacking them, or prescribing remedial actions, are subjects for different editorials. I deal with the facts, and the facts of the matter are that these companies are on the brink, and it is within the power of consumers who care about keeping them to pull them back. It’s easy to see who’s against me on this simple proposition of dropping bias, abandoning peer approval, instead using purchasing power to shape the country you live in. My interest is to see whether I can add some folks to those who are with me. Specifically, since goals are good to aim for, one million more. I am immune to majority opposition, in case anyone pulls that card again.
Phil
Phil Ressler: “Purchasing power in the consumer’s hands is a shaper of the society they want. If people choose to use it to achieve or influence purposes beyond the product, that’s a free market force too, and equally legitimate.”
I’ve been watching this thread almost since its inception and I think Phil’s point has been unchanging and is perfectly captured in this statement.
All of us vote with our wallets; it is not simply a decision to buy one product over another based upon our own immediate gratification, but has more far-reaching effects than on us alone. I buy a pair of shoes and I am employing an Indonesian child, or an Italian laborer, or a Chinese woman; I may not know the specifics by looking at the country of manufacture, but I can learn to make intelligent guesses. And there is nothing “wrong” with supporting manufacturing in China if you believe that is furthering the causes you believe in. But the idea that buying a car, a sofa, a toaster has no impact beyond what I and my neighbors “think” about my purchase is so shallow as to be beneath contempt.
Although I have tried to be fair in my automobile purchases and try out what Detroit is offering, the ranking of American companies nearly always suffers in my mind because these companies frequently do not operate with the long term interest of society, or the company itself, in mind. I am aware that there are thousands of dedicated workers, union and non, who toil for GM, Ford and Chrysler, and my heart goes out to them when I decide to buy an automobile made by a non-American company. At the same time, I feel they have also voted by continuing to work for companies whose principles do not include watching for the best interests of their employees.
Nonetheless, I think Phil’s point is succinct. Please don’t make your car decision solely because of the 1978 Cordoba (or Ford, or Toyota, or Chevy) that rusted through in 18 months. Please don’t make your decision based upon what your neighbors will think. I think Phil is simply saying that you should make your decisions based upon facts, as many as you can gather and these are frequently different today from past experiences or the thinking of your neighbors.
And thanks to all for a most entertaining and enlightening discussion!
This is a well-written and persuasive editorial, but the opening paragraph using the XLR-V as an example sums up the Big 2.8’s problem brilliantly–if unintentionally.
Detroit still thinks that if you make a few good products—fast, shiny, high-profile ones, like the Viper, ‘Vette, Shelby GT500, and aforementioned Caddy—and dangle them in front of consumers’ eyes, that they’ll fool themselves into feeling a little bit of that magic every time they plop into their beancounted, plastic-hubcapped Sebring or Impala LS.
Detroit’s whiny, arrogant corporate communications suggest that, in their insular culture, they still expect there to be something of a “gentlemen’s agreement” that none of them have to put too much effort into their mainstream cars, and that if they let the latter-day ‘Vette’s, ‘Cudas, and Shelbys duke it out for consumer’s hearts and minds, everyone will end up with a more-or-less even share of the pie. To me, their testy attitude says that, at heart, they’re not interested in being better than the transplants; they’re sore at them for “not playing the game fair.”
And now, in the last few years, they’ve grown (a little) from just blaming the Japanese to blaming consumers. Now it’s a “perception gap” that’s screwing up the system. The next step is for Detroit to finally blame itself—not just as scattered individuals, as numerous engineers and product planners within these organizations are doubtless keenly aware of the problem—but with exec-driven, top-down culture change.
Detroit had to do a crapload of wrong to lose so much of the market, and they’re going to have to build a crapload of demonstrably best-in-class vehicles—not just in the odd Initial Quality survey or “Plant of the Year award,” but in every measurable aspect—to win them back. So far, Detroit is still only willing to build competitive products and whine, “jeezus, look, this thing’s as good as the Japanese car, and WE made it! Us, the DEFAULT choice, your PALS!” Sorry, guys, that’s not how a free market works. If someone bought a trouble-prone, value-shedding Oldsmobile in 1995 and it made them feel dumb, and then they bought a trouble-free Camry and it made them feel smart, who do you think they’re defaulting to next time?
Yes, the gap between Detroit’s products and the best transplants is narrower than ever. And yes, there are certainly areas where Detroit still rules (large trucks, high-value supercars). That’s precisely why “pointless” traits like interior materials and design are so important: that’s the stuff that makes the difference between best- and worst-in-class in a market as competitive as today’s.
As to rallying consumers to buy American in support of a higher purpose (keeping the Big 3, and thus part of our economy, healthy), I don’t expect how consumers should be expected to react to this any differently than they would react to higher proposed taxes. Salience is key. Yeah, GM might be in better shape 20 years down the road if you buy a Malibu instead of a Camry. But come trade-in time, you’ll be out thousands of dollars with the former’s poor depreciation. Dollars that could’ve sent your kids to college, or you and your wife on vacation, or your parents on a second honeymoon. Good luck selling that angle.
From Wikipedia: “A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.”
Calling a person who doesn’t consider domestic cars when making a vehicle purchase an “import bigot” remains highly offensive. If you want to describe such a person as a loyal Toyota, Honda or Nissan customer, that is fine and is not offensive.
If fact, you could say the original article more closely demonstrates the definition of bigotry than does the fact that some people don’t shop domestic brands cars. Is the person who doesn’t consider buying an Asian brand a domestic bigot? If the phrase is good for the goose, how about for the gander?
The most persuasive arguments do not resort to name calling to make their point.
I wrote that there are 360 degrees of blame for the plight of the Detroit 3, and a component rests with the consumer
Mr. Ressler, you continue to miss the point entirely.
The consumer has ZERO responsibility. Not even a fraction of one percent. None, zero, nada, zilch, null. 0.00000%
Businesses are supposed to please the customer. Period. That’s it, end of story, that’s all she wrote. Unless protected by monopoly power, businesses that fail to understand this basic reality will fail, it’s just a matter of time.
The reason that Detroit is failing is because its management teams agree with you. The greatest favor they could do for themselves is to cease and desist in agreeing with you, and to get on with the business of pleasing their customers. Because their customers, no matter how schooled or unschooled they may be in things automotive, are always, perpetually and forever right.
I hate to be a broken record, but you are prescribing a path to failure. It is not up to America to change for GM, but for GM to change for America. If GM doesn’t want to change, then wave goodbye to it, because it’s going to become a page in the history books.
Phil, you stated your case well. There are a lot of “import bigots” out there, in the sense that many people have taken “American” cars off their list for good reason or bad, and will no longer even consider them. It’s at the point I fear Detroit may have passed the tipping point.
Early this year my daughter needed a better car. I mentioned several mid-size models to look at, including Malibu. “Malibu? Malibu??!!” she gasped. “That’s a BUREAUCRAT car!!” Now she’s happily driving an Altima.
This editorial and comments is like the “battery bunny” it keeps on going and going….and going.
If anyone needed proof that vehicles are an emotional purchase, and create an emotional bond this thread is the proof.
Wagoner, Lutz, Mullaly, Ford, Nardelli, Press, LaSorda should be sent a complementary copy of this editorial and discussion thread. Please e-mail all these guys a link.
Has anyone read “The United States of Toyota”?
One of the assumptions underlying this editorial is that there are plenty of Detroit vehicles that are competitive with foreign makes. So let’s put meat on the bones. Putting aside questions of reliability (and depreciation), how many cars (including CUVs, but not trucks or SUVs) does anyone think are competitive with foreign manufacturers??? How many competitive cars does Chrysler have? The 300 which is getting long in the tooth? How about Ford? The Fusion, perhaps the Edge? What else? And GM aside from the Vette, CTS, and G8?
jthorner:
From Wikipedia: “A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.”
Calling a person who doesn’t consider domestic cars when making a vehicle purchase an “import bigot” remains highly offensive. If you want to describe such a person as a loyal Toyota, Honda or Nissan customer, that is fine and is not offensive.
If fact, you could say the original article more closely demonstrates the definition of bigotry than does the fact that some people don’t shop domestic brands cars. Is the person who doesn’t consider buying an Asian brand a domestic bigot? If the phrase is good for the goose, how about for the gander?
The most persuasive arguments do not resort to name calling to make their point.
There is a difference between a merely “loyal Toyota….customer” and someone who refuses to consider a Detroit 3 vehicle regardless of its merits. I used “bigot” denotatively and you are hearing it connotatively. I’m sorry if you’re offended for that reason. The comment stands. It isn’t name-calling. And for the record, I have considered Asian as well as European cars, driven them as part of my car purchase evaluation phases, and chose not to buy them, except once in the late 1980s.
I’m not a domestic vehicle bigot. I routinely research, consider and evaluate imported cars when I am in a buy cycle, and have given them ample chance to give me compelling reason to pull trigger. Personally, at a pure product level, the appeal of Toyota vehicles is completely lost on me. This includes Lexus. The appeal of mainstream Hondas is only a little less remote. The S2000 is a great roadster, however, but I don’t fit in it. Mazda makes interesting vehicles, but the flexing in the floorpan that I could feel through my feet undermined my enthusiasm for them. Suzukis are impressively bulletproof, but they don’t make anything that I need. The Koreans haven’t evolved their carmaking capability far enough yet to cross my threshold, but I’m watching.
Mercedes is badly misguided in their penchant for bloating everything they make, and it is a socially damaged brand in my view. You have to consider where I live to understand that. BMW makes excellent cars in terms of driving dynamics, but are relatively poor on space utilization, and their reliability relative to expense is discouraging. The dealerships are unbelieveably arrogant. Everyone I know who owns one has an endless list of niggles. Further, I am not sure I want to do business with a company that is so arrogant as to begin shipping cars without oil dipsticks. Phhhht.
I don’t fit in 911s very well nor at all in Boxster/Cayman, so Porsche is out and anyway, there are superior and more reliable Corvettes. Audi? Also on the bloat wagon. A 4400 lbs. aluminum sedan alleged to be lightweight slays me. Jag? Almost love them but why can’t they build a car with headroom without making me crank the seat all the way to the floor for an unnatural driving position? Aston? That beautiful V8 Vantage is slower than my XLR-V. I haven’t financially graduated to a Ferrari yet.
On the other hand, I will sometime buy a Maserati. Maybe even will own a Quattroporte and a Coupe, but not at the same time. I even have dealer/service in my neighborhood. Ferrari-derived V8, true luxury interior unlike the German poseurs. Fully sorted chassis. Drop-dead visual drama.
American cars? Well, they’ve been unfailingly reliable for me, and if you drive them into the high miles, the depreciation is a moot point. Get the right ones, and they’re getting their drama back. Wherever I drive them, there’s service available if I ever need it. I’ve been able to meet or exceed EPA mileage on every American car I’ve owned. I’ve never been stranded in an American car. The one road failure I had (head gasket failure on a 1984 AMC Jeep CJ in 1985) occurred coasting distance from a dealer. I drifted right in, steaming tailpipe and all. I’ve never been treated badly by a dealer. Service has been well-executed. They’ve chased me down for even the most frivolous recalls. Every American engine I’ve driven over 100,000 miles had 99%+ of its original compression on all cylinders when I sold the car it powered. Brakes on all my Fords needed no service until 70,000 miles. This is how it’s been for me for over 20 years of mixed import/domestic buying. No import car I’ve owned or that has seen service in my extended family and friends has matched the quality record of any or all of my Detroit 3 vehicles.
I love the Cadillac STS-V. It fits me, and it’s super-competent for its size. The CTS-V is engaging with lots of personality. The Corvette is a sensational sports car in its various forms and American’s fit in it. The new CTS is superb. A Shelby GT500 has its liabilities, but it sure doesn’t lack fun. OK, they’re the esoterics. Truly, torque-steer and all, I’d take a current Impala SS over a front-drive Toyota (hold the wailing, please). At least it has some engagement and personality, and it’s far from my favorite American 4 door. The Fusion is excellent. The Poncho G8 should be heroic. The Escape Hybrid is supremely useful. The 500/Taurus hauls full-size Americans comfortably. The Lincoln AWD cars aren’t full luxury vehicles but they are well-done cars if you don’t think of them as Lincolns. Ford and GM trucks are excellent tools. Mustangs have a deep and wide aftermarket for people who like to customize.
And yet, still, when I shop for cars, I consider, drive, evaluate everything credible in the class no matter where it was made. When I think it’s important, I factor in the larger social context to use my purchasing power for influence to my preferences.
Phil
The consumer has ZERO responsibility. Not even a fraction of one percent. None, zero, nada, zilch, null. 0.00000%…..The reason that Detroit is failing is because its management teams agree with you. The greatest favor they could do for themselves is to cease and desist in agreeing with you, and to get on with the business of pleasing their customers. Because their customers, no matter how schooled or unschooled they may be in things automotive, are always, perpetually and forever right.
I hate to be a broken record, but you are prescribing a path to failure. It is not up to America to change for GM, but for GM to change for America. If GM doesn’t want to change, then wave goodbye to it, because it’s going to become a page in the history books.
Uh…no. I didn’t miss the point. I simply don’t agree with you for reasons already amply stated, and you persistently misrepresent the scope of what I am advocating.
Phil
you persistently misrepresent the scope of what I am advocating.
With all due respect, I’m articulating your notions with all too much precision. They just don’t sound very nice when articulated in a more pointed fashion.
I simply don’t agree with you
There is nothing that I’ve said to disagree with here.
You simply don’t get it. What is meant by the notion that the “customer is always right” is that the customer has the right to choose where he spends his money. Whether his choices are wise or foolish, the winning company will fulfill the choices made by that consumer.
This is not debatable, this is a fact as clear as the law of gravity. Consumers have those choices, they are inherent to the free market system. Those businesses that ignore those choices will pay the price with lower sales and financial losses, just as have your beloved Detroit automakers.
Your original op-ed betrays the arrogance and tunnelvision of your position. You pooh-pooh consumer wants such as interior quality, as if General Motors has a right to decide for the consumer what is supposed want or not want. It’s the consumer’s dollar, and s/he is already doing whatever he wants with it.
Your favored automakers need to adapt or die. The consumer clearly doesn’t believe that the products are competitive, otherwise they’d be lined up out the door to buy them. Actions speak louder than words, and the money paid to the non-Detroit companies is proof of the lack of competitiveness. “Competitiveness” is ultimately determined by the consumer, not by either the manufacturer or one of its defenders.
Right on Phil! We had a Toyota Paseo for 12 years and maintenance was nothing but oil, tires, timing belts and water pumps. Still, when it came time to replace it nothing in the Toyota/Honda product lines excited me. We bought an Infiniti and it’s been great but it still feels a little flimsy in some places. So did my recently traded Mazda 6. I know that the G35 will last a long time, though.
In my first post in this thread I explained the buying process when I bought our new Volvo this past June. While I felt I was getting the runaround from my local Caddy dealer, when I visited the Volvo store they tossed me the keys to virtually any vehicle I wanted to test and said “it has plenty of gas in the tank, have fun…” There was no salesman riding shotgun asking me about my favorite ball team (Mets..don’t ask). I don’t imagine that happening at the local Dodge boys outlet anytime soon. I wrote that I considered a Magnum but was unable to check dealer stock online. Just because my local store isn’t a “5-star” dealer why should I be punished? Oh well, maybe next time! That G8 is looking good to me. Maybe when the G35 is all used up…
BTW, since I just bought a Volvo…quality/reliability concerns are obviously not a factor in my purchasing decision ;) When I was looking at XC90s one of the cars on the lot had one leather (vinyl?) and one cloth panel on the driver/passenger door. Still, I took a leap of faith and bought one anyway. It’s been great so far, no regrets. Solid as a tank.
Pch101,
For the past 10 days the crescendo of price disparity between Canada and the US has reached heightened levels, fueled by increased media attention, and comments by a variety of pundits.
Especially for hi line vehicles the Canadian consumer is comparing Canadian prices with US prices, and as is usually the case tries to negotiate in attempting to match prices.
Although its encouraging to see consumers empower themselves, and vote with their wallets, for some reason a Canadian price adjusted for the reality of US prices….is still too high.
Two days ago a consumer looked at a used vehicle that was price adjusted to compete with the new reality of US prices, the vehicle is still too much money – identical prices but its too much money.
For some mysterious reason today the price made more sense to the same consumer, he must have done additional due diligence, and realised that he was making unfounded statements.
I love the Cadillac STS-V… The CTS-V is engaging with lots of personality. The Corvette is a sensational sports car in its various forms and American’s fit in it. The new CTS is superb. A Shelby GT500 has its liabilities, but it sure doesn’t lack fun. OK, they’re the esoterics. Truly, torque-steer and all, I’d take a current Impala SS over a front-drive Toyota… The Fusion is excellent. The Poncho G8 should be heroic. The Fusion [Escape?] Hybrid is supremely useful. The 500/Taurus hauls full-size Americans comfortably. The Lincoln AWD cars aren’t full luxury vehicles but they are well-done cars if you don’t think of them as Lincolns.
Not to beat my former point into the ground, but for the sake of argument, your above post obligingly supports it. You’ve named a small selection of “halo” cars (Impala and Fusion excepted, but then, those aren’t “domestic” cars, being built in Canada and Mexico), suggesting that those few bright spots render the automakers’ entire lineups competitive.
I respectfully suggest that you compare the Big 2.8’s products with their competitors’ the way most consumers do: mass-market model to mass-market model. Aveo vs Fit, Equinox vs RAV4, Cobalt vs Mazda3, Impala vs Avalon, Frontier vs Colorado, and so forth.
It doesn’t do the grocery-store clerk in the Aveo5 much good to assure her that life in your Cadillac XLR-V is gooood, and that if she and her friends “take one for the team” and keep buying the dreck that GM tosses at the low end of the market, then you’ll have an even nicer halo roadster in the future, and she, eventually, can buy a shiny new Cobalt that has caught up with the Civic and Mazda3. Hey, in the meantime, all she has to do is eat a few thousand of her hard-earned dollars in depreciation, right? Right…
For what it’s worth, I also find the “Americans don’t fit in Japanese cars” argument to be a tired and outdated one. Numbers don’t tell the whole story, true, but a quick scan of interior dimensions in Consumer Reports or ConsumerGuide reveals negligible differences between competing models in most cases–at least for the driver–and with no clear correlation to nationality. If you don’t fit in an S2000, you won’t fit in a Sky or Solstice. Likewise, if you fit in a Five Hundred, you also fit in an Avalon.
I can appreciate what you’re saying about the Big 2.8’s low-volume, low-profit star cars, but I can’t understand how you think that that adds up to a strong business case that consumers are responsible for stymying.
Not to beat my former point into the ground, but for the sake of argument, your above post obligingly supports it. You’ve named a small selection of “halo” cars (Impala and Fusion excepted, but then, those aren’t “domestic” cars, being built in Canada and Mexico), suggesting that those few bright spots render the automakers’ entire lineups competitive.
The Impala and Fusion count because they are NAFTA produced, US designed (the Mazda-derived Fusion’s platform is substantially revised by Ford in the US), and the profits return to the US HQ.
I respectfully suggest that you compare the Big 2.8’s products with their competitors’ the way most consumers do: mass-market model to mass-market model. Aveo vs Fit, Equinox vs RAV4, Cobalt vs Mazda3, Impala vs Avalon, Frontier vs Colorado, and so forth.
I’ve already written in a prior response in this thread that Detroit is weak on small cars. Aveo vs. Fit? Fit, but if the price is right someone might choose an Aveo. Better yet, a Focus. Or a used car. Equinox vs. Rav4? The RAV does not impress me. And I’ve seen enough of them oily-side up in road mishaps to steer clear. I’d take the Pontiac Torrent, or better still, an Escape. Frontier vs. Colorado? Neither of them are what they should be. I’d still take an older-platform Ranger over either if I didn’t need a quad-cab.
In the mass market family sedans where there are +/- 700,000 import/transplant units sold in the form of Camry and Accord, closer to a million if you add in Nissan units and Avalon, I am certain at least half of those buyers can be equally satisfied with a Fusion or Taurus depending on size requirements, and in many cases an Impala, Pontiac G6 or a Buick. Nothing on the domestic side is any blander, more numb, or cheapened in execution at any faster rate than Camry is year-over-year. Trucks? There is no compelling reason to choose a Tundra or Titan over an F150, Chevy or GMC. Really get into the build of the Toyota, and it’s more the other way around. Even more so with the Titan. The Tundra is all surface and one decent gas-sucking engine. A lot of BMW and Mercedes reflexive brand buyers — including those who don’t know they have a rear-wheel drive car — could be very happy with a Cadillac CTS, SRX or STS. A one million unit shift could be easily cobbled together from a share of competitive mainstream vehicles to stabilize the situation in the Detroit 3. I’m not in favor of tanking the import market. We want an open, richly diverse, market. That grocery clerk you refer to still gets her car, and so do a lot of other people.
The XLR-V/SL incident was an anecdote for opening the discussion. The same sentiments apply to the mainstream and I’ve heard them first-hand.
For the record, I didn’t say Americans don’t fit in any Japanese cars. But personally the Taurus seems to me to have more useful interior space than Avalon. It’s true, I don’t fit in a Sky or Solstice either. I was complimenting Honda’s excellent S2000, which I unfortunately can’t consider. Others can. I fit in Corvettes.
Phil
With all due respect, I’m articulating your notions with all too much precision. They just don’t sound very nice when articulated in a more pointed fashion.
You’re giving yourself too much credit. You are misrepresenting my commentary and stripping nuance from the ideas. It’s a common technique in dogma.
There is nothing that I’ve said to disagree with here.
There’s always something liable to disagreement.
What is meant by the notion that the “customer is always right” is that the customer has the right to choose where he spends his money.
One of my points, exactly. He can reject social momentum and fetishist nervosa about plastics to spend that money with one of the Detroit 3, for the vehicle’s advantages and the added social context.
Whether his choices are wise or foolish, the winning company will fulfill the choices made by that consumer.
Nevertheless, the consumer can change the criteria for selection at will, including expand them.
This is not debatable, this is a fact as clear as the law of gravity. Consumers have those choices, they are inherent to the free market system. Those businesses that ignore those choices will pay the price with lower sales and financial losses, just as have your beloved Detroit automakers.
When one hears “this is not debatable,” one knows the speaker has run out of ideas. Nothing I have suggested interferes with the free market dynamics. Not a thing. Everything I’ve written preserves consumer choice, in fact it depends on it.
Your original op-ed betrays the arrogance and tunnelvision of your position. You pooh-pooh consumer wants such as interior quality, as if General Motors has a right to decide for the consumer what is supposed want or not want. It’s the consumer’s dollar, and s/he is already doing whatever he wants with it.
I don’t pooh-pooh desire for interior quality. I said that the differences aren’t meaningful enough in many cases to incur, against one’s larger self-interest, the damage to the larger social context. That said, the consumer retains the right — the choice — to buy a car on that singular criterion if they wish. Nothing I’ve suggested interferes with that. I also do not transfer any consumer “right” to GM. I plainly do not think many consumers understand the full context of their purchase decisions, however if their attention is turned to doing so, some may change their particular instance of “doing whatever he wants with it.” Whether they do remains completely free will. Criticism isn’t coercion, regulation or any other type of infringement on free market behavior.
Your favored automakers need to adapt or die. The consumer clearly doesn’t believe that the products are competitive, otherwise they’d be lined up out the door to buy them. Actions speak louder than words, and the money paid to the non-Detroit companies is proof of the lack of competitiveness. “Competitiveness” is ultimately determined by the consumer, not by either the manufacturer or one of its defenders.
Competitiveness isn’t objectively determined if people don’t evaluate what’s competitive. In the demand waterfall of Awareness, Consideration, Evaluation & Purchase, if the first three are inclusive, I’m fully happy to accept the outcome of the last, whatever it is.
NOTHING I’ve written interferes with free will, consumer choice or free market dynamics.
Phil
Bravo PCH 101
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again it is simple old fashioned brand loyalty at play here. Phil’s viewpoints in my opinion is flawed as no one one would suggest that a Ford man that would not consider a Chevy was a bigot. True he or she may or may not have lost out on the opportunity to have a better car (assuming that the Chevy was better) but so what? Thats just the way it was then and thats the way it is now. The only difference is that now many people are brand loyal to Toyota or to Honda. The exact same rules apply now as back in the day.
No consumers out here in non Detroit land assign bonus points to Chevy and negative points to Toyota. They are seen as brands. People in Detroit may see GM as the good guys and Toyota as the black hats but out in the real world they are seen as brand “a” and brand “b” period nothing more or less. No editorial will ever change that period.
I am visiting my mom out in Fremont California where the UAW build Corollas and Tacomas, so any arguments that buying a Corolla is helping to devastate America or is bad is going to fall on deaf ears out here. I went to college in La Grange Georgia where a new Kia plant is being built, I bet the good ol boys I went to school will prefer to help their local economy rather than Detroits
“I used “bigot” denotatively and you are hearing it connotatively. I’m sorry if you’re offended for that reason. The comment stands. It isn’t name-calling.”
BS.
“I don’t pooh-pooh desire for interior quality. I said that the differences aren’t meaningful enough”
I’ll agree with Phil here. If you honestly think the interior of an Camcord is any different or nicer than a FocaMaliPala300, then you should really stop carring about interior quality. I hd to borrow a friend’s Accord not to long back, it was about a year old, and I’ve been in rental Neons that had the same interior on it.
After 200+ posts and a few days here of discussion, perhaps it’s time to reorient in another direction.
This goal of the Big 2.8 making more sales because of the earnest pleas of its management and (few remaining diehard) fans is probably not going to work. You can berate the customer until the cows come home and dazzle them with your logic (i.e., that their tastes and wants have no merit if GM doesn’t agree with them), but it’s a pretty good guess that if this attack-the-customer philosophy wasn’t effective in 1987 or 1997 that it also won’t work in 2007.
So now what? If the goal is to make more sales — and surely it must be — then where does one go from here?
I don’t see how this plea for “rationality” (which in this context is apparently defined as agreeing with the author) is supposed to help Detroit generate any business. I don’t see folks suddenly getting excited about the Cobalt just because plastics and residual values don’t matter in the eyes of one guy who likes Cadillacs.
There’s just no “there” there. I’ve accepted that the free market, just like the ocean, is bigger than any one person or company, so that we all must ride it on its terms if our intent is to succeed in business. This article hasn’t changed this reality and no amount of wishful thinking will help, so I’m just not seeing the path upward from here. Maybe I haven’t squinted enough to see it, but in my mind, calling consumers of rival products “bigots” isn’t something I’d advise the marketing team to do…
PCH101
Hoe right you are. The free market will determine whether GM, Ford or Chrysler lives or dies. All of our best suggestions mean absolutely nothing. None of us actually has that crytsal ball that says, “If I build it they will come”. One can build the best, highest quality widget in teh world and if no one wants it so what.
It is my belief that if teh Big 2.8 were to follow the suggestions of any of the regular posters and Editorial writers, there is still a 50% chance of complete failure, not matter how high the quality of construction or design is.
Whether any of us like it or not, whether we are Pro Detroit or con Detroit, the final decision as to whether Detroit decides will be made by the common consumer. Most of them will not care what is under teh hood, or what the MPG is or whether it is build by GM or Toyota, unless it influences their status in the community they live in. A good ole boy will still by that Dodge Ram pick-up adn fly the US flag from teh antenna, a house wife will buy the Toyota SUV to haul the kids, because Detroit is passe, not because they produce an inferior product. The environmentalist will buy the Prius or Camry, because they really are the only choice right now.
Againm the business man will buy the German car, because that is a statement of status, not because they are better built or designed.
These editorials are a good idea and I applaud the authors, but in the end they will influence no one nor have any impact on the Auto Market in the US.
Let’s see what happens to the import car market now that the US dollar has fallen so far.
To read many of the Pro-Detroiters here I get the impression that time has truly past many of them by and they truly lack an understanding as to why such a large percentage of Americans do not like and will not purchase Domestic cars.
Stop all of the silly talk about how the Domestic cars are just as good or reliable as those “other” cars. WE DO NOT CARE! Face it, Japanese and European designed cars are DIFFERENT than those coming out of Detroit. A Honda and a Chevy, by design appeal to different customers just like a Chevy or Ford generally does not appeal to a VW person. This was the case back in the 1970s and is still the case today.
The Domestics did not lose all of that US market share because of the low quality of their products alone. The simple fact that the stuff coming out of Detroit from 1970 to 1990 was outdated and ugly. Remember Ford was still making Gernadas when Americans were falling in love with cars like the SAAB 900, Audi 5000, Dastun 810 Maxima. and Toyota Corona. The difference between these cars and the average Detroiter at the time was like Vanilla and Chocolate.
During the 1980s it would not have matter one bit if those Fords and CHevys were rock solid, we were still not going to buy them! While the rest of the world was moving one to MODERN designs Detroit was the land of; landau roof, wire wheel covers, velvet valor interiors., fake wood trim, woody station wagons, Bar graph speedos, NO tachometers, empty gauge pods, oversized-under-powered V8, Carburetors when the world had moved on to EFI, white wall tires, live axles, drum brakes, leaf springs, body on frame, etc, etc, etc.
In other words Detroit became the land of obsolete junk!
Talk about a perception gap all you want, Detroit got it lunch eaten by many a car that was actually less reliable than many models coming out of the Big3 back than.
Today Detroit is still stuck with a culture that refuses to accept that making everyday passenger cars require some serious dedicated engineering. YOu can’t just come up with the excellence of a Honda Accord over night, that is something that is built up over the long term (20 to 30 years). IMHO Detroit does NOT have what it takes to make an truly competitive product and maybe , just maybe we are fooling ourselves into believing that there is come kind of magic that can be pulled out of a hat to save them.
It is high time to give HOnda and Toyota the credit they deserve. These two comapnies have continously pushed their bread and butter products to the point of excellnce and they are reaping the rewards today. Today the Honda Accord needs to be viewed in the same light as a 911, 3 series, or Corvette. All of these cars are the result of long term focused efforts to keep improving the product. Look at the Accords front suspension as an example, it is a work of art. This is something that GM can NOT imitate in short order but must do a lot of R&D to make something better.
So at the end of the day most folks will say “so what” GM can make a XLR. Everything else from GM I got my hands on was crappy so why on earth would I think they can make a $100,000 car? On the other hand folks will look at Toyota and say if they can make such a good car and sell it for $25,000 just imagine what they can produce for $100,000. NO wonder all of those LS600h are sold before they hit the dealer.
So true, Queensmet: “the free market will determine whether GM, Ford or Chrysler lives or dies.” And I’m sure Phil and PCH101 agree on that. So how can Detroit do a better job of competing? Four specific suggestions:
— The 2.8 should figure out how to improve their Consumer Reports ratings (by reverse-engineering if CU won’t reveal their weighting formulae) and do what’s necessary to do well on those very influential scores.
— They should reduce uncertainty about repair costs by improving warranty coverage to at least 4 yr/60K miles, and by offering extended warranties on a minimal-profit basis. Informed buyers know there’s a huge profit margin on extended warranties but are too scared (with the dealer’s help) to not buy them. Dealers won’t like losing a lucrative profit stream. Screw them. (Or disclose actual warranty claims by model, which would allow price/risk comparisons.)
— They should make the shopping/buying process less painful. This requires ruthlessly disciplining dealers by following up on consumer complaints, using “secret shoppers,” publicly posting customer satisfaction scores, monitoring advertising and post-audits of transactions for abusive deals. Such things will be massively resisted by old-school dealers but must be done to change Detroit’s reputation. I know a young man who can easily afford a new car but goes to a CarMax used car lot to avoid the “birthing process” of arm-wrestling a desperate salesperson, a high-pressure “closer” and a nimble-fingered Finance & Insurance guy.
— Stop providing cars to executives. Make them shop and buy like ordinary consumers. Let them find out what it’s like to get a car fixed.
This goal of the Big 2.8 making more sales because of the earnest pleas of its management and (few remaining diehard) fans is probably not going to work. You can berate the customer until the cows come home and dazzle them with your logic (i.e., that their tastes and wants have no merit if GM doesn’t agree with them), but it’s a pretty good guess that if this attack-the-customer philosophy wasn’t effective in 1987 or 1997 that it also won’t work in 2007.
First, the editorial was not GM-specific. Also,those “few remaining diehard fans” still comprise about half the market. Management didn’t write the editorial, nor is the article written as advice to management of auto companies. That’s a different subject entirely. Put another way, I can make this case; Lutz, Wagoner, Mullaly, et al can’t.
I don’t see how this plea for “rationality” (which in this context is apparently defined as agreeing with the author) is supposed to help Detroit generate any business. I don’t see folks suddenly getting excited about the Cobalt just because plastics and residual values don’t matter in the eyes of one guy who likes Cadillacs.
I’ve covered this before but I’ll say it again: the editorial is not advice to auto companies and does not seek to “help Detroit generate business.” If I were working for one of the Detroit 3, I would not communicate any of this from within an auto company. That’s the wrong point of dissemination, even if someone inside an auto company agrees with me. The Detroit 3’s demand generation activities and how to improve them is another discussion entirely. This is a case outlined by an independent observer to point out to peers in the consumer population that their self-interest has larger scope than their consideration behavior indicates they might grasp.
There’s just no “there” there. I’ve accepted that the free market, just like the ocean, is bigger than any one person or company, so that we all must ride it on its terms if our intent is to succeed in business. This article hasn’t changed this reality and no amount of wishful thinking will help, so I’m just not seeing the path upward from here. Maybe I haven’t squinted enough to see it, but in my mind, calling consumers of rival products “bigots” isn’t something I’d advise the marketing team to do…
The editorial is not marketing advice and it’s not in any way interference with the free market. I have no connection to the automotive industry other than being a consumer, driver, vehicle owner. Nothing I’ve written takes the Detroit 3 off the hook for improving their products, practices and the overall ownership experience of those who buy their offerings. Nothing in the editorial advocates adoption of the messaging by the Detroit 3. In fact, I specifically recommend that this is not their battle to wage. The Detroit 3 should avoid making public use of this appeal.
You continue to allege “wishful thinking.” Wishful thinking is absent. Companies must be market-responsive. But consumers get to change what vendors are responding to. GM, Ford and Chrysler can’t legitimately ask you to consider their products out of enlarged social and economic self interest. To do so makes such an advocacy part of their marketing and that would be misdirected and foolish. But *I* can ask fellow consumers to expand their criteria for purchase decisions, because my only stake in their decision is the shared self-interests I’ve pointed out. As I originally stated, there are 360 degrees of blame for the current plight of the Detroit 3 and the focus here, specifically, is a consumer component identified and examined by me.
Phil
whatdoiknow1,
I agree with much of your post as an explanation for how the market was dividing in the late 1970s to late 1980s. However, during the 1990s, the traditional Detroit thinking of big and rear-drive moved to the pickup and SUV market, and actually dominated in aggregated numbers, while the car side of the business became organized around a more international perspective of what a car’s basic design elements should be. The decade started with the Taurus on top and both Camry and Accord grew in size to challenge it. Ford’s own executional missteps cost the Taurus its crown, but the basic formula of a family sedan being unibody, front-drive, a 6 cylinder engine packaged in a narrow variance of exterior dimensions steadily homogenized the car side of the market. In other words, both the import and domestic side influenced each other. Small and nimble that was too small, like the Ford Contour, did not sell in big numbers. The import idea of a mainstream car grew for the US/Canadian market. The domestic idea of a mainstream car shrank. By roughly 2002, the formulas for mainstream sedans and, for that matter, pickups and SUVs had converged.
You’re right: the front suspension of a Honda Accord is a thing of engineering beauty. It’s elegant and along with Honda’s excellent engines, is the primary experiential differentiator for the car. And yet it gets outsold by the Camry, which has no similar engineering elegance. The 1989 – 1997 Ford Thunderbird also had a beautifully elegant front suspension, that along with the car’s IRS and its SOHC aluminum V8 defined the car. It was home-grown engineering. It’s not like Ford, GM and Chrysler lack the engineering or experience to refine their designs. In fact, current mainstream offerings are seriously evolved in that direction.
While the carburetted engines of Detroit circa 1982, along with the rest of the challenged build quality and aesthetic of the era may still weigh heavily on the perceptions of some people, I’m making a case for shedding that outdated perceptual load and making an effort to see what’s changed. We’re no longer in a market with the kind of design and architecture chasm you accurately outlined. Even as companies, GM, Ford and Chrysler are scarcely recognizable compared with their characteristics and composition 25 – 35 years ago.
Phil
But *I* can ask fellow consumers to expand their criteria for purchase decisions, because my only stake in their decision is the shared self-interests I’ve pointed out.
The sales figures tell you that they don’t want to change. They like it this way, that’s why they are behaving as they are.
Again, your premise is flawed — everyone who doesn’t think as you do is wrong, ignorant or bigoted, so you prescribe a methodology of thinking that consumers have already rejected.
What you fail to realize is that the consumer has elected to use whatever decision making process is useful to him or her, and has come to quite an opposite conclusion that you have.
Your pleas don’t mean anything to the unconverted. If anything, you’ve insulted them by calling them names and demeaning their intelligence. So if anything, this sort of article is a prescription for blowback and buying non-Big 2.8 just to spite you and your pious derision.
Since your goal is advocacy, you really need to learn how to advocate. After 200+ posts, you have yet to demonstrate to the would-be Civic buyer why s/he should prefer a Focus, Caliber or Cobalt instead. Nor have you given credit to the consumer for making a purchase that s/he considers to be rational.
Selling the customer short explains much of what is wrong in Detroit today. They spent years believing that they could dictate lower standards and fool the consumer with nameplate changes and slight modifications in trim, but those charades have been for naught. Instead of browbeating car buyers, just act like a savvy business guy, stop whining, and give them what they want, instead of attacking their preferences.
Pch101,
As far as I can tell, you’ve read nothing I’ve written holistically. You’re stuck on a single reference to “import bigots” — which surely exist. This has already been amply addressed.
What you fail to realize is that the consumer has elected to use whatever decision making process is useful to him or her, and has come to quite an opposite conclusion that you have.
And I am pointing out that for some portion of that consumer population their decision process is not inclusive of all the factors that are in their self-interest. I don’t contest that it is a decision process informed by what they thought was meaningful and actionable to them at the time.
Your pleas don’t mean anything to the unconverted. If anything, you’ve insulted them by calling them names and demeaning their intelligence. So if anything, this sort of article is a prescription for blowback and buying non-Big 2.8 just to spite you and your pious derision.
Well, who knows to whom the editorial is meaningful to. Neither you nor I for sure. I’ve explicitly declared no link between actions and intelligence in the case I’ve made. On the contrary, I’ve not criticized anyone’s intelligence, only their awareness. And if anyone is making a market-average $30K purchase out of spite for the viewpoint of an independent observer they don’t know, they have a truly flawed decision process but one they are free to exercise.
After 200+ posts, you have yet to demonstrate to the would-be Civic buyer why s/he should prefer a Focus, Caliber or Cobalt instead. Nor have you given credit to the consumer for making a purchase that s/he considers to be rational.
When questioned about vehicle categories, I’ve explicitly written that there is continued weakness in the small car offerings from the Detroit 3 and my focus is on mainstream vehicle classes making up the bulk of the market. The bulk of the market is comprised of larger vehicles in the US. The Civic/Focus/Caliber/Cobalt market does not have enough mass to be the source of the swing I seek in the near term, and it is not the category where vehicle differences are scant. Obviously, since there are Cobalts, Calibers and Focuses on the road, they are the better choice for some people, in your world of the strictly rational consumer, but this small car issue has been addressed in a prior reply. I have clearly outlined why a Camry/Accord/Altima/Passat intender has good reason to consider a Fusion/Taurus or Mercury/Lincoln variants instead, along with other examples from GM. Add pickups, SUVs and luxury cars referenced in prior posts.
Selling the customer short explains much of what is wrong in Detroit today. They spent years believing that they could dictate lower standards and fool the consumer with nameplate changes and slight modifications in trim, but those charades have been for naught. Instead of browbeating car buyers, just act like a savvy business guy, stop whining, and give them what they want, instead of attacking their preferences.
Absolutely true and I agree with this, as I’ve said many different ways prior. The Detroit 3 cannot make this appeal. They have to compete on the merits. They can’t critique consumer preferences. But as an independent observer I can, and in doing so I am giving Detroit no license to whine.
Phil
As far as I can tell, you’ve read nothing I’ve written holistically.
Sadly for you, I have.
Again, you need to put the brakes on your tendency to assume that your position is the wise view, while the rest of the plebeians are ignorant bigots who don’t know what they’re doing it. A lot of folks don’t look at the world as you do, and I’d suggest that you get over it.
And I am pointing out that for some portion of that consumer population their decision process is not inclusive of all the factors that are in their self-interest.
And you are wrong about that. Again, drop the pretense that everyone who disagrees with you is too dumb to make wise choices without your assistance. It makes you appear to be condescending and stubborn, which aren’t selling points for your cause.
I have clearly outlined why a Camry/Accord/Altima/Passat intender has good reason to consider a Fusion/Taurus or Mercury/Lincoln variants instead, along with other examples from GM
And the consumer thinks you’re wrong. Get over it, and tell your favored companies to make the consumer happy, instead.
The Detroit 3 cannot make this appeal. They have to compete on the merits. They can’t critique consumer preferences. But as an independent observer I can
Your critique consists of demeaning those who spend their money differently from you. Sorry, but you need to take a marketing course or two, and learn that your methods don’t make sense.
You haven’t appealed to the consumer’s sense of self interest at all. Instead, you’ve tried to tell them that you know their preferences better than they do, and that they need to change for the sake for the business and America. That dog just don’t hunt, and the only out of it is for Detroit to build products that meet their needs, not for you to fool yourself into believing that your pronouncements against the importance of interior quality and residual values make it so.
I think the saying needs to be amended.
The customer is wrong about 95% of the time. A clear majority of consumers are flat out uneducated about the product they want to purchase. Note I said want. Nobody needs to purchase anything. The human race survived a good long while on making what we needed.
The customer can and will be wrong. You just can’t say it to their face.
Overall, I agree with the final conclusion that Phil draws. And a good portion of his premises. It is not up to GM/FoMoCo/Chrysler to save themselves, because, well, they can;t just sell to themselves. It is up to the consumer who wants to see the Detroit Three live on to help them out by buying their products.
Of course, that means they have to make products that the people want. There in lies the problem. We can go back to my own recent foray into the automotive purchase. I would have bought a Detroit Three product if they made something I want. They made products that fit my description, yes, but they do not make one that I want. At least, not in my price range/what I was looking for.
It very much is a social contract. 100%. Detroit has to make something the consumer wants, and the consumer has to give Detroit the chance. That is where, if Phil wont say it, I will…we see the import bigots. People who flat out wont give the Domestics a chance because back in ’61 they had a bad expierence with them. Based on that, I shouldn’t ever buy a Toyota, and tell people to run away from them from my one bad expierence. Best experience I ever had with that Toyota was the day I got rid of it.
What I’d like to see, Phil, is an article from you on the other side of the line. I.E., we know how we have effected the curent problem in Detroit, how should Detroit act.
Also, anyone who feels they need to “explain” their purchase to peers should go explain gravity to a child by jumping off a cliff. Grow a back bone for god’s sake.
GM, Ford and Chrysler can’t legitimately ask you to consider their products out of enlarged social and economic self interest. To do so makes such an advocacy part of their marketing and that would be misdirected and foolish. But *I* can ask fellow consumers to expand their criteria for purchase decisions, because my only stake in their decision is the shared self-interests I’ve pointed out.
This is well-said. In your prior posts, I was hearing an argument that the differences between the Big 2.8’s products and the transplants’ were negligible and largely irrelevant to consumers.
If we agree that the market’s perceived gap between the “domestics” and “imports” is a not an easily dismissed one, I think a more useful talking point is the economic self-interests being served by choosing one of the Big 2.8’s products, which I agree are potentially meaningful ones.
But, As another commenter pointed out, I also wonder about the Big 2.8’s ability to capitalize on the second chance if it was given to them. Detroit has not demonstrated an ability to effect executive-driven, top-down culture change thus far, even while weathering a profound, prolonged loss of respect and market share. As a result, I find it difficult to believe that they would voluntarily shed their insular attitude and unambitious product planning if those incentives were removed.
And then, when consumers were tired of giving them second chances and started getting antsy for alternatives again, it’d be a re-run of the same conundrum they face now. I just don’t see a short-term sacrifical preference for Detroit products leading to long-term sustainability for those nameplates without major culture change. If they change their tune, I’ll change mine.
CONFESSIONS OF AN IMPORT BIGOT
The problem that I have with the argument here is that it isn’t logical. Sure, there is brand bias and people have a tendency to buy vehicles based no how they see themselves (the prius is proof). I will even agree with Phil that SOME Detroit offerings in the larger car market are starting to be competitive (Aura and Fusion). However, the small car market is their major problem. I don’t think that you will get any large car volume without good small cars.
I am likely the typical 20-something:
Dad owns a Camry
Mom owns a CR-V
My first car was a used Corolla and was bullet proof. When I finish grad school at the end of the year, my old Altima will likely be traded in to get something new. Well, I am single and in my early/mid twenties with my first job. I’m not making a ton of money and want something cheap to run and insure. Compact car it is. I’ll look at Scion, Honda,Subaru and Mazda (I hate Nissan service and the Sentra is ugly). Maybe the Astra will get me into a domestic showroom.
Now, assume I had a trouble free experience that and maybe the next car. I in my early to mid thirties living the ‘burbs with the wife and kids. What brands am I going to visit? The ones I know from my parents and my previous ownership. Sure, I could purchase the Aura or Fusion 2018. But, why would I bother looking if I found something else I liked with an established history. Conquest sales are the hardest to get and Detriot has no long term plan to acquire them. Who cares if the cadillac CTS-V rocks, GM needs the Cobalt SS to beat the Civic SI to a bloody pulp and be a good ownership experience. That will keep the young ones coming back later on. Toyota gets it, hence Scion.
Now, you might say that the japanese cars are getting boring…True. However, most people don’t care. Does it look cool? Is it reliable and cheap to run? Is it safe? Is it good in bad weather? THese are things that sell cars. A G8 is great for a guy who wants to hoon, but soccer dad/mom wants traction control and 1,000 airbags.
I had a rental 2004 Saturn sedan for two months while my car was in the shop (shop was slow), and put about 4k on it. I have to say I liked it a lot, but it just wasn’t good enough for me to buy. It mad e great rental though.
More recently we test drove a Pacifica (first two model years’ problems notwithstanding). We liked it–although it didn’t seat three across in the 2nd row, which was a big negative to us, and with child seats there it made the third row seat accessible only by crawling in through the tailgate.
We could tell quality was good, but it was just too overpriced given the competition. We opted for a used 2002 Lexus ES300 and love it dearly.
Sanman111:
…However, the small car market is their major problem. I don’t think that you will get any large car volume without good small cars…
It’s a matter of time horizon. I agree with you on a ten year time horizon. But right now, today, for anyone who wants to make sure the Detroit 3 have the time and cash to complete their reform, the small car import buyer is not the fat man standing on the hose. To *immediately* affect the cash position of the Detroit 3, a shift of import buyers and intenders will have to occur in the next three years in the mainstream sedan, truck, CUV and SUV markets. It doesn’t have to be massive. I’m arbitrarily looking for 1/8th of the import market to act out of larger self-interest and consider a competitive domestic offering. But for these companies to properly *use* such an opportunity if handed to them, you’re right — sterling affordable small cars are essential to winning back some of the ground so foolishly lost. The G8 is not the foundation of a long-term strategy for GM’s comeback.
Phil
P.J. McCombs,
In your prior posts, I was hearing an argument that the differences between the Big 2.8’s products and the transplants’ were negligible and largely irrelevant to consumers.
As part of the overall appeal to factor in a larger context, I made the point that the differences between *competitive* products from the Detroit 3 and the imports are objectively scant or non-existent to enough consumers that if they would consider these products they’d likely find themselves happy with them. The emphasis is on *competitive*. I never said nor implied that all the Detroit 3 products qualify. Many plainly do not. I also posited that in my view some qualitative differences often cited are not worth the hit to an American consumer’s larger self-interest.
But, As another commenter pointed out, I also wonder about the Big 2.8’s ability to capitalize on the second chance if it was given to them. Detroit has not demonstrated an ability to effect executive-driven, top-down culture change thus far, even while weathering a profound, prolonged loss of respect and market share. As a result, I find it difficult to believe that they would voluntarily shed their insular attitude and unambitious product planning if those incentives were removed.
And then, when consumers were tired of giving them second chances and started getting antsy for alternatives again, it’d be a re-run of the same conundrum they face now. I just don’t see a short-term sacrificial preference for Detroit products leading to long-term sustainability for those nameplates without major culture change. If they change their tune, I’ll change mine.
I wonder too. They don’t get infinite chances to reform. Two things make this moment crucial and timely for my request: 1/ never before have all of the Detroit 3 had their very existence threatened simultaneously and on a similar time track; 2/ we’re seeing real reforms evidenced in real strides in product design, execution and quality, and more such product is verified in the pipeline.
If consumers respond for the whole array of reasons to support this cycle of reform in the Detroit 3, and the companies subsequently return to their insulated, arrogant ways, thereby squandering the reprieve they might win now, then they will be finished pretty quickly I think. If they pull back from the brink, find profitability, innovate going forward and compete on the merits only to over-commit to another consumer convulsion like SUVs in the 1990s with no card left to play in a switch, then I’d conclude the boards, management and workers in these companies just don’t want to master the modern automotive business. In that case destruction will come quickly and possibly there will be enough left to rebuild something viable with new business-side talent perhaps not located in Michigan.
If you want to be part of seeing they get that chance, the actionable time window for influence probably doesn’t allow you to wait for incontrovertible proof they’ve changed their tune before you change yours. But you could be surprised. One way or another it’s playing out before our eyes, whether we’re spectators or participants.
Phil
Phil,
That is where you and I disagree to some degree. I definitely feel that small cars help in the “10 year plan” for GM. However, I also feel that this is an easier market to break into to some degree since younger buyers might be more willing to take a chance. Give them something cool, and they are more likely to go for it. Look at the breakout success of the scion tc and mazda 3. Their previous iterations were footnotes in comparison (celica and protege). They are also more likely to be brought over by cheaper prices and better financing. GM should have brought the Astra over first.
The other problem is visibility, as I mentioned in a previous post. In my opinion, these new models have none. Saturn does not have the public’s awareness and Cadillac is out of too many people’s price range. The Fusion/Taurus needs to place itself as a competitor to Subaru and play up the AWD as a safety feature.
We’ve got 220+ posts here, complete with lengthy follow-up screeds from Phil, many of which amount to “you misunderstand” or “you didn’t read correctly” so I went back to the original and read and considered it carefully.
Here’s my analysis of the essential parts of Phil’s original essay, in chunks:
1. First, while fueling his XLR, Phil runs into a guy who’s both wealthy enough for a Mercedes SL550 AND so insecure that he can’t buy the car he really wants because his friends would make fun of it. Phil thinks this is lamentable. I think this is made up.
Excuse me, but where I come from, a guy who can afford an SL550 doesn’t have to explain ANYTHING he does. Unless we figure he’s triple-mortgaged his house to get the car just to impress us. In that case, it still doesn’t matter which $100K car he bought, we’ll still consider him a fool either way.
I don’t justify my purchases to my neighbors. Two of the last three cars I bought, I didn’t even justify them to my *wife*.
My neighbors don’t justify their purchases to me. If I express admiration for their vehicles, they usually tell me what they like about the vehicle or otherwise chit-chat about it.
In my neighborhood, “Hey, so-and-so’s got a new car,” is an expression of some level of admiration for almost anything (Aveos might be excepted but mostly because they actually cost less than many late-ish model used cars).
2. Phil mentions that his XLR has been entirely trouble-free for a whopping 23,000 miles.
(Originally, I spent a few minutes coughing and mopping up the coffee that came back out my nose. Perennial reminder to self: Don’t drink and TTAC.)
Phil, join the real world, someday, will ya? The market is not interested in cars that are reliable for 23,000 miles, the market is interested in cars that are reliable for 100,000 miles and usefully dependable for 200,000 miles. Even if you trade your car every two years, your resale value is defined by the desireability of that car for the next 100,000 miles because the poor schlub purchasing it is probabl in it for the long haul.
Cars that are thought to be highly reliable will command higher resale prices. Since depreciation is a huge component of overall auto expense, this is important. Reputation aside, once the warranty wears off (5/100? Hah! We’re blowing right through that boundary!), real reliability keeps the repair expense low and that affects satisfaction – and inclination to buy another of that make
3. Phil moves on to “Detroit has changed! Trust me!” There’s no reason not to buy American except that the decision gets bogged down in pointless argument over interior material quality.
Sure, I’ll trust you, Phil. And you make the payments, OK?
Sorry, Phil, trust must be earned, which is why it should not be squandered. The last time I checked CR, Detroit was still lagging. My friends and neighbors who own Detroiters are still reporting serious problems with late-model cars (and never mind the stonewalling by dealers).
And nobody looks at a car and gets bogged down in an argument about interior material quality (like, with who? the salesguy?). People get in the car and either say, “hey, this is nice,” which was my reaction to the Sienna in ’01, or “hey, this looks like crap,” which was my reaction to every Chrysler minivan I’ve ever ridden in. Maybe they’d look OK in leather but I’d rather get new furniture for the house.
Anyway, I gave this claim due consideration earlier today and thought, “I haven’t heard anything bad about the Five Hundred (new Taurus).” I wonder if Ford’s turned it around and built a real winner? After all, as an auto purchaser, there’s an economic incentive to me in finding a winner from a “depressed” auto manufacturer; I’ll buy low and, as the rep builds, sell high, minimizing my expense. This is a highly rational strategy.
So, I checked the Taurus on Edmunds. Jeepers! Detroit *still* can’t get brake rotors right?
4. We get to the fun part, Americans have an irrational belief that American cars are inferior. We think VWs are of higher quality than Chevys.
This is where Phil really gets lost. There’s nothing at all irrational about the beliefs. Many of us have been burned, time and again, by Detroit (in my case, less than satisfied with GM and abolutely burned by Ford and then less than satisfied with VW and, while perfectly satisfied with Volvo, able to recognize a step up in reliability when I see it), we’ve tried something else, found it to be perfectly satisfying and we’ve moved on. Trusting an automaker that has treated you well is NOT irrational.
If it was Toyota or Honda doing the burning, people would be moving to Detroit without looking back.
By the way, VW makes a poor example for your case. VW has made little to no progress over the years. Their cars drive great and VW works that angle mercilessly but that cachet is all they’ve got; no one thinks they’re reliable which is why their share stagnates. In 10 years, they sold just 10K EuroVans (which was 10K more than should have been allowed). Used VWs are pretty cheap. Nobody thought that VW was a “quality” marque to justify a Phaeton.
And quality – or reliability, really, is a killer for most people. If I make a deliberate choice to go with a make I have reason to believe is less reliable than another make, that costs me something EVEN IF THE CAR WORKS PERFECTLY UNTIL I SELL IT. It costs me peace of mind. Can you put a dollar value on that for me?
5. Now Phil arrives at his broader self-interest argument. Yes, you may be perfectly happy with your Toyonda but you are putting the nation and your long-term happiness at risk.
This may be true. MOST of us understand that Detroit has a lot of manufacturing jobs at risk. Just about everybody who lives here loves this country. But propping up manufacturing jobs is not the same as propping up Detroit’s stockholders and, either way, the cost of propping up Detroit is apparently judged too high by a growing number of people. We’ll support the home team, sure, but we won’t necessarily go to all the games if you raise ticket prices.
I’d also bet that Detroit will be shipping as many of those “high wage headquarters jobs” to India as soon as they can as soon as they get the chance.
6. “If a million import bigots…”
That speaks for itself. Certain people (growing numbers of people) prefer certain import brands for various reasons, particularly expectations of quality, durability and longevity.
And Phil reduced that to bigots.
Well, Phil, at last report, 25% of buyers will not consider a domestic car. Why? Because they hate America? Get a grip. Because they – or a close friend or relative got burned? More likely. Because they’ve had a great experience? Very likely.
However, 40% of buyers will not consider an Asian car. Why is that?
Well, no matter. It’s Detroit’s one advantage and I suggest they make good use of it by making sure that 40% gets perfect satisfaction with every car they buy this year. And Detroit better do that because people aren’t going to suddenly up and change the way they look at cars just to suit Detroit and Phill Ressler.
A lot of folks don’t look at the world as you do,
No kidding!
and I’d suggest that you get over it.
As if this bothered me in the first place…
Phil
KixStart:
I think this is made up.
Excuse me, but where I come from, a guy who can afford an SL550 doesn’t have to explain ANYTHING he does.
Perhaps you don’t live where I do. There are a lot of strivers in cars above their financial weight. I wish the incident were fiction, but in fact similar conversations have happened impromptu more than a few times.
Phil, join the real world, someday, will ya? The market is not interested in cars that are reliable for 23,000 miles, the market is interested in cars that are reliable for 100,000 miles and usefully dependable for 200,000 miles
That was a progress report. Most of the cars I’ve ever owned were driven by me over 100,000 miles. All my American cars were trouble-free in that span. I fully expect to drive this XLR-V into six figures.
Sure, I’ll trust you, Phil. And you make the payments, OK?
Actually nothing I wrote asks you to trust me. I specifically ask you, the consumer, to include competitive domestic offerings in your evaluations and if convinced, buy them. You should trust yourself.
And nobody looks at a car and gets bogged down in an argument about interior material quality (like, with who? the salesguy?). People get in the car and either say, “hey, this is nice,” which was my reaction to the Sienna in ‘01, or “hey, this looks like crap,” which was my reaction to every Chrysler minivan I’ve ever ridden in. Maybe they’d look OK in leather but I’d rather get new furniture for the house.
Well, I won’t dispute that this is what happens in your world. Again, perhaps you don’t live where I do.
There’s nothing at all irrational about the beliefs. Many of us have been burned, time and again, by Detroit (in my case, less than satisfied with GM and abolutely burned by Ford and then less than satisfied with VW and, while perfectly satisfied with Volvo, able to recognize a step up in reliability when I see it), we’ve tried something else, found it to be perfectly satisfying and we’ve moved on. Trusting an automaker that has treated you well is NOT irrational.
But many haven’t been burned, have no such personal experience and have written off domestics for reasons of social reference, hearsay, etc. Moreover, some people who have been burned were done wrong by cars that have no connection to contemporary counterparts.
Certain people (growing numbers of people) prefer certain import brands for various reasons, particularly expectations of quality, durability and longevity.
And Phil reduced that to bigots.
No, I didn’t. See below.
Well, Phil, at last report, 25% of buyers will not consider a domestic car. Why? Because they hate America? Get a grip. Because they – or a close friend or relative got burned? More likely. Because they’ve had a great experience? Very likely.
However, 40% of buyers will not consider an Asian car. Why is that?
The people who won’t consider an Asian car are not relevant to this specific appeal, but I don’t endorse the sentiment regardless.
Well, no matter. It’s Detroit’s one advantage and I suggest they make good use of it by making sure that 40% gets perfect satisfaction with every car they buy this year.
Good idea.
The reference to import bigots does not apply to all people who prefer import cars, just some of them. It is the subset of people who won’t consider a vehicle from the Detroit 3 while knowing nothing about what they’re offering. If they *objectively* compare, factor in the larger social context and still say, “nope, still not good enough,” that’s fair and square. Also, if you really don’t care at all about the larger social costs incurred by the loss of these companies, then you can freely continue to ignore them.
I didn’t at any point claim that the people who won’t consider a domestic vehicle hate America. I made no tie to patriotism either. The whole argument is tied to self-interest exclusively, in the larger social context and your choices of how to use the leverage of your purchasing power.
…people aren’t going to suddenly up and change the way they look at cars just to suit Detroit and Phil…
Nor do I expect them to.
Phil
Phil,
So, you also think this SL550 owner was a striver with issues? And your premise kicks off from *that*? As I said, if he’s buying more car than he can afford so as to impress people, he’s a fool.
I may not motor at the same level as an XLR but here’s the thing… most people don’t motor at the same level as an XLR. Much of America motors at the used Impala level.
You seem to think there’s (at least) a million import bigots out there. Who are they? Are there a million issues-laden SL550-owning strivers? The class of people you describe make up a very small part of the market. How many $100K cars get sold every year? Do you have some sort of proof of this import bigotry, outside of this $100K class?
At the new and used Impala level, those with a brand preference that lies outside of Detroit have that preference for a reason. They read CR or they look at resale values or they have had issues or have friends and relatives that have had issues. In the real world (it’s actually quite nice here, you should schedule a visit), people make car-buying purchases for a mix of pragmatic and emotional reasons. The emotional usually grips them when they see the vehicle (sweet!) and/or slide behind the wheel (whoa! this baby’s got some powah!).
Economic self-interest is important. However, returning to the real world (I’ll send you a brochure, if you like), most people I know already have a preference for local products. People look at the labels. Detroit still owns the hearts and minds of 40% of the auto buying public. However, American products are sometimes hard to come by because vendors often don’t stock them (check out Wal*Mart, price trumps quality everywhere, is there *anything* left in that store that’s not made in China?). And what’s “American” about a Mexican Fusion? Not the labor, certainly, just the profits.
And, when it comes to economic self-interest, we don’t see the delayed trickle-down economic benefits of propping up shareholder dividends to be quite as important as avoiding a $1K repair bill just off warranty because the head gasket failed or multiple $200 repair bills because Detroit hasn’t figured out brake rotors (and that really floors me because all but one of my Toys are still on their first set of PADS at 71K, 77K and 105K miles – and it’s the same drivers that used to get pads at 25-30K and rotors at 50-60K on our Volvos and think that was generally OK).
You think we shouldn’t pick a non-Detroiter without knowing something about them. In fact, most of us believe we know enough about them already in what regard as key areas of our decision-making process. Some people, having had a good ownership experience simply become loyal to the brand that satisfied them and go straight back for another of that brand when the time comes to buy. This could work in Detroit’s favor.
For others, there may be *some* brand loyalty but they are alway willing to reconsider. They probably have key questions. Reliability? Not proven to be good enough, yet. Resale? Not good. Those are gatekeepers for many people (me, for sure). The people who don’t see those as gatekeepers are already cross-shopping Detroit and making their own decisions.
And, yes, in spite of your denial, you are asking people to change. You are asking them to erase this unproven bigotry, consider other issues and then shop differently and this is entirely pointless unless you also intend some different outcome. Except there’s no bigotry (except maybe for the insecure members of the XLR/SL550 class), people are aware of and sympathetic to the larger issues and they’re already getting the outcome they feel is best for them.
So, you also think this SL550 owner was a striver with issues? And your premise kicks off from *that*? As I said, if he’s buying more car than he can afford so as to impress people, he’s a fool.
I may not motor at the same level as an XLR but here’s the thing… most people don’t motor at the same level as an XLR. Much of America motors at the used Impala level.
Look, it was an impromptu gas station encounter. Never saw the guy before or since. I don’t know whether he’s a striver over his head with his car or not. I just pointed out, when you accused me of making up the incident, that where I live your reasons for contesting authenticity don’t apply. This incident is not the only such exchange I’ve had.
No kidding, most people “motor at the used Impala level.” I’ve sometimes heard the same kind of sentiment when giving advice to people who asked for it, in that class of vehicle.
You seem to think there’s (at least) a million import bigots out there. Who are they? Are there a million issues-laden SL550-owning strivers? The class of people you describe make up a very small part of the market. How many $100K cars get sold every year? Do you have some sort of proof of this import bigotry, outside of this $100K class?
While it would be easy to extrapolate my personal anecdotal experience to tally up a million import bigots, the figure is arbitrary. It’s an editorial. Ideas need hooks. The one-million was part of a question, as in: “…can we find one million more buyers for the best, most competitive domestic iron?” It’s right there, plain as day. The figure wasn’t a claim, it was a question. Why distort this basic fact?
The opening merely set the stage for the discussion. Nothing about the editorial is restricted to $100K cars. And it’s not like I haven’t owned a string of more prosaic vehicles myself. You don’t know enough about me to conclude that I’m somehow disconnected from the mainstream market.
However, American products are sometimes hard to come by because vendors often don’t stock them (check out Wal*Mart, price trumps quality everywhere, is there *anything* left in that store that’s not made in China?).
But American vehicles are not among those “sometimes hard to come by” items. As for Wal-Mart and Chinese goods, it’s a two way street. American consumers did have the right and ability to decline to chase prices into the basement but they didn’t. It’s not like Wal-Mart forced domestic vendors out of their stores. Their customers embraced the race for the bottom and became the enablers for Wal-Mart’s buying practices.
As a sidebar, this Wal-Mart issue is so sad it’s funny, or so funny it’s sad. My rural home town faced a Wal-Mart intrusion several years ago. There was all kinds of caterwauling about Wal-Mart’s threat to local businesses, and the town tried every legal means to keep them out. Well, Wal-Mart prevailed and built a store just outside of town. Yup, it’s busy and local businesses suffered. The people in the town had the ability to decline to shop at Wal-Mart and continue with the vendors they had, but they didn’t!! I have to say, even when I had no money, I simply didn’t spend at businesses I didn’t want to support, for whatever reason. People can’t have it both ways, lamenting destruction of their local social and economic ecosystems while rushing for the basement on prices. Your purchasing power is your personal instrument to shape the world around you, far more frequently than any schedule of elections, and this is true no matter what your level of wealth. If we want a society that is strictly price driven, fine. But no bawling about the consequences.
As for Detroit brakes, all I can say is my personal experience with Ford and GM brakes over the years, with the singular exception of the fast-wear pads on the Corvette Z51 performance package, equals yours with your Toyota.
And, yes, in spite of your denial, you are asking people to change. You are asking them to erase this unproven bigotry, consider other issues and then shop differently and this is entirely pointless unless you also intend some different outcome. Except there’s no bigotry (except maybe for the insecure members of the XLR/SL550 class), people are aware of and sympathetic to the larger issues and they’re already getting the outcome they feel is best for them.
Read what I wrote. I didn’t say I am not asking *some* people to change, I wrote that I am not changing, restricting or amending their *rights* in the free market in any way. Of course I’m asking for a change! I explicitly ask for a change of consideration behavior from a target one-million people, and said that if that change occurs I am confident enough people will be persuaded to buy differently to be meaningful to the Detroit 3. Clearly I reject your notion that all people are “aware of and sympathetic to the larger issues.” That may be true for you and many people you know. I know experientially same is not true for many others. That’s why the editorial was written in the first place. You’re free to disagree.
Phil
Phil – your patience and persistence is amazing; if I didn’t know better, I’d swear that Mr. Farago was paying you by the comment…
Thanks again for an engaging and long running commentary.
11/ “If you only knew the trouble I had with my GM, Ford or Chrysler car, you wouldn’t buy from them either.”
I’m sorry for your trouble. You can nurse your grudge, or you can contemplate the US without the Detroit 3. If you don’t care about the latter, nurse your grudge. If you do care about the latter, put your grudge aside and buy something from them that is competitive. DON’T buy their crap.
That’s not nursing a grudge, at worst it’s learned behavior, kinda’ like electroshock therapy. If a child (or adult for that matter) grabs a pan out of a hot oven with their bare hands they feel pain. Now what would be your assesment of a person who continues to grab hot pans out of the oven? Would you say that a person who learns not to grab a hot pan out of the oven is holding a grudge against the oven or the pans or is making an informed choice based on past experiences?
The whole argument is tied to self-interest exclusively, in the larger social context and your choices of how to use the leverage of your purchasing power.
When someone can present a cogent argument as to why buying products that one does not want, accompanied by an inferior ownership experience and weaker residuals, is in any way in the customer’s “self interest”, I’ll be interested in hearing it.
Until then, that sounds like an exercise in economically foolhardy masochism, not self-interest, wisdom or any other positive attribute that I can imagine. In fact, it sounds like a course of action well worth avoiding, particularly if one is concerned with one’s own wellbeing.
When someone can present a cogent argument as to why buying products that one does not want, accompanied by an inferior ownership experience and weaker residuals, is in any way in the customer’s “self interest”, I’ll be interested in hearing it.
Knowing you don’t want something in the context of having no exposure to it and knowing you don’t want it after exposure are two different things. I have not advocated *buying* something you don’t want. You know this, but I do accept your dedication to misrepresenting my words. I am also not asking people to accept an inferior ownership experience, as I am only advocating inclusion of competitive domestic alternatives in their shopping. You know this too. And no one knows what the residuals will be, but if KixStart is right and the whole market is people who drive 100,000 – 200,000 miles, then residuals are a moot concern.
Phil
Would you say that a person who learns not to grab a hot pan out of the oven is holding a grudge against the oven or the pans or is making an informed choice based on past experiences?
I say that at some point, enough changes in the product and the dealer/maker that the “pan” is no longer on a hot stove, and it’s time to learn how to discern when said object is cool to the touch.
Phil
Would you say that a person who learns not to grab a hot pan out of the oven is holding a grudge against the oven or the pans or is making an informed choice based on past experiences?
I say that at some point, enough changes in the product and the dealer/maker that the “pan” is no longer on a hot stove, and it’s time to learn how to discern when said object is cool to the touch.
Phil
The actions are still a learned behvior not a grudge. I have had several good experiences with “japanese” cars, two bad experiences with “american” cars-the most recent a Saturn VUE that was an unadulterated POS-, and many more observations of poor “american” cars purchased by my mom. Whay would either of us want to get burned again? Oh, that’s right because we’re bigoted fools who can’t tell what great new cars the Big 2.8 are producing (like my Saturn VUE).
By the way, my brother-in-law is an engineer at Delphi, and I own and love a 58 Chevy Fleetside Apache. I would love to see GM rise to the top again, but that doesn’t cloud my judgement and make me a bigot towards foriegn car brands.
Oh, that’s right because we’re bigoted fools who can’t tell what great new cars the Big 2.8 are producing (like my Saturn VUE).
Let’s be precise: I do not anywhere write that someone like you “can’t tell what great new cars” the Detroit 3 are offering. I directed my comments to those who won’t consider them, despite big changes in *some* models which are competitive. Perhaps the Saturn Vue shouldn’t be included among them! Also, I at no point wrote or implied that people who won’t consider these cars are “fools.”
By the way, my brother-in-law is an engineer at Delphi, and I own and love a 58 Chevy Fleetside Apache. I would love to see GM rise to the top again,…
So, who’s going to give them a shot if you won’t? Is that someone else’s responsibility to act in your family’s self interest?
…but that doesn’t cloud my judgment and make me a bigot towards foreign car brands.
Me neither. I say include imports in your consideration & evaluation phases, too.
Phil
Phil,
There’s a real disconnect between the editorial in your head and the one on the web site.
The sentence:
“Can we find one million more buyers…?”
precedes and is separate from:
“If one million import bigots [see the error of their ways we’ll save Detroit’s shareholders]”
…which requires the existence of pool of at least a million bigots or it’s senseless.
Ideas may need hooks to get discussed and passed around but they need to be grounded in reality to succeed. You’ve posited the existence of import bigots, a million of whom you hope to convert. That’s a million people who have no good – or simply insufficient – reason to buy an import over supporting the home team. Yet, you have no idea if it’s one (your SL550 owner) or ten or ten million.
As to my notion that everybody’s aware of the larger issues, well, if they aren’t already aware, how do you propose to realistically reach them? You are now implying that there exists over a million import bigots who are also out of touch the idea that we have a national economy in which domestic production struggles with import competition. Which makes me wonder, if they don’t know about imports, how can they be biased towards them? In any event, how are you going to reach people who are so sadly out of touch? Are you going to telephone each and every one? Don’t worry about it, these people do not exist.
How many people are there that haven’t heard, in some way, shape or form, the phrase “Buy American?” Wal*Mart thought country-of-origin an important enough product differentiator that “Made in USA” signs used to be featured prominently throughout their stores, even on products that were actually made elsewhere.
People mostly favor the home team. However, for something like a shirt or a picnic table or a set of plates, the consumer can more readily afford to take a risk (and, really, to judge the quality and durability themselves by picking the item up and examining it). They can not only look at the country of origin but also make a fully informed judgement about the quality.
A car is a whole different animal. Is the metal in the engine a good alloy? Will the brake lines and fittings withstand pressure and corrosion? Are those electrical connectors adequate to the task, even on a hot day in a hotter engine compartment? Few are equipped to judge the “quality” of a car this way and rely, instead, on other sources of information or on the manufacturer’s well-earned reputation.
I should not have said your encounter at the gas station was “made up,” rather, I should have said that “it’s unimagineable.” Because it is. Your SL550 owner has issues. The people I see every day don’t have those problems; they buy their cars to satisfy themselves.
And no one in my neighborhood or office lightly throws money away. Detroit cars are often equipped with giant giveaways. Anyone buying a car is going to give Detroit due consideration. If they don’t buy an Impala it’s just because they’ve considered it and and have decided for themselves that they want “inexpensive transportation” and not just “a cheap car.”
So, expecting people to change (and I never said anything about “rights”) is unrealistic. They believe they are acting rationally and, as far as I can tell, they ARE behaving rationally. You want them to adopt irrational behavior. Good luck with that.
If irrational behavior is what it will take to save Detroit’s stockholders, then they should dump their shares now.
Oh, that’s right because we’re bigoted fools who can’t tell what great new cars the Big 2.8 are producing (like my Saturn VUE).
Let’s be precise: I do not anywhere write that someone like you “can’t tell what great new cars” the Detroit 3 are offering. I directed my comments to those who won’t consider them, despite big changes in *some* models which are competitive. Perhaps the Saturn Vue shouldn’t be included among them! Also, I at no point wrote or implied that people who won’t consider these cars are “fools.”
Sorry, i appologize for that one. I probably picked that up from another person’s post. You are quite correct; you never used the perjorative term “fools” only the perjorative of “bigots.”
By the way, my brother-in-law is an engineer at Delphi, and I own and love a 58 Chevy Fleetside Apache. I would love to see GM rise to the top again,…
So, who’s going to give them a shot if you won’t? Is that someone else’s responsibility to act in your family’s self interest?
I’d like the car makers to give themselves a shot at winning me back and winning over the millions of other car buyers that they have lost. that is there responsibility not mine.
…but that doesn’t cloud my judgment and make me a bigot towards foreign car brands.
Me neither. I say include imports in your consideration & evaluation phases, too.
Phil
You certainly imply if not outright state that we would come over to the good side and buy American if we did honestly evaluate the choices, especially somebody like me who owns a sporty mid-size sedan. It seems to me that most people do take all factors into consideration when making a major purchase like a car, and they act in what they feel is there best interest. Your best interest may not be the same as mine, and so you reach a different outcome than me. That doesn’t mean either of us is wrong in the decision we reached. We may come to the conclusion after months or years of ownership that we did not make the best decision, but that is how we learn to make better decisions in the future. The past experiences of me and my family members have led to our collective buying habits, and like it or not, that is the case with most people in America. They didn’t grow up with an inborne hatred of all American cars. I’d bet that most of those 25% who won’t consider an American car are doing so based on past experience. It took the Japanese automakers many years to even rise to the level where people would consider purchasing a car made by Datsun, et.al. Don’t expect American car makers to win back that market share with promises of a better future and J.D. Power initial quality results. They are working against decades of poor performance. For nearly an entire generation, they have produced more bad experiences than cars. They will need to win back their customers by producing year after year of cars that consistently meet customer demands, while they survive off sales to the 40% who won’t consider Japanese cars. That is their job not mine.
…which requires the existence of pool of at least a million bigots or it’s senseless.
Different sentence but obviously I’m convinced that there are easily one-million import bigots. It’s an arbitrary number chosen for its simplicity and scale, but I am sure it’s completely in the realm. Sure. I have no trouble signing up for that idea out of roughly 8 million annual import buyers now.
You are now implying that there exists over a million import bigots who are also out of touch the idea that we have a national economy in which domestic production struggles with import competition.
A million is nothing. It’s not that they are not aware of struggling domestic production. It’s that they are not thinking about how their purchasing power and decisions are used to aggravate the situation, or can be used to mitigate it. And they are likely unaware of the quality of newer competitive Detroit 3 cars because they won’t deign to consider them.
A car is a whole different animal. Is the metal in the engine a good alloy? Will the brake lines and fittings withstand pressure and corrosion? Are those electrical connectors adequate to the task, even on a hot day in a hotter engine compartment? Few are equipped to judge the “quality” of a car this way and rely, instead, on other sources of information or on the manufacturer’s well-earned reputation.
These things you list are not the source of significant or widespread failures anymore, import or domestic. But on the latter, sure.
If they don’t buy an Impala it’s just because they’ve considered it and and have decided for themselves that they want “inexpensive transportation” and not just “a cheap car.”
Taking the Impala reference out of it, I don’t believe this is true for a significant subset of buyers, and my own ongoing experience supplies running evidence of it.
So, expecting people to change (and I never said anything about “rights”) is unrealistic. They believe they are acting rationally and, as far as I can tell, they ARE behaving rationally. You want them to adopt irrational behavior. Good luck with that.
If we don’t ever expect people to change, throughout many aspects of social and economic life, there’d be no progress. People change and are influenced by others all the time. The entire realm of editorial composition is fueled by an attempt to influence extant behavior. I have no doubt everyone *believes* they are acting rationally. But of course you know the number of people who think so and are, is seldom equal. More to the point, they may behave rationally against restricted criteria, and expanding their criteria for selection can yield a different outcome from the same rational thought. Which of course is the whole point of the editorial. Are you suggesting that no one should ever write an editorial calling for change because convincing people to change is difficult?
If irrational behavior is what it will take to save Detroit’s stockholders, then they should dump their shares now.
Only some among us are stockholders; all of us in the US are stakeholders. At no point have I recommended irrational behavior. Instead, rational behavior against a larger context of relevant criteria for selection.
Phil
Only some among us are stockholders; all of us in the US are stakeholders. At no point have I recommended irrational behavior. Instead, rational behavior against a larger context of relevant criteria for selection.
Phil –
Perhaps supporting Detroit to get them through a rough spot was rational in the 1970’s or the 80’s or maybe even in the 1990’s. However, how many times should we be expected to believe that the prodigal son will get it right this time?
I’ve heard that GM, for example, is going to get it right this time since the Vega. But this time it’s for real? Suuuuure.
I grasp your point about the importance of Detroit’s car makers to the nation, but I don’t agree that it’s true. Foreign makers have already established factories here – if GM, Ford, and Chrysler ALL fail, there will still be plenty of jobs for American workers as other automakers will come. The demand for cars for Americans to drive exists – it’s just fading for the ones that the Big 2.9 make (The holding company for Chrysler is American, aren’t they?). Don’t whine here about cheap foreign labor. Recall that Hyundai from the land of cheap foreign labor has a factory here. Also recall that GM has a lower domestic content in many of its cars than the Accords or Camrys built here. And, no, the Ohio and Kentucky workers for Honda and Toyota aren’t starving.
You also underestimate the cost of the sacrifice that you are asking of a million people. Perhaps because you are able to afford a $100K car, you’ve lost perspective on this point, but most working stiffs and their spouses can’t afford to take a $25,000 chance that this year’s model really will be just fine at 60,000 miles, or that incentives offered later in the year, or fleet sales won’t crush their investment’s value at trade-in time. No Ford Aerostar engines or Chrysler Automatic transmissions, or GM employee pricing happening again thistime. Nope.
Another point to ponder is the question of why Americans in general still owe any duty to the UAW workers who -for two generations- have earned more than most American workers while building drek. Gee, I should gamble on a brand with a 40 year – need I repeat that? – 40 year history of selling cars that weren’t as good as the competition so that the UAW workers won’t lose their bass boats and pools? Please.
I’ve been actively trying to bring myself to buy an American car since the mid 70’s. Every time I come close, the rational part of my brain tells me that I’d be foolish to take the risk yet. 35 years of other peoples’ experiences (according to Consumer Reports) shows me I’ve been right so far.
Were I in the position to toss $100K into a car, I probably wouldn’t be as aprehensive about the factors of resale or reliability as I am. The percentage of my income at risk would be smaller, and the odds of having another vehicle available if I did have a problem would be greater.
However, as things stand, I’ve been personally waiting 35 years for the Big 2.9 to have a 5 year string of desirable, reliable, affordable, resellable cars.
Looks to me like, at a minimum, I still have 5 more years to wait.
Lokkii,
This is thoughtful opposition. Thanks. I’ll address a few of your specifics as a way of covering the scope of your response.
Perhaps supporting Detroit to get them through a rough spot was rational in the 1970’s or the 80’s or maybe even in the 1990’s. However how many times should we be expected to believe that the prodigal son will get it right this time?
I think differently about this. I don’t agree that it was rational to go out of your way to help Detroit in the 1970s, 80s or well into the 90s. The reason is that they weren’t sufficiently chastened in those years. As late as 1980, the Feds were contemplating an anti-trust action against GM to break it up because the company was threatening to break 60% market share. Also, Detroit wasn’t losing its mainstream sales to imports in big numbers. It was still a compact class problem. GM had 10 years worth of cash. Chrysler was in trouble but had federal loan guarantees and eventually clawed its way back twice. By the time the Daimler deal was at hand in 1998, Chrysler had enough cash and sufficient market cap to have acquired its acquirer, if Chrysler’s management team had been more ambitious. Ford was in one of its periodic swoons but began battling back with 1st gen Tempo, the aero Bird and then the Taurus, and by the mid-90s had the best cash position in the business. During the 1980s when Roger Smith was diversifying GM, he had enough cash to buy Toyota and Nissan outright, together.
There was good “Buy American” logic in those years, especially for rust-belters close to the factories and for anyone else so inclined, but the true “help Detroit” moment is now, when all of the Detroit 3 face existential threats in the face of dramatic product improvements.
Foreign makers have already established factories here
Yes, and that’s better than nothing. But transplant manufacturing has about one-third less economic leverage than the same function performed by the Detroit 3. Transplant employment will not make up for the loss of these companies.
You also underestimate the cost of the sacrifice that you are asking of a million people. Perhaps because you are able to afford a $100K car, you’ve lost perspective on this point, but most working stiffs and their spouses can’t afford to take a $25,000 chance that this year’s model really will be just fine at 60,000 miles, or that incentives offered later in the year, or fleet sales won’t crush their investment’s value at trade-in time. No Ford Aerostar engines or Chrysler Automatic transmissions, or GM employee pricing happening thistime. Nope.
It’s only recently that I stepped up to the price level of an XLR-V. I bought many cars in the mainstream mean. Since 1980, if I am remembering correctly, I’ve bought 14 cars from Detroit. Most were driven over 100,000 miles with no problems. Most other people I know who have driven American cars have similar experiences. I know you can confidently buy cars from the Detroit 3 that will be fine at 60,000 miles and beyond, and if you’re driving them up to near six digits, depreciation differences become nil. The examples you cited affected relatively few people but got magnified coverage and publicity.
Another point to ponder is the question of why Americans in general owe any duty to the UAW workers who -for two generations- have earned more than most American workers while building drek. Gee, I should gamble on a brand with a 40 year – need I repeat that? – 40 year history of selling cars that weren’t as good as the competition so that the UAW workers won’t lose their bass boats and pools? Please.
The UAW is far from perfect and you don’t owe anything to that organization, but its ranks remain a large component of the US economy and their demise will have social and economic costs you’ll pay for in other ways, so better to have those folks employed and able to be influenced for better practices.
I’ve been actively trying to bring myself to buy an American car since the mid 70’s. Every time I come close, the rational part of my brain tells me that I’m foolish to take the risk yet. 35 years of other peoples’ experiences (according to Consumer Reports) shows me I’ve been right.
My experience has been that for those 35 years, Detroit has continuously delivered reliable, quality vehicles among its lemons. The trick has been choosing the right ones at any given time. Is it a fluke that the 80% of my cars since 1980 that have been made by the Detroit 3 have been durable and unfailing? A fluke for everyone else that had a similar experience? For some reason, it went right for us.
Were I in the position to toss $100K into a car, I probably wouldn’t be as dependent on the factors of resale or reliability as I am. The percentage of my income at risk would be smaller, and the odds of having another vehicle available if I did have a problem would be greater.
One thing about $100K cars is, they all drop like a stone in value the first few years, regardless who makes them. Your essential point is true, but my argument is not at all limited to or informed exclusively by my current situation. I am close to many others who are in your situation, who buy Detroit and drive their market-average price cars 150,000 miles or more with nothing but routine maintenance.
However, as things stand, I’ve been personally waiting 35 years for the Big 2.9 to have a 5 year string of desirable, reliable, affordable, resellable cars. Looks to me like, at a minimum, I still have 5 more years to wait.
While you’ve been waiting, I’ve been buying. Exactly what you describe (desirable, reliable, affordable, resellable) has been in my grasp most of the time since buying my first new Detroit 3 car in 1982.
Phil
Phil’s had good experience with Detroit’s cars. Others have horror stories to tell. Anecdotal evidence is interesting, but if we (and Detroit) are going to move ahead we need better information about purchase risk. That is, quantitative measures of the probability of repair frequency and cost.
Consumer Reports’ charts of reliability problems are useful, but I think the format leads to people misinterpreting quality as an all-or-none issue. Michael Karesh has written about this. On his website he compiles data that helps fill the gap. What it shows is that for most brands and models there’s no big difference in reliability; maybe plus/minus one or two shop visits per year. Buying an Impusion does not condemn the owner to service department hell.
Suppose detailed warranty claims data was made public. We’d know how often a model has gone to the shop, and how much those visits cost. People who think Detroit makes “drek” might be assured that repair cost risk is less than they think, and perhaps overshadowed by other factors.
50merc, funny you should mention warranty claims:
Warranty Cost Summary
Phil,
It’s not bigotry, it’s justifiable aversion. Let’s bear in mind that warranty claims extend out only to 3/36 or 5/60 or so. What do you suppose happens after the warranty ends?
Give me a reason to buy a Detroiter that makes financial sense to me.
KixStart : When I mentioned warranty claims in my rebuttal days ago Phil’s response was that only JD Powers data mattered since that was all most people looked at. His response was fallacious then and the issue stands. As a group, the US makers produce technically inferior vehicles as compared to Honda and Toyota. Perhaps there are a few US vehicle models which outperform a few Asian models in this regard, but the overall data as published in warranty claims rates and Consumer Reports owner surveys shows clearly that the US makers on average produce inferior quality vehicles to the leaders, Honda and Toyota. In fact, if you use JD Powers tools you will see the same trend.
Every time I purchase a new vehicle I look across the board at US, European and Domestic vehicles, so I guess that insulates me from Phil’s “Import Bigot” label. I’ve bought VW, Volvo, Ford, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Honda and Acura product brand new since my first new car purchase in 1987.
If you want some interesting reading, have a look at the USA Today skewering of the new Dodge Avenger:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2007-10-05-avenger_N.htm?csp=34&loc=interstitialskip
It looks like Chrysler released this product when it was almost done.
jthorner, I did read that article. Healey had a lot of nice things to say about the Avenger but summarized with “The sensible thing probably is to scratch Avenger off your list, at least until next year when other flaws have had time to show up.”
Not for nothing was Chrysler at the top of warranty costs. Anyone care to bet there won’t be other widely reported problems?
The shocking thing about warranty cost is how Detroit has failed to work to drive them down. This is a huge competitive disadvantage, nearly half of the reputed UAW disadvantage per car.
And, when I look at these numbers, I have to wonder how Detroit’s warranty costs would look if they didn’t have their Dealer Denial Networks helping to control warranty costs for them. A recent TTAC poster complained about getting stonewalled until after the warranty period expired and then the repair is out of the purchaser’s pocket. How many others have been similarly treated? I know a few.
While reviewing the Avenger, Healey pointed out a number of problems to Chrysler and the very last item was this… “Chrysler says it didn’t find the dash rattle. Of course.” Healey’s been there.
It isn’t comforting to know that not only are Detroit’s cars more trouble-prone but the dealership isn’t in my corner. Cruddy service was a reason I didn’t buy a Chevrolet back in the early ’90’s. Ordinarily, I’d shop Chevy FIRST because the dealer is so damned convenient.
I had a Cavalier that I liked pretty well. It wasn’t trouble-free but it had excellent interior room, adequate (for me) performance, and a very nice interior. For a first-model year (I bought an ’82), I was *very* impressed. But it developed an annoying habit of not starting. So, I took it to that damned convenient dealer, who swapped in a $150 part (some sort of control module) with $75 in labor and sent me on my way. Next morning, I had the same problem, so I took it back to get it fixed again. Something else was the real problem. Was there some sort of adjustment to the bill involved? Not on your life.
When it was time to buy again, I skipped that damned convenient dealer and found a car I liked before I returned to Chevy.
No reason to single out Chevy, among the other insults I endured, the Ford dealer (from which I bough the Ford in question) charged me 2 hours of labor for a blower motor change that had taken me 45 minutes the previous year (I took it to Ford because I figured they could do it even faster than I could and I didn’t want to work on the car in the freezing cold). Oh, and I was back because the replacement Ford part I used only lasted 15 months.
There’s an independent mechanic down the road. He doesn’t have the competitive advantage of automatic business by virtue of being in the dealer network, so he has to stand behind his work instead and earn loyalty. On the occasion when I’ve took something back, I got a satisfactory arrangement on the total repair cost (parts credit, free labor, whatever it took to make the bill look right given the real problem).
I have read (I can’t remember where) that Toyota gives the dealer considerable latitude in resolving customer complaints with up to $3K per car reimburseable to the dealer to make a situation right. Looking at the warranty cost numbers, it seems like they rarely have to resort to this payment. The dealer gets support from Toyota to keep a customer coming back.
A colleague bought a ’99 Odyssey with the troublesome transmission and, at over 97K miles, it started to slip. He took it to a Honda dealer, who didn’t just return the car that evening, saying “we couldn’t find the problem,” they replaced the transmission for free, right away.
Phil’s got a gross misunderstanding of how import owners came to own imports and why they so often intend to return to the imports for their next car. He thinks import “bigots” just need more “exposure” to make a {different | correct | better | his preferred} decision. But Phil’s definition of “exposure” isn’t broad enough. I’ve had plenty of “exposure” to Detroit’s products and I don’t need to go into a Detroit showroom to get more – and irrelevant – “exposure” to make my decision.
Phil’s got a gross misunderstanding of how import owners came to own imports and why they so often intend to return to the imports for their next car. He thinks import “bigots” just need more “exposure” to make a {different | correct | better | his preferred} decision. But Phil’s definition of “exposure” isn’t broad enough. I’ve had plenty of “exposure” to Detroit’s products and I don’t need to go into a Detroit showroom to get more – and irrelevant – “exposure” to make my decision.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Which is why this editorial disappoints me so. Effectively, the piece is a form of name calling, with its author insinuating that anyone who doesn’t agree with him must be uninformed, prone to using irrelevant standards, or bigoted.
As the 80% statistical factoid cited above would suggest, the urge to avoid domestic brands is one of those areas in which relatively uninformed naive buyers, stalwart research fanatics and diehard enthusiasts all agree.
Those with a visceral fear of being stranded don’t want them. The number crunchers who run JD Power, Consumer Reports, True Delta, residual value and warranty claims data through regression analysis models in their computers don’t want them. The passionate driver seeking connection with the road and an interior to match doesn’t want them. IQ’s of 50 or 150, and you still end up with the same market outcome.
The only markets remaining seem to be among the old school Chevy vs. Ford loyalist types, and the importphobes who buy domestic ‘cuz they don’t like furriners. As Americans leave WWII behind them, this becomes a less compelling argument over time, particularly given that many Americans will own the same car for several years, will have paid a lot of money for that vehicle, and therefore want to not regret their decision. A bad purchase can be a costly, enduring mistake, which makes brand equity particularly important in the car business.
Warranty claims/costs are a fascinating subject which are an indication of initial quality, as well as a manufacturer or supplier making a blunder, as well as the expectations of the customer.
All manufacturers put the squeeze on dealers regarding warranty work, the squeeze is subsequently transferred to the customer. There are a myriad ways of playing the squeeze game. Warranties are an immense “ball of grey”, with a myriad of nuances.
Longer warranties are not a sign of quality, its a marketing tool.
The day manufacturers become transparent to the point of saying how much useful life was designed in most components, or how much life has been removed from components to save money, or make room for another component.
Where are the manufacturers drawing the line between the actual steak, and the sizzle. Or where did they cut costs to make room for this new electronic gizmo on the latest model.
Warranties are one factor to consider, as well as being a moving target depending on what decisions a manufacturer makes. One user might have an issue, and 3 others don’t have an issue with the same fault.
Pch101: You truly just hit the nail on the head. Thank you. I as well am supremely disappointed with this article. For the author to immediately discredit anyone’s opinion which isn’t in sync with him is ignorant at best. He believes that since he has had a certain string of experiences, that everyone else, regardless of socio-economic status, should also take those chances, and will also receive those results. That is not reality. To undermine certain factors of a car that people weight importance in, like a high quality interior, that is not reality either. If Honda can make an Accord with a great interior, Ford should be able to make a Fusion with one as well. Saying that interiors aren’t important and shouldn’t be a focus of a consumer’s search effort is naive, and a totally pointless argument, as many import companies have displayed to me how simple it can really be to make a good interior (Just ask Hyundai..as a relatively new competitor on the scene, they seem to be able to do it just fine…). Phil is out of touch. He claims to have driven domestics for over 2 decades, and how he was once the common man as well and knows plenty of common folk who we can all relate to. In reality, Phil is a wealthy, domesticated driver, who has had surprisingly unrealistic good luck with domestic cars so far in life, and assumes that everyone else will have those experiences as well. People don’t. And people won’t risk an investment of such importance on a “maybe”. On a “perhaps it’ll work out fine!”. Or perhaps it’ll be worth nothing in 5 years. It truly bothers me that he is unable to consider that those drivers loving and supporting imports for domestics may have even MORE valid reasons for thinking that way, than he does supporting Big 3 autos.
What do you suppose happens after the warranty ends?
If you have my experience with Ford, Jeep and GM vehicles, the post-warranty costs are nil.
Give me a reason to buy a Detroiter that makes financial sense to me.
Buy in the mainstream classes and you can get lower up front costs, likely a cheaper loan, lower parts costs and probably lower service labor costs after the warranty. That would be consistent with my experience. And the larger context of lower rates of social dysfunction, reduced trade deficit, and constrained assistance costs by keeping the Detroit 3 staffing ecosystem working easily trumps whatever small depreciation differences might exist in a market-mean vehicle.
Phil
As a group, the US makers produce technically inferior vehicles as compared to Honda and Toyota. Perhaps there are a few US vehicle models which outperform a few Asian models in this regard, but the overall data as published in warranty claims rates and Consumer Reports owner surveys shows clearly that the US makers on average produce inferior quality vehicles to the leaders, Honda and Toyota. In fact, if you use JD Powers tools you will see the same trend.
Personally, I’ve never owned any product of any kind that corresponded with Consumer Reports’ survey impressions. So I and many others ignore it. But the basic point is irrelevant to my argument. I accept that when you are averaging all Detroit 3 models, the averages are pulled down by the clunkers. I’m not asking you to consider or buy the Bozo models. My case is for evaluating the *competitive* models from today’s Detroit 3. The historical average data doesn’t represent them.
When I mentioned warranty claims in my rebuttal days ago Phil’s response was that only JD Powers data mattered since that was all most people looked at. His response was fallacious then and the issue stands.
The practical reality is that warranty data is not accessible to consumers, but JDPower has the widest recognition and publicizes data in a form that consumers find readily comprehensible and actionable. Representative or not, it is the number one source of validating data for most people.
Phil’s got a gross misunderstanding of how import owners came to own imports and why they so often intend to return to the imports for their next car. He thinks import “bigots” just need more “exposure” to make a {different | correct | better | his preferred} decision. But Phil’s definition of “exposure” isn’t broad enough. I’ve had plenty of “exposure” to Detroit’s products and I don’t need to go into a Detroit showroom to get more – and irrelevant – “exposure” to make my decision.
And you’re grossly misrepresenting my decision. You seem to believe all import buyers are such because of negative domestic vehicle ownership experiences. That’s not the case. My focus is on the subset of import buyers who have not evaluated competitive Detroit 3 products and won’t, despite no actual prior negative experience, or negative experience so distant in time that it ceases to be relevant. Whether that’s you or not is only know n to you.
Those with a visceral fear of being stranded don’t want them. The number crunchers who run JD Power, Consumer Reports, True Delta, residual value and warranty claims data through regression analysis models in their computers don’t want them. The passionate driver seeking connection with the road and an interior to match doesn’t want them. IQ’s of 50 or 150, and you still end up with the same market outcome.
Competitive Detroit 3 cars can be purchased that meet all of these criteria and overcome every fear cited.
For the author to immediately discredit anyone’s opinion which isn’t in sync with him is ignorant at best. He believes that since he has had a certain string of experiences, that everyone else, regardless of socio-economic status, should also take those chances, and will also receive those results. That is not reality.
I didn’t discredit “anyone’s opinion which isn’t in sync with” me. I commented specifically on the evaluation behavior of people who won’t consider a competitive Detroit 3 car in the context of willful ignorance of its quality and attributes. As for my experiences, over the 25 years or so that I’ve bought mostly domestic vehicles, something close to 250 million Detroit units have been sold into the American market as new cars. The actual incidence of off-putting failure has been far less than hearsay and reporting. Will *you* have my experience — most of which has been had with market-average priced cars? I don’t know. But you don’t know that if you buy an import, either.
To undermine certain factors of a car that people weight importance in, like a high quality interior, that is not reality either. If Honda can make an Accord with a great interior, Ford should be able to make a Fusion with one as well. Saying that interiors aren’t important and shouldn’t be a focus of a consumer’s search effort is naive, and a totally pointless argument, as many import companies have displayed to me how simple it can really be to make a good interior
If you believe this is what I wrote, it is a misrepresentation. I didn’t say interiors aren’t important. I said in competitive vehicles the differences are so small as to be pointless as differentiating reasons to buy one over the other, especially when the larger social context is included. That is, ask yourself if the social cost is worth that small perceived difference in interior? Have you been in an Accord, Camry, Fusion, Taurus lately?
Phil is out of touch. He claims to have driven domestics for over 2 decades, and how he was once the common man as well and knows plenty of common folk who we can all relate to. In reality, Phil is a wealthy, domesticated driver, who has had surprisingly unrealistic good luck with domestic cars so far in life, and assumes that everyone else will have those experiences as well. People don’t.
Claims to have driven domestics for over 2 decades? Do you want the list? What makes you certain my lack of trouble with Detroit 3 vehicles is unrealistic? It’s as real as anyone else’s bad experience. I don’t assume everyone else *will* have the same experience. I know that if they choose competitive models from the Detroit 3, the risk they won’t have a good experience is low.
Yes, I do know many people who buy market-average cars, including family and friends who routinely drive Detroit 3 cars to 150,000 miles or more with nothing but routine maintenance and wear/tear item replacement. Just like I have.
And people won’t risk an investment of such importance on a “maybe”. On a “perhaps it’ll work out fine!”. Or perhaps it’ll be worth nothing in 5 years. It truly bothers me that he is unable to consider that those drivers loving and supporting imports for domestics may have even MORE valid reasons for thinking that way, than he does supporting Big 3 autos.
Competitive domestic vehicles do not impose any more of a “maybe” requirement on the buyer. Worth nothing in five years? No one knows depreciation, but if you drive a market-average car into six figures the residuals drive depreciation differences into low significance.
It’s not that I am unable to consider the reasons others prefer imports. People are free to do what they want. I am also free to posit that some of them are missing an element of value that if factored into their consideration and evaluation activities, might drive them to a different purchase aligned to a larger objective. And you are free to ignore me.
For whatever reason, the emotional response to this proposition is causing many of you to overstate or misrepresent what I’m suggesting. As I wrote before, whether *you specifically* are among those who rule out Detroit 3 products on no actual knowledge of the competitive offerings among them, is only known to you. But if you are among them, my case is for including Detroit 3 vehicles in your shopping, adding the larger socio-economic context and how your purchasing power can shape the environment you live in, and buy accordingly. I didn’t say you must buy American. I said that if import bigots and the import averse will consider *competitive* Detroit 3 alternatives, I am confident enough new purchases will be generated for those companies to ensure they can complete their reforms. Target one-million more.
Phil
Phil,
Let me explain to you the nature of the “emotional response.”
You aim to win over 1 million “import bigots.” You did not originally use the word “averse.” This is, necessarily, a subset of the entire group of “import bigots.” Ergo, you’re calling we don’t know how many import purchasers and intenders, “bigots.” That’s not going to win you any friends.
Now, I again remind you that this million is a number that you have extracted from your rectum. You have no clue how many import owners are “burn victims,” “bigots” or “averse” or entirely open-minded people who considered *everything* and then went to the imports. Considering that you’re talking about “import bigots” and Eurpean cars are “imports” and that Europe gets little loyalty and that European quality is also lagging, I’d say that most people are doing things for rather rational reasons.
You have nothing but fuzzy notions and guesses about why people don’t buy Detroit, you think it’s some sort of bigotry, yet you can’t specify a reason for it or even solidly identify people who have it. Thirty years ago, no one would buy what was openly referred to as “Jap crap.” Today, that’s changed. Why?
Here’s the deal; people don’t f*ck around with $20,000 purchases. We might like the home team but we’re not willing to invest a disproportionate amount of our own money saving it. Why not buy Toyota stock and bring the money back here that way?
You discount the notion that people have good, quantifiable reasons for their actions but you have no proof.
You make continual references to “competitive” Detroit product. Hey, here’s an idea: name one. Remember that reliability is a key aspect of “competitive.” Or, better yet, name one in every category. Or, better yet, name one PROVEN competitive product in every category.
That’s what it takes, you know. Reliability and PROVEN go hand-in-hand.
Detroit reliability lags. And open your eyes. JDPower is ONE measure. Generally, it’s aligned with the idea that Detroit, overall, is “not as good.” CR is ANOTHER measure. CR says Detroit is “not as good.” Overall warranty costs are another measure. These say, “in the warranty period, Detroit is about twice as bad, except Chrysler which well and truly sucks.” All these things align with my personal history – and the personal history of many other posters here – and add up to Detroit is “not as good.”
We acknowledge you’ve led a charmed life. Good for you. If we’d all had wonderful Detroit experiences, we’d all be driving Impalas.
“Not as good” does not magically become “good enough” just because Detroit’s stockholders might lose some money.
And don’t give us any crap about “stakeholders.” Detroit will move all the operations they can to low wage countries as fast as they can. GM is playing footsie with the Chinese (see TTAC reports for how great those cars are). They will send their engineering jobs to China and India as soon as they think they can get away with it (my experience in IT says that you will not want to drive cars engineered in India to GM specifications). The “stakeholders” are going to be thrown under the bus by Wagoner, Mullaly and Press. Well, maybe not Mullally. Mullaly might have enough faith in American engineering (he ran Boeing, after all) to keep the jobs here.
Do I want to take a risk to make the stockholders happy? No. Should any rational person? No.
phil, gotta give it to you for taking the time to respond.
Cap Gemini consulting does an annual study of the retail automotive business in North America, Europe, and increasingly China. Its called Cars Online and this year is the 9th year of the study.
For the past few years product loyalty, manufacturer loyalty, dealer loyalty are decreasing from year to year. One generation does not do what the other generation did, or will do.
If one generation did not look at Detroit, and from this thread its abundantly clear how strong the feelings are. The next generation might just look at Detroit again just to be different.
All Phil is saying, take a look at Detroit Iron, perhaps you are missing out if you don’t take a look. Yes, we are all different, we all have preferences, we all have loyalties, we all have our foibles.
You don’t agree with Detroit Iron, get Japanese Iron, don’t like Japanese, get German Iron, don’t like German, get Korean Iron, don’t like Korean, be patient, you’ll get Chinese Iron.
The folks that started driving with Japanese cars, chances are your kids will not drive Japanese cars. That you tell them they are reliable, and whatever else, the kids are going to look at you and say “Thanks no thanks”.
Increasingly cars are commodities, and leases are gaining in popularity again, how much loyalty is in a 36 month walk away lease with subsidised rates?
The real issue for Detroit is that the cars they have that are competitive don’t have a proven track record.
Their trucks, on the other hand, do have a long history of being tough and working well. People will buy an F150 on it’s merits, it’s a safe bet it will last.
Let’s take the Ford Fusion as an example. This car is probably competitive. Is it proven though?
No it’s not. Right now smart money would take a CamCord instead. Why?
Before the Fusion they had the Contour. The Contour had problems with the dash warping and breaking. Ford didn’t recall this problem. So what you say? Well now they’re building the Contour’s replacement in Mexico. Lets all line up and buy one to save America. Yeah right. It’s too bad because the Contour had a nice reputation for being a sporty Euro-feeling car. It could have been something to build on.
Detroit needs to keep their model’s names throughout the years to cement a reputation if they even hope to get the “bigots”. Honda and Toyota could be building junk but as long as they label it an Accord or Camry it will sell on it’s past reputation.
“Those with a visceral fear of being stranded don’t want them. The number crunchers who run JD Power, Consumer Reports, True Delta, residual value and warranty claims data through regression analysis models in their computers don’t want them. The passionate driver seeking connection with the road and an interior to match doesn’t want them. IQ’s of 50 or 150, and you still end up with the same market outcome.”
…Competitive Detroit 3 cars can be purchased that meet all of these criteria and overcome every fear cited.
That’s where you’re wrong. Rarely does Detroit offer products with the combination of driving intangibles, brand dependability, desirability. reliability, service and cachet value that the majority of consumers want. It doesn’t accomplish this in the subcompact category, the compact category, the full-size sedan category, the sporty near-luxury sedan category, and a whole host of other categories. Domestic trucks, large SUV’s and the Vette are about the only vehicles that I’d consider to be competitive, and I’m not in the market for any one of these.
It’s very simple: Detroit needs to do better, full stop. The consumer doesn’t need to do anything except wait for this grand epiphany to happen and for years of an established track record that shows that the metamorphosis is sufficiently complete to their satisfaction.
Please stop it with this unproven argument that the products are competitive. Consumers have already indicated that they do not believe that the products are competitive, as the sales figures make clear. The customer is always right, and if Detroit takes it cues from editorials such as this one, then they will bury companies like this into the ground. Happy digging…
All Phil is saying, take a look at Detroit Iron, perhaps you are missing out if you don’t take a look.
Unfortunately, in the process of doing this, he assaults the intelligence of millions of Americans, so it’s a bit unfair to claim that it is the limit of his message.
But irrespective of that, it’s horribly presumptuous to assume that Americans don’t have enough information or use it to make decisions and to presume that they would make different choices otherwise.
Let’s say that you’re a mid-sized sedan buyer. You want something that’s pleasant to drive, has a bit of panache, a high likelihood of reliability and decent residuals.
Now, pretty much everyone who hasn’t been living in a cave for the past two decades knows that the Camry and Accord are good bets in this class. The question arises: At what point does the consumer need to stop shopping? Is it really necessary to drive every single four-door car sold in the United States to be content with a Camry or Accord?
I’d dare say that it isn’t. The consumer may not believe it to be worth the time and effort to look at a product that may very well be a roll of the dice.
And that is a perfectly reasonable course of action take. When I go out to have dinner on a Saturday night, I don’t read reviews and do taste tests of 100 restaurants within my market area, I just put a short list together and choose from it. Simple enough, and my appetite and desire for fun/romance/whatever it is will be served by it.
Everyman and Everywoman do not need to consider the latest offering from Detroit just because they’ve been called bigots for not spending time in a Chevy dealer. The average car buyer knows that there is already a good choice or two to make that is extremely safe, so there isn’t much reason to deviate.
You want the consumer to change today? Then make it worth the risk. Make the product exceptionally good and special in its on way, and some risktakers in the market will give it a shot because the lust factor rises to the top and motivates pulling the trigger.
The Fusion and Aura are two examples of mainstream Detroit products that are not exceptional or special. They lack that special something that will motivate many consumers to roll the dice. To not make these cars standout statement makers that could woo those prone to seduction was a serious error in judgment and a blown opportunity to bring back more sales.
So there you have it, the great not-really-a-secret of mounting a comeback. It’s precisely what Ford did with the Taurus, Chrysler did with the original minivan (and again with the 300), what Nissan did with the Altima and what VW did with the New Beetle.
Don’t just tell the consumer that the product is competitive — prove it by making it so damned appealing and hormonal that they can’t help themselves, and then make sure you do a damn good job of building it so that they tell their friends. None of my friends are tell me to buy domestic, and I won’t be telling them that, either, particularly after being told repeatedly that people like myself are akin to crossburners on the way to a lynching.
Some of this dialogue has gotten too intense. It reminds me of Karl Popper’s observation “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.” Let’s not be vituperative or accuse people of bad motives when none were intended.
Kixstart, thanks for citing that article. I saw it a while back. It’s an interesting analysis, but the authors had to make many assumptions and guesstimates to go from A (worldwide warranty expense and worldwide revenue totals) to B (warranty expense per car). There are so many unknown variables. And of course, the beyond-standard-warranty years are an even darker continent. So I think it proves my point: we need better data on the risk involved in buying a particular vehicle. Then we’d be able to weight it appropriately.
Neither I nor anyone else, as far as I know, is saying the D3’s range of cars on average have gotten as reliable as Toyotas or Honda. Overall, they’re still worse. But how much worse, which vehicles, and when? Suppose, say, in the fifth year (or for 50,000 to 59,999 miles) a Fusion will likely have one more trip to the shop and $250 more repair expense than an Accord. And suppose the Fusion can be purchased for a thousand bucks less, and that an extended warranty can be bought for $400. If you aren’t one of those D3 victims who swear “never again,” fears of unreliability shouldn’t keep Fusion off your list. And who knows, some other factors might even push it to the top.
In my neighborhood I see an increasing number of the Ford and comparable Lincoln CUV, the Lincoln is the MKX or something of the sort.
I have difficulties believing that all these folks, owned a Lincoln before, or owned a Ford before, or owned Detroit Iron before. An MKX in its own way is appealing, its new, its different, and presented with an enticing financial package it will steal business.
Does the customer that leases an MKX, or any other vehicle really care about terminal quality, and durability?
Do they really care about how many warranty claims, if the dealer gives them good service?
Do they really care if the interior is going to hold up after 10 years, they have a 36 month lease.
Do they really care about used value, when a multibillion dollar corporation is responsible for the value?
Do they really care about maintenance costs, when the entire term of the lease the vehicle is under warranty?
If the vehicle is a monumental POS, the challenge is to get out of the lease early, or wait it out till the end of the lease.
Increasingly vehicles are commodities that cater to lifestyle needs, and when the lifestyle changes the vehicle changes. Most young people have no desire to spend any kind of money to do maintenance work on any vehicle.
It would be naive to think that manufacturers are not aware of all these realities.
Pch101, its only cars, its not personal, and feeling that anyone is assaulting intelligence is possibly getting a little too intense.
Go to the Canadian Import….thread see what this fellow kevin is spewing.
You are tenacious at defending you position, and so is Phil, and several others. From a debate perspective this thread is precious, and shows the intensity of personal beliefs and convictions, and loyalties of “gearheads”.
I don’t think that the “average consumer” is so intense about their vehicle choices.
Its a wonderful thread, an insightful learning experience with people from all over the place. Perhaps all the folks that made a contribution to this thread, good, bad, agree or disagree. We should all “high five” ourselves for taking the time, and caring enough to express an opinion.
Its at the point where most of the car shopping is done online, and its the online experience that influences the brand.
I remember seeing a Ford 500 when it was launched, this thing was ugly, the interior was a mess, who in his right mind came up with this car, its like who is going to buy this POS.
The Chrysler 300 might be miserable Detroit Iron, but it had street presence when it was launched, it had a Hemi. The SRT version is exceptional value for the money.
Honda has lost it way, Mazda has cool cars, Toyota is supposed to have bullet proof cars, I’m sure they have warranty claims too.
German cars chew up brakes…its standard equipment on a Bimmer or a Benz, they have all sorts of electronic glitches, and a variety of other foibles.
We could go on, and on, and on about all the stuff that can happen to cars, what is fact, what is fiction, what is urban legend.
its only cars, its not personal, and feeling that anyone is assaulting intelligence is possibly getting a little too intense.
I can’t recall another editorial on TTAC that referred to a sizable chunk of its readership as “bigots” and that bases its thesis on the premise that those who differ with the author are inherently uninformed, illogical or eligible for Klan membership.
Personally, I’m not offended — my skin is as thick as they come — but that is not the way to encourage an honest dialog. On an internet bulletin board, those sorts of utterances would likely be equated to trolling.
More to the point, the pieces moves in a slippery fashion between questionable anecdotes (the domestic buyer as Christ-like martyr surrounded by hopeless import-buying comformists) to unproven allegations (domestic products are typically the equal to the competition) to insult (the consumer is dumb and bigoted.)
It’s articulate, to be sure, but wholly flawed, and there is nothing emotional whatsoever in pointing that out. I frankly find the accusations of emotion being made by the author to be a cop out that is attempting to skirt the arguments made in opposition to his unproven points. Instead of addressing the critiques substantively, they are instead dismissed as being emotional and used as a foundation for making more unproven allegations about consumer behavior. In my mind, that’s not a well constructed argument.
Pch101, many years ago, probably too many that I care to remember I took a philosophy course called “dialectics” this thread is an excellent example of dialectics – the intial premise is one of disagreement, and the discussion tries to resolve the disagreement.
You aim to win over 1 million “import bigots.” You did not originally use the word “averse.” This is, necessarily, a subset of the entire group of “import bigots.” Ergo, you’re calling we don’t know how many import purchasers and intenders, “bigots.” That’s not going to win you any friends.
Frankly, neither of us knows whether the import car market is comprised of 98% rational buyers and 2% import bigots or 98% bigots and 2% rational buyers, or any combination in between. But obviously, my own experience and observation tells me the number of people who won’t consider a Detroit 3 product in a context of complete ignorance of them is substantial. I think it’s substantial enough that a return to objectivity in that subset could yield a million units swung, so since no campaign gets everyone, you can accurately surmise I think it’s a group larger than one million. Winning friends? All but two words of my editorial were straightforward and absent loaded phrasing or terms. But I am serious about the existence of import bigots, and apparently the moniker got some attention. The gentle winning friends approach hasn’t broken through.
You have nothing but fuzzy notions and guesses about why people don’t buy Detroit, you think it’s some sort of bigotry, yet you can’t specify a reason for it or even solidly identify people who have it. Thirty years ago, no one would buy what was openly referred to as “Jap crap.” Today, that’s changed. Why?
Here’s the deal; people don’t f*ck around with $20,000 purchases. We might like the home team but we’re not willing to invest a disproportionate amount of our own money saving it. Why not buy Toyota stock and bring the money back here that way?
You discount the notion that people have good, quantifiable reasons for their actions but you have no proof.
Actually, I haven’t discounted the notion that some people have good reasons for banishing Detroit 3 products from their consideration lists. I have said repeatedly that I leave it to them to be convinced if they will simply shop the competitive products, factor in the real costs in a larger social context, and decide accordingly. How many times do I have to repeat what’s in the editorial: if people do this, I am confident of buying the Detroit 3 the time to complete their reform.
Actually, people futz around the $20,000 purchases all the time. That’s the nature of buying on emotion, which is what most car purchases are. CR is not the arbiter of most car purchases; just for some people so inclined.
You make continual references to “competitive” Detroit product. Hey, here’s an idea: name one. Remember that reliability is a key aspect of “competitive.” Or, better yet, name one in every category. Or, better yet, name one PROVEN competitive product in every category.
That’s what it takes, you know. Reliability and PROVEN go hand-in-hand.
Detroit reliability lags. And open your eyes. JDPower is ONE measure. Generally, it’s aligned with the idea that Detroit, overall, is “not as good.” CR is ANOTHER measure. CR says Detroit is “not as good.” Overall warranty costs are another measure. These say, “in the warranty period, Detroit is about twice as bad, except Chrysler which well and truly sucks.” All these things align with my personal history – and the personal history of many other posters here – and add up to Detroit is “not as good.”
Everyone has their own idea of “competitive”. Yes, I can prepare my list. But others might include vehicles I exclude or the other way around. My history and the history of others I am familiar with does not correspond with yours. I won’t doubt that you are representing your history accurately, but I have no reason to believe it is any more representative than you are claiming my isn’t. I think I’ve already said that I’ve never owned a single product that was accurately rated by CR, so I pay no attention to them. Which is good because I have a 100% success rate ignoring CR in all categories, ever.
Do I want to take a risk to make the stockholders happy? No. Should any rational person? No.
As a consumer, I am not interested in stockholders. I am not an investor in these companies or this sector. I’m interested in stakeholders — a big difference.
That’s where you’re wrong. Rarely does Detroit offer products with the combination of driving intangibles, brand dependability, desirability. reliability, service and cachet value that the majority of consumers want. It doesn’t accomplish this in the subcompact category, the compact category, the full-size sedan category, the sporty near-luxury sedan category, and a whole host of other categories. Domestic trucks, large SUV’s and the Vette are about the only vehicles that I’d consider to be competitive, and I’m not in the market for any one of these.
The Detroit 3 offer the combination of intangibles in enough models now to win more share if people will consider them. Cachet value? I’ve expressly suggested I think cachet value is decidely *not* worth incurring the larger socio-economic costs of losing the Detroit 3. That’s big behavior change I’d like to see. What you’re in the market for is up to you. I think you’re being narrow-minded in excluding Detroit 3 vehicles from consideration in the intermediate, full-size and near luxury categories. But that’s me.
The consumer doesn’t need to do anything except wait for this grand epiphany to happen and for years of an established track record that shows that the metamorphosis is sufficiently complete to their satisfaction.
They have to do more if they care about ensuring these companies have the cash and time to complete their reform.
Please stop it with this unproven argument that the products are competitive. Consumers have already indicated that they do not believe that the products are competitive, as the sales figures make clear. The customer is always right, and if Detroit takes it cues from editorials such as this one, then they will bury companies like this into the ground.
It’s as “proven” as the contention that the products cited are not competitive. Customers have indicated a preference against a backdrop of exclusion, for a subset of the market. No, the customer isn’t always right, he’s just always free. And I’ve said before, this is not marketing advice for Detroit. That’s a topic for another editorial.
Unfortunately, in the process of doing this, he assaults the intelligence of millions of Americans, so it’s a bit unfair to claim that it is the limit of his message.
No one’s intelligence has been assaulted. What I’ve commented on are matters of awareness, open-mindedness and will. The only assault on intelligence has been in the misrepresentations of my text.
Let’s say that you’re a mid-sized sedan buyer. You want something that’s pleasant to drive, has a bit of panache, a high likelihood of reliability and decent residuals.
Now, pretty much everyone who hasn’t been living in a cave for the past two decades knows that the Camry and Accord are good bets in this class. The question arises: At what point does the consumer need to stop shopping? Is it really necessary to drive every single four-door car sold in the United States to be content with a Camry or Accord?
The Camry and Accord are in dire absence of panache. Pleasant to drive? Try anesthetizing. Seriously, I’d fall asleep trying to log 500 miles in either of them. But even if you like them, the shopper that cares about whether the Detroit 3 survives will be square with that when they include newer competitors.
Don’t just tell the consumer that the product is competitive — prove it by making it so damned appealing and hormonal that they can’t help themselves …I won’t be telling them that, either, particularly after being told repeatedly that people like myself are akin to crossburners on the way to a lynching.
You’ve been arguing all along that these cars appeal to the rational buyer and now you want hormonal. Hmmm…you want to change the rules. Again, you’re forgetting I am asking people to include a larger context in their decisions. Those who don’t care to may not change, but they don’t get to complain about the socio-economic consequences either. As for equating you to crossburners, you know no such thing has been suggested. All racists might be bigots, but bigots are not specifically racists; in fact, let’s say there’s enough bigotry in thought to go around as to ensure that the racist element is a minority variant. Clearly, I’m not equating you nor anyone else with the KKK.
I can’t recall another editorial on TTAC that referred to a sizable chunk of its readership as “bigots” and that bases its thesis on the premise that those who differ with the author are inherently uninformed, illogical or eligible for Klan membership.
Again, a misrepresentation. I did not base my thesis on the premise that others are inherently uninformed, illogical or eligible for Klan membership. I directed my comments to a lack of consideration for decision factors that reside in a larger social context, a behavior lapse in part of the market’s consideration and evaluation behavior, and a specific criticism of people who don’t have to courage to explain brand purchase outside the mainstream of their social circle. And by the way, neither you nor I know whether that coterie of individuals is a sizable or miniscule chunk of this audience.
More to the point, the pieces moves in a slippery fashion between questionable anecdotes (the domestic buyer as Christ-like martyr surrounded by hopeless import-buying comformists) to unproven allegations (domestic products are typically the equal to the competition) to insult (the consumer is dumb and bigoted.)
What’s questionable about the anecdotes? Everything I’ve cited is described accurately. Do you not think there are import-buying conformists? I didn’t say in what proportion to the overall market they exist. I also plainly did not say that “domestic products are typically the equal to the competition.” I expressly said there are *competitive* models worth considering. I made no comment about the proportion of the total Detroit 3 models are competitive. I also reported my specific trouble-free experience with 25 years of Detroit vehicles. And I in no way characterized any consumer as “dumb”, and you know this.
As for being a “…martyr” for buying domestic, that notion has never entered my mind. When I’ve purchased Detroit products, it was a result of openly comparative shopping and I bought what I evaluated to be the best vehicles in their class at the time.
…charges of emotion being made by the author to be a cop out that is attempting to skirt the arguments made in opposition to his unproven points. Instead of addressing the critiques substantively, they are instead dismissed as being emotional and used as a foundation for making more unproven allegations about consumer behavior.
This is now a 263 post thread, many of which are my responses to commentary. I think most here will agree that if you follow the editorial and my responses, that I have substantively addressed every objection, including those few that I characterized as “emotional.” My observations of consumer behavior are exactly that — observations, not allegations. They are rooted in real world experience. Your experience may be different. It just happens that I wrote the editorial to voice mine, and you didn’t. I’m sure Robert will be happy for you to have at it with your own.
Phil
You’ve been arguing all along that these cars appeal to the rational buyer and now you want hormonal. Hmmm…you want to change the rules.
Er, no. The point is that buyer’s needs must be met if the company is to make sales and earn profits.
Of course, styling and fun help to sell a lot of cars. If you’re going to spend that kind of money, why shouldn’t get some pleasure from your purchase?
It’s not rocket science (at least to smart business people) that a really enjoyable or sexy product will encourage some degree of consumer risktaking. That’s why Ford can sell V-8 Mustangs despite its flaws, because it has a combination of styling and fun factor that works for some buyers. It’s a niche that most other manufacturers have ignored, so Ford gets to capitalize on its rare mini-monopoly in this segment. To achieve the same thing in a more competitive segment such as mid-sized sedans will require multitudes more effort, due to the strength of the rivals.
No, the customer isn’t always right, he’s just always free.
Mr. Ressler, your entire failure to comprehend anything expressed by those who disagree with you here is as utter and dire as it is because you seem to know nothing whatsoever about business.
Again, the free market system dominates the entire outcome here in the marketplace. Not you, not me, but the market. You are absolutely unwilling accept the market for what it is and meet it on its own terms — instead, you wish to fight it and demean its participants.
So you don’t like the Accord or Camry. Who cares what you think personally? It isn’t about you, and it’s not even about me. It’s about the market and its preferences, and Toyota and Honda deliver consistently good results for the consumer, which is why hundreds of thousands of people buy them in the US each year. If the Big 2.8 were well managed, they should be doing the same, but they aren’t, so they don’t.
I do appreciate your commentary because it provides some insights as to why Detroit is failing. I have no doubt that much of GM’s upper management agrees with you entirely, which is of course why they are losing money by the bucketload. Instead of them serving the market, they want the market to serve them. But that’s no way to operate a business, and at this pace, they are going to shrink considerably to the point of irrelevance.
“This is now a 263 post thread, many of which are my responses to commentary. I think most here will agree that if you follow the editorial and my responses, that I have substantively addressed every objection, including those few that I characterized as “emotional.””
No you have not addressed every, or even most, of the objections substantively. Your original article asserted that Detroit’s products are generally as good reliability wise as the Asian ones, but the available data does not support your assertion. Your original article used loyalty data to conclude that many buyers are import bigots, but the data does not support that characterization unless you also call loyal domestic buyers domestic bigots, which you seem loath to do. You hang onto the use of the term bigot when it is in fact an inflammatory and derogatory term, yet you claim that anyone who sees the term as such just doesn’t understand what you are saying.
I suppose that the original article and it’s many lengthy responses from the author is just a matter of blowing off steam and not a real attempt to convince 1 million more US residents to Buy American than otherwise would have. If your point is to Have Your Say, then I guess you have done so. If your point was to persuade import intenders to give the home team another look then you have failed miserably. Please do not take a sales/marketing/promotion job with any of the 2.8 as they surely do not need that kind of “help”.
Believe it or not, I would love to see a resurgent US based automotive business and in fact for years I invested my hard earned money in GM hoping for just that. However, the way the companies have been managed continues to horribly disappoint and I have moved on, both as an investor and as a car buyer. I’m never going to buy an ego enhancement vehicle like an XLR (or an SL550) even though I could easily afford it. What a waste of money.
It’s not rocket science (at least to smart business people) that a really enjoyable or sexy product will encourage some degree of consumer risktaking.
Yeah, completely agree. Except that looking at the bulk of the market by the numbers comprising the mainstream, that’s not what people are buying.
…your entire failure to comprehend anything expressed by those who disagree with you here is as utter and dire as it is because you seem to know nothing whatsoever about business.
You’re confusing comprehension with agreement. I comprehend all of it. I just don’t agree with *you*. My career is business. I am a career marketer who has created demand for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of sales. If I had simply taken the view that the customer is always right, I’d have created demand for much less. I do take the view that the customer is always free. But education, innovation, perception shaping and enlarging the scope of what the customer cares about, from their intrinsic awareness, can increase demand and satisfaction. If you fail to *get* customers, you have to respond to that. But nothing I’ve said here is advice for Detroit. *This* column was not about marketing. It was strictly about a consumer component of a market dysfunction.
Again, the free market system dominates the entire outcome here in the marketplace. Not you, not me, but the market. You are absolutely unwilling accept the market for what it is and meet it on its own terms — instead, you wish to fight it and demean its participants.
This is a thorough misrepresentation. I’m not interfering or advocating any interference with the function of a free market. I posited that the free will consumer in the free market has interests that are not being sufficiently considered. Everyone who plants a new idea, product or technique into the market “fights” it until resistance is overcome. Even the import car companies met resistence, but the market adapted to them as much as they adapted to the market.
Toyota and Honda deliver consistently good results for the consumer, which is why hundreds of thousands of people buy them in the US each year. If the Big 2.8 were well managed, they should be doing the same, but they aren’t, so they don’t.
Yes, and I haven’t written anything that denies this. No one here, least of all me, has contended that the Detroit 3 have been well-managed. In fact I’ve written nothing about that either way.
I have no doubt that much of GM’s upper management agrees with you entirely, which is of course why they are losing money by the bucketload. Instead of them serving the market, they want the market to serve them. But that’s no way to operate a business, and at this pace, they are going to shrink considerably to the point of irrelevance.
What I’ve outlined for changes in consideration and evaluation practices in a subset of the buying population in no way let’s Detroit management off the hook. It is not advice nor solace for Detroit, it is a direct message to consumers. Detroit has to serve the market and I will write separately about that another time.
I am not concerned about convincing you specificially. My responses here to you are strictly for the purpose of correcting your persistent misrepresentations of what I’ve written.
Phil
Your original article asserted that Detroit’s products are generally as good reliability wise as the Asian ones
No, it did not. My editorial asserted that there are competitive Detroit 3 models. I made no comment about how representative those competitive models are of those companies’ car lines in general. But clearly I believe there are enough to suit much of the mainstream market.
Your original article used loyalty data to conclude that many buyers are import bigots, but the data does not support that characterization unless you also call loyal domestic buyers domestic bigots, which you seem loath to do.
There is no data that refutes the existence of a coterie of what I call import bigots, and I think most people know they exist from personal experience. Some people may not see that as a bad thing. And by the way, there are domestic bigots too. I’m not among them, and I’ve explicitly said in prior posts that I don’t endorse refusal to consider, either direction.
You hang onto the use of the term bigot when it is in fact an inflammatory and derogatory term, yet you claim that anyone who sees the term as such just doesn’t understand what you are saying.
Well, some people have come on here and said, effectively, “Yeah, I’m an import bigot, here’s why.” Most others haven’t challenged the term. A tiny few have objected. Someone’s always going to object to a pointed reference. It’s an editorial. If you don’t like it, I accept that. However, it’s not something to apologize for. Denotatively, the term is descriptive of the behavior I was writing about.
If your point is to Have Your Say, then I guess you have done so. If your point was to persuade import intenders to give the home team another look then you have failed miserably.
I wasn’t blowing off steam. I’d have to have been angry for that and I am not. It’s an editorial so of course it is a way to have my say. As for persuasion, who knows. Most of my responses here have been to correct misrepresentations of what I actually said. I accept that I haven’t persuaded *you*, but I’m still not sure you’re willing to read the argument for what it is. No matter. Your free will isn’t compromised.
Phil
Except that looking at the bulk of the market by the numbers comprising the mainstream, that’s not what people are buying.
Argh. The ultimate message here is that to win hearts and minds after years of brand destruction, the companies in question will need to make some standout products that beat the competition in some way, shape or form.
Clearly, the Big 2.8 cannot beat Honda or Toyota in reliability for mainstream products. Those two set the standard, and cannot possibly be dethroned by a more mediocre builder such as GM.
At the same time, decades of tedious styling and badge engineering have largely destroyed any claims to cachet or sex appeal that Detroit products may have had. So that needs to be conquered as well.
Therefore, GM et. al. need to do something different and special in order to stand out and encourage consumer risk taking. I have long contended that the Achilles heel of Toyota and Honda is their styling (although they are improving in this area as we speak, so the bar is steadily being raised.)
If the Big 2.8 would pull their heads out, recognize their failure to produce competitive product (which is defined by the market, not by you) and make some truly stunning mainstream cars, some buyers would roll the dice and take the risk. If those conquest buyers are then satisfied by their purchases, they will sing their praises and extol their virtues to their friends, family and acquaintances, some of whom will heed their advice and take a chance themselves. And so on.
That’s exactly how Honda and Toyota got to where they are today, through a deliberate process of continuous improvement and improving their reputations. They accomplished a very difficult task — they took a market dominated by a few well-capitalized monoliths with monster brands and blew it apart. That takes true talent and management brilliance, and they should be respected for their victory. After all, they earned it.
If you a professional marketer, then you should already know all of this. To be blunt, I have to question your track record in this area, in that anyone schooled in branding and promotion would know this instinctively and not bother arguing against it.
If anything, your article illustrates a lack of knowledge of marketing fundamentals, as you have taken pains to insult the prospective convert instead of appealing to his self-interest, while consistently and erroneously characterizing your opponents as being unable to comprehend your message, even though we all know what you’re trying to say. The majority of the readership just doesn’t like what you’re saying, and I find their rebuttals more compellingly presented and far less emotional than anything you have offered to date.
I am not concerned about convincing you specificially.
I didn’t expect you to be. But your arguments are also not convincing to the average American, whom you have derided and insulted for having different preferences from your own. You probably helped to sell a few Toyotas with this piece, as you’ve made it evident that the emperor is nude and the platitudes offered to Detroit are ultimately unsupported by the data. As I pointed out previously, those most inclined to crunch the data and do substantial research before buying are the ones generally most inclined to leave your sinking ship. About the only buyers who remain fresh for the picking are the ones who ignore the data or pretend that consumer preferences just don’t matter.
Phil,
Your rant has two major gaping holes:
1. You assert there IS competitive Detroit product but you can’t identify it. Try, if you like, but you won’t be able to fill this hole. In terms of reliability and durability, several sources judge Detroit “not as good.” You have to overcome that. Good luck.
2. You assert that their are a million import bigots but you can’t identify them or deduce their existence from available information. And, no, you can not “extrapolate” from your personal experience and leave it at that. You have to have some sort of evidence to back it up.
If I claim Detroit cars are “not as good,” I can *start* with my personal experience (for which I have forgiven Ford but for which my wife has not), move on to the personal experiences of friends (Buick motors that hydro-lock) and then look at JDPower, CR or warranty information as confirmation.
You calulation, by the way, of anticipated reliability being offset by a combination of the lower price plus an extended warranty is inadequate. You fail to factor in the purchasers reasonable fear of claim denial and the purchaser’s aversion to being stranded.
I bought several highly reliable Toyotas. I offer friends rides to the Chevy dealer to pick up their cars; I don’t beg rides to the Toyota dealer to pick up mine. Nobody likes hunting for a ride home or having their plans screwed up (like being unable to pick up the kids at daycare). Peace of mind is worth a lot of money.
The assertion that Detroit’s competitive products are being ignored is simply false. Ford sold almost a million F series pickups in 2006, those types of sales numbers indicate that there is no perception gap in this particular market. This is the result of a genuinely competitive product which is superior to the competition in many ways, not “domestic bigotry”. Consumers will buy if your product gives them a reason to do so.
However, when we examine the mainstream segments of compact cars and family sedans. We find that Detroit’s products are simply much worse than the competition in many dimensions. In the compact car segment the 2.5 put out cars such as the Aveo and Cobalt, which by this site’s own reviews are rolling garbage bins. In the family sedan segment, the 2.5 has products such as the Malibu and Taurus . While these products are somewhat competitive, they still lag behind the competition. There is nothing about them that could be described as “best in class” or vastly superior to the competition. When you are attempting to win market share from entrenched players, almost as good simply does not cut it, especially with the spotty history the 2.5 enjoys.
Therefore, GM et. al. need to do something different and special in order to stand out and encourage consumer risk taking. I have long contended that the Achilles heel of Toyota and Honda is their styling
Yes, I think everyone, including me, agrees with this.
If the Big 2.8 would pull their heads out, recognize their failure to produce competitive product (which is defined by the market, not by you) and make some truly stunning mainstream cars, some buyers would roll the dice and take the risk. If those conquest buyers are then satisfied by their purchases, they will sing their praises and extol their virtues to their friends, family and acquaintances, some of whom will heed their advice and take a chance themselves. And so on.
No one argues against this either.
If you a professional marketer, then you should already know all of this. To be blunt, I have to question your track record in this area, in that anyone schooled in branding and promotion would know this instinctively and not bother arguing against it.
Again, I wasn’t giving marketing advice to the Detroit 3. THAT is a different column entirely. That I know branding and promotion does not inhibit me from tackling as a separate subject the consumer component of a market dysfunction, for anyone who cares about seeing these companies have the cash and time to complete their reforms. My advice to the Detroit 3 is a different subject completely. I’ve given no advice to the car makers here. Free markets not only force vendors to adapt, they also adapt to products, perceptions, and deliberate influences. I don’t allow myself as a non-industry observer to be prevented by my expertise from addressing the consumer directly.
The majority of the readership just doesn’t like what you’re saying, and I find their rebuttals more compellingly presented and far less emotional than anything you have offered to date.
First, neither of us has any data to know what the majority of this readership thinks. Posters are a subset, and most of the dissent here has come from very few people. Second, majority sentiment carries no persuasive weight for being a majority. It just doesn’t matter to me. It is data to tell me what my starting point is, but there’s no accounting to measure it. All we know is that a few dissenters from my point of view are remarkably vociferous in their dissent. I’d assume you perceive rebuttals to be compelling since they agree with you. I think neutral observers will agree I’ve bleached my responses of emotion. I’ve answered challenges, I’ve plainly accepted and identified where there are permanent disagreements, and I’ve focused on righting misrepresentations.
But your arguments are also not convincing to the average American, whom you have derided and insulted for having different preferences from your own.
How would you know this?
About the only buyers who remain fresh for the picking are the ones who ignore the data or pretend that consumer preferences just don’t matter.
That’s an interesting belief. Three of the most data-driven shoppers I know — in every category of shopping — just bought American cars after surveying the entire field. Seven import owners have told me in the past two months that their next cars will be American. The mix of incumbent vehicles in that crowd is Toyota, Acura, Lexus, Audi, BMW and Mercedes. So time will tell.
You assert there IS competitive Detroit product but you can’t identify it.
In fact I can. It’s easy for me to identify what I regard as competitive or so close that the differences aren’t worth incurring the larger social costs of an import decision. But that would be my list. I don’t mind compiling it if people here want it, but if you’ve read this thread, you will see several references by me that point the way. However, more to the point: People will develop their own view. What I ask is that Detroit 3 products be objectively considered and evaluated. I have a neighbor who recently bought a Cobalt. She drove and researched Civic, Fit, Corolla, Mazda 3, Hyundai, Focus. She loves her Cobalt and believes she bought the best product in its class, at least for her. I would not have made that recommendation. When asked, I pointed her to Civic and Focus.
You assert that their are a million import bigots but you can’t identify them or deduce their existence from available information. And, no, you can not “extrapolate” from your personal experience and leave it at that. You have to have some sort of evidence to back it up.
I think there are *more*. I’m looking for just one-million of them. In an annual market of roughly 8 million import & transplant vehicle buyers, are you really claiming all are rational and data-driven? No consumer market has that incidence of rationality. I don’t know what the absolute number is but out of an annual 8 million import buyers, I am certain it’s north of 1/8th that market. And actually I don’t have to have evidence to back it up. My personal experience plus some of the already cited peripheral data are enough basis for extrapolation, for purposes of an editorial. It’s an 800 word summation of a perspective, not a research paper.
If I claim Detroit cars are “not as good,” I can *start* with my personal experience (for which I have forgiven Ford but for which my wife has not), move on to the personal experiences of friends (Buick motors that hydro-lock) and then look at JDPower, CR or warranty information as confirmation.
Well, so far, dissenters here have been changing the rules. Cite JD Power, which more people use and understand than any other single source, and people say it doesn’t reflect the ownership experience. I pay no attention to CR either way. It’s not statistically representative and my general experience with *any* category of goods they rate and compile data on is largely contrary to their findings. Warranty information isn’t available to consumers on a market-wide, normalized basis. But we do know that everything JDP measures has dramatically narrowed.
You calulation, by the way, of anticipated reliability being offset by a combination of the lower price plus an extended warranty is inadequate. You fail to factor in the purchasers reasonable fear of claim denial and the purchaser’s aversion to being stranded.
These fears have come to being with every single manufacturer. No one maker can claim they are not going to put people through this experience. Granted, legitimate or not, these fears are a factor for some people. I’m not asking *every* import buyer to change. But I can say that in 25 years I’ve never been stranded by a Detroit 3 vehicle nor denied a warranty claim, and that is the experience of most people I know who have bought Detroit vehicles. Are we all flukes?
Peace of mind is worth a lot of money.
Absolutely. We agree. I’ve found mine in a sequence of vehicles from the Detroit 3.
In the compact car segment the 2.5 put out cars such as the Aveo and Cobalt, which by this site’s own reviews are rolling garbage bins.
Yup. Deficiencies in the compact segment already noted and accepted. It’s not a market segment that has enough volume to fuel the swing. However, the Focus isn’t a garbage bin.
In the family sedan segment, the 2.5 has products such as the Malibu and Taurus . While these products are somewhat competitive, they still lag behind the competition. There is nothing about them that could be described as “best in class” or vastly superior to the competition. When you are attempting to win market share from entrenched players, almost as good simply does not cut it, especially with the spotty history the 2.5 enjoys.
New Malibu will far exceed old Malibu. Fusion and Taurus split the size requirements nicely in the family sedan market. Some people see them as best in class. No one will see them as “vastly superior,” regardless of their optimism. Detroit has to head for superior. My point is explicitly about now. Competitive does not mean it has to be better in all respects. It has to be on balance as good. In that context, *if* you care about the larger social context of having the Detroit 3 in our economic mix, then you’d be self-interested in considering and perhaps buying a vehicle that is roughly as good — competitive. You can keep saying Detroit has to build a breakthrough vehicle some years out, but you may never get the chance to see it. Keep in mind that the import providers did not pull even and then surpass in some segments by building breakthroughs. They won share from entrenched brands incrementally and at some point, won customers on “good enough,” not on better. It’s time for that consumer willingness to work in the other direction. If you don’t care what happens to the Detroit 3 and don’t see a larger socio-economic context to your purchasing power, then don’t change a thing. It’s up to you. At least for the past week someone got you thinking about it. A lot of the market does not buy empirically. Consumer markets are also heavily hearsay-, socially-, and brand-driven. The TTAC auto maven and his/her practices are not representative of the follower crowd.
Phil
Phil: “They [the imports] won share from entrenched brands incrementally and at some point, won customers on “good enough,” not on better.”
Are you really a marketer? I have trouble believing it. No one moves on “good enough” unless it’s “good enough but at a lower price.”
Which is part of the history of Japanese cars in America. Another part is “whups Detroit on fuel economy.” As each successive oil price shock hit, Detroit was never prepared with a good fuel-efficient car lineup (or, not enough inventory). This provided a wedge for the Japanese. So, people bought a Civic or Corolla, liked it well enough and now Detroit’s in the position of *may* be “good enough” but brand loyalty is established and Detroit must be “good enough but at a lower price” to win business.
Even the original VW bug had something going for it; it was cheap, reasonably efficient and incredibly simple. As “transportation” for those who were willing to abandon the race for image through “longer, lower, wider,” it was “good enough at a lower price.”
And bear in mind that every successive Civic or Corolla was clearly nicer than the previous generation. You didn’t even have to trade “up” in the brand to get “better.”
For generations, auto marketing aimed to win customers in the low-end and migrate them to more expensive (and profitable) cars as the consumer’s income rose.
Who owns the low end of the market? Who has pretty much surrendered? The Yaris is a *nice* car. Even VW, in spite of the outrageous Euro, works to stay in this game (“3 Vee-Dubs for under $17K!” “Hope!”)
Phil: “There is no data that refutes the existence of a coterie of what I call import bigots, and I think most people know they exist from personal experience.”
Excuse me? You’re free to call people “bigots” simply because there’s no evidence to the contrary? Why not just call people who bought imports “wife-beaters?” There’s no evidence to the contrary.
Phil: “I think I’ve already said that I’ve never owned a single product that was accurately rated by CR, so I pay no attention to them. Which is good because I have a 100% success rate ignoring CR in all categories, ever.”
If CR didn’t generally provide value to its clients, it would dry up and go away. Ignoring CR does not make Detroit’s problems go away. Your good luck not withstanding, many people find that CR, personal experience, friend-and-neighbor experience, JDPower and gross warranty cost data are fairly well aligned. It seems every redneck I know who smokes knows – or has a friend who knows – an 80-year old smoker. Swell for you but I’m not lighting up.
Phil: “… Import bigots…”
Why not take off the gloves? You don’t have a problem with “Import bigots,” you have a problem with “Japanese import bigots.” If you’re concerned about SL550, 740 and Bentley sales, which scream, “I’ve got *bags* of money,” you’re certainly not looking at a million import bigots. Most European auto victims – whoops – purchasers show little loyalty to Europe. After you’ve enjoyed the Fahrvergneugen and its attendant repair bills for a while, you’ll switch. I did. There’s even indication that Mercedes loyalty is falling off as Mercedes quality falls. In fact, it’s not even the Japanese as a group, because Mitsubishi doesn’t get the same level of loyalty that Toyota, Honda and Subaru do, do they?
This is nothing but buyers behaving rationally or, at worst, buyers responding as planned to a carefully nurtured image. Well, that’s brand loyalty for you. For years, Detroit worked that angle but, somehow, for them, it ran out of gas.
Are you really a marketer? I have trouble believing it. No one moves on “good enough” unless it’s “good enough but at a lower price.”
People who are not marketers often misunderstand marketing and how / why it works. I and other good marketers can go into nearly any company and boost demand, unit sales and revenue with changes restricted to marketing alone. People buy “good enough” all the time, in every market you as a consumer are active in.
What I haven’t addressed here, but may in a separate article, is the harm the Detroit 3 are doing to their business performance through inept marketing. They could be selling more of the vehicles they have if they made immediate improvements to the marketing and promotion tactics that are under their direct control. The Detroit 3 seem to have lost all of their institutional memory about great marketing and promotion, with the succession of internal and agency marketing talent spiraling from worse to worse. Some signs this 35 year negative trend might have hit bottom, but I’m not sure.
For generations, auto marketing aimed to win customers in the low-end and migrate them to more expensive (and profitable) cars as the consumer’s income rose.
Who owns the low end of the market? Who has pretty much surrendered? The Yaris is a *nice* car. Even VW, in spite of the outrageous Euro, works to stay in this game (”3 Vee-Dubs for under $17K!” “Hope!”)
Yes, GM’s scheme prevailed for the bulk of the business. Let’s agree to disagree on the Yaris being a “*nice*” car.
The reality is that very little of the overall market valued fuel economy over everything else, even in the 1970s. Downsizing was initiated by CAFE, not the customer, which was part of the problem. The small part of the market that fell for the idea of dumping a perfectly usable car at a depreciation loss, taking on a new car loan and new car costs, to save 55c gasoline behaved like single-issue voters. In all other ways not only were those wedge cars not good enough, they just weren’t good. The Beetle a decade earlier was more a triumph of great marketing than of product itself.
Excuse me? You’re free to call people “bigots” simply because there’s no evidence to the contrary? Why not just call people who bought imports “wife-beaters?” There’s no evidence to the contrary.
That’s not the full context of what I said. There is an attitude in a subset of the import buying community that is evidenced daily, weekly, monthly in the personal experience of many, including me, and it amounts to product or brand bigotry. There just isn’t generalized market data to fully measure and represent it. And yes, I’m free to point it out.
If CR didn’t generally provide value to its clients, it would dry up and go away.
I know you perceive you live in a perfectly product-driven world, but that’s not a pure reality. CR and many products and services in life provide perceived value without delivering actual value at all. They’ve built a good brand for a consumers of a certain psychology. But typically as soon as you examine CR through the lens of the product areas you genuinely know to a point of expertise, all of CR crumbles in light of poor advice and test criteria.
Ignoring CR does not make Detroit’s problems go away.
True. Ignoring them doesn’t even make CR go away, but one can hope.
It seems every redneck I know who smokes knows – or has a friend who knows – an 80-year old smoker. Swell for you but I’m not lighting up.
The key to being an 80 year old smoker is to start when you’re 60.
Why not take off the gloves? You don’t have a problem with “Import bigots,” you have a problem with “Japanese import bigots.” If you’re concerned about SL550, 740 and Bentley sales, which scream, “I’ve got *bags* of money,” you’re certainly not looking at a million import bigots.
Well, *I* don’t have a problem with import bigots, the Detroit 3 do, and then there problem become a little bit mine, and yours. But it’s not country-, ethnic-, or culture-specific. The Japanese component is merely an artifact of their current market share. Certainly I count BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche sales because in the aggregate they are still significant, and those sales are disproportionately profitable. The million can be easily pieced together from the mainstream sedan, truck, SUV, CUV, and luxury markets, regardless of country.
Most European auto victims…
Yes.
This is nothing but buyers behaving rationally
Merely a subset, but even some of those folks will make some different decisions if they broaden their view of criteria for new car selection.
Phil, I was thinking about a situation here and I have a question for you: The guy in the next office over; he just bought a V-6 Honda Accord. He didn’t visit any showroom except Honda’s. Is he an import bigot? Let me know what you think.
Anyway, I read your latest…
Phil: “I and other good marketers can go into nearly any company and boost demand, unit sales and revenue with changes restricted to marketing alone.”
And Detroit lived on that for many years. Eventually, other factors caught up with them. “Style” only gets you so far. Advertising only gets you so far (“New, more formal roofline,” has at various times meant either round or square, depending on who’s doing the advertising). Five/One Hundred is a marketing decision (it’s not turning the tide). Rebates and employee pricing – ditto. And there aren’t a lot of alternative uses for an automobile (as in, “it’s a floor polish AND a dessert topping!”). You can twiddle the marketing all you want but there’s more than the Big 2.8 in town, now, and Detroit will find their message is much harder to hear through the other chatter. The uber-patriot card has been played out.
Phil: “The reality is that very little of the overall market valued fuel economy over everything else, even in the 1970s. Downsizing was initiated by CAFE, not the customer, which was part of the problem.”
You’re not paying attention. Fuel economy, in times of crisis, was the wedge that the Japanese needed. They were positioned (by accident or design) to exploit it. Detroit has NEVER been ready to fight fuel-economy wars (in spite of many opportunities). As the price of gas fell off, consumers returned to the old gas-guzzling ways but the Japanese had established a beachhead. After a time, the Japanese could win on other issues (i.e., an inexpensive car that wasn’t an unreliable piece of crap).
Phil: “The small part of the market that fell for the idea of dumping a perfectly usable car at a depreciation loss, taking on a new car loan and new car costs, to save 55c gasoline behaved like single-issue voters.”
People dump perfecly usable cars at a depreciation loss, taking on new car lonas and new car costs EVERY DAY. These are new-car buyers. Take a look at your own notes; your Detroiters were God’s own gift to motoring. Yet, you have been unloading and replacing them, steadily for years. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
In fact, when gas prices shock, people who are about to unload their vehicles suddenly rank “fuel economy” much higher on the list of attributes than they otherwise would have. This behavior carries over. And, to some extent, they vote their concerns more than reality (it’s $3/gal today, what if it’s $4/gas tomorrow?). When this happens, they re-evaluate their needs and may find that they can spend LESS up front for the car, LESS in operating cost and give up nothing that’s really critical (like adequate room for four and a trunk big enough for a week’s worth of groceries). This behavior carries on for a time after prices normalize. SOME people probably dumped a perfectly good car to avoid an extra $300/year in gas expense but they aren’t what defined Detroit’s problem.
In re, “You’re free to call people bigots just because there’s no evidence to the contrary?” Phil: “That’s not the full context of what I said.
Yes, it is.
In re, “imports” vs “Japanese imports…” Phil: “Well, *I* don’t have a problem with import bigots, the Detroit 3 do,…”
You are taking up the cudgels on their behalf. It wasn’t Bob Lutz, writing on TTAC, that they want to win over a “million import bigots,” it was someone named Phil.
Here’s why Detroit is not winning back share:
“Their cars are not as good, given the relative pricing, and people know it.”
That’s it. I don’t have to impute the existence of a million-plus mythical “bigots” who bizarrely prefer foreigners to win their business over the home team. The facts available (JDP, CR, warranty cost, inability of Europeans to hold customers, inability of Mitsubishi to do the same, personal anectdotes, Edmunds surveys, aggressive Wal*Mart claims about country-of-origin) support my much simpler theory.
You know, something has irked me about this editorial since I first read it and I could not figure out what until now. The problem I have is that I am having trouble differentiating import bigots from those who suffer from snob appeal, brand loyalists, and those that are naive and respond to marketing.
Snob appeal – This likes what your ‘friend’ with the SL550 suffers from. He would like the Caddy, but it doesn’t have the snob appeal or cachet, if you prefer, of the Benz. The Acura TL and Lexus ES exist for this reason.
Brand loyalists – The Honda guy went straight back and bought an Accord v-6 without shopping around
The Naive – For lack of a better term, this describes those that car shop based on common knowledge. Common knowledge states that Toyota and Honda are the most reliable brands, so this is what they shop. They may glance at CR and look to see if their car is ‘recommended’. I don’t know if this group is really bigoted or simply making the easiest decision possible by going with what has been established. It was these same people that wouldn’t consider a foreign car because most bought ford or chevy. It is that they are bigoted, simply that they don’t care and with the explosion of choices in any given segment, they need a simple way of narrowing their decision without much work. We all do it… it is the basic psychology of how we organize our world. Take it from the psychologist.
Now, if an import bigot is a completely different animal from my definition of the naive/average shopper, then please let me know and educate me on what you mean.
You can twiddle the marketing all you want but there’s more than the Big 2.8 in town, now, and Detroit will find their message is much harder to hear through the other chatter. The uber-patriot card has been played out.
Patriotism isn’t a marketing card worth turning. The Detroit 3 can’t play that with any efficacy toward winning back market share. The patriotic appeal (which is not at all connected with my editorial) can’t even be used to maintain share they have today. Actually, the more competitors in the market, the more leverage there is in competent, incisive, motivating marketing. An open market is nothing but opportunity for a marketer.
The guy in the next office over; he just bought a V-6 Honda Accord. He didn’t visit any showroom except Honda’s. Is he an import bigot? Let me know what you think.
I don’t know; you’re not divulging enough about him. He might be a Honda bigot, unwilling to consider even another Asian brand. He might be an import bigot. He might not be either; perhaps he had other ways of evaluating competitors than going into their showrooms. And as for the consideration phase, who knows what went on in his head?
Fuel economy, in times of crisis, was the wedge that the Japanese needed. They were positioned (by accident or design) to exploit it. Detroit has NEVER been ready to fight fuel-economy wars (in spite of many opportunities). As the price of gas fell off, consumers returned to the old gas-guzzling ways but the Japanese had established a beachhead. After a time, the Japanese could win on other issues (i.e., an inexpensive car that wasn’t an unreliable piece of crap).
Yes it fuel economy was a wedge, and not a rational one in an economic sense at the time. It was a wedge used to sell not-good-enough vehicles to consumers who weren’t seeing or looking at the big picture. They were the equivalent of single-issue voters whose attention was captured by both political marketing and excellent exploitation of the opening by some of the Japanese automakers — and opportunity compounded by Detroit’s flat-footedness at the time.
People dump perfecly usable cars at a depreciation loss, taking on new car lonas and new car costs EVERY DAY. These are new-car buyers. Take a look at your own notes; your Detroiters were God’s own gift to motoring. Yet, you have been unloading and replacing them, steadily for years. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
I don’t know if you are old enough to have been there as an adult able to participate in the market between the two oil embargos, but I was. At that time, it was irrationally common that people were stampeded into prematurely dumping good working cars, much sooner than they did before or since, to get into a gas-sipper that didn’t fit their needs. The economics were net-negative every way you measured them. As for my experience, God had nothing to do with it. I had a string of well-made vehicles in the context of their time that proved reliable and inexpensive to operated within their drivetrain class, and I replaced them when needs changed or I wanted.
You are taking up the cudgels on their behalf. It wasn’t Bob Lutz, writing on TTAC, that they want to win over a “million import bigots,” it was someone named Phil.
I am no taking up this issue on behalf of the Detroit 3. They can fight their own battles. My commentary is on behalf of Americans’ own social, economic and political self-interests. Exactly, it wasn’t Bob Lutz, it was me as an independent, outlining a proposition that benefits you.
That’s it. I don’t have to impute the existence of a million-plus mythical “bigots” who bizarrely prefer foreigners to win their business over the home team. The facts available (JDP, CR, warranty cost, inability of Europeans to hold customers, inability of Mitsubishi to do the same, personal anectdotes, Edmunds surveys, aggressive Wal*Mart claims about country-of-origin) support my much simpler theory.
It’s a simpler theory for the singular reason that it’s incomplete. You apparently perceive yourself as a rational automotive consumer. You further appear to believe the rest of the market is like you. But reality is that while this business is product-driven, it is not strictly product-determined. All consumer markets operate on mix of rational buyers, peer-directed buyers, social acceptance buyers, fad buyers, sheer momentum buyers, as well as lazy buyers who have no idea what they just bought. In a market like personal transportation with its heavy dose of emotional motivators, this is intensely true. The case I am making is of course aimed, as has been stated many times over, at the non-rational buyer and specifically a subset I labeled “import bigots.” However, even the rational buyer can find it applies to him, for expanding his criteria to include the larger social context is a rational act, too.
Also, KixStart, I should probably mention that I’m counting you out for the one-million unit swing. If I am inferring your sentiment incorrectly and you wish to be included, I’m happy to put you down for a purchase this year or next.
Phil
The editorial and the author’s follow-up comments remind me of an old joke about the practice of law:
-If you don’t have the law, argue the facts;
-If you don’t have the facts, argue the law;
-If you don’t have either one, call the other guy an a******
(Made that last bit family friendly there.)
Here, the author resorted immediately to the final step. Everyone who doesn’t want his preferred products is uninformed, a target of peer pressure, or bigoted. It’s just name calling, nothing more than that.
No effort is made here to demonstrate whether these endless accusations are actually true, or to document these alleged truisms. You’d think that after several days of discussion that the author could rise above the fingerpointing by providing some factual information that could support the arguments, but that has been for naught.
There is a fairly consistent correlation between the conclusions derived from research data culled from such sources as Consumer Reports and the declining market share of those that receive low scores, which would suggest that the marketplace is actually reasonably well informed and knows enough about what it is doing to make decent shopping choices.
The only thing that counts here is how to fulfill that need. If an editorial should have been written here, it should have been about what Detroit needs to do in order to improve its position.
If you want people to donate to the Big 2.8, then let them get non-profit status and become charitable organizations, If the customers can’t get the products they want, let them at least get a tax deduction for their troubles. Since the companies aren’t making any money anyway and apparently won’t be able to do so unless America sacrifices on their behalf, they may as well make the best of their unprofitable business methods by making it official.
Sanman111,
An import bigot refuses to consider and evaluate a Detroit 3 model simply because it was made by onw of those vendors. Such a person excludes the possibility of those companies winning their business by shutting their products out of contention, even without knowing anything pertinent about them.
This can include people who buy on snob appeal. It can include brand loyalists. And it can include the naive buyer you describe. But it’s hard core is the “anything but GM, Ford, Chrysler” brigade.
Clearly, from my opening anecdote and what I say about it, I believe snob appeal to be an insufficient reason to undermine the social and economic context you live in, if there is a competitive domestic alternative. Sometimes there isn’t, so OK. But for example, the BMW 5 Series or Mercedes C/E Class buyer who doesn’t even know enough about his purchase to know which wheels drive the car would likely be happy with a Cadillac STS or a new CTS, if he gave it a chance and discounted the snob or social acceptance factor. At least he ought to think about it. You can apply this to more mainstream classes too.
The brand loyalist may be so narrow-minded as to exclude any other brand. This would be a bigot. By the way, this isn’t pejorative. Back in the Chevy/Ford wars, either side was happy to admit they were brand bigoted, and I heard the term over 40 years ago in that context. Within the Asian vehicle markets, Honda/Toyota or Mazda/Toyota have brand bigot subsets shaping up today.
The naive buyer may have import bigot behavior but is probably not aware of it. There is also a kind of naive buyer I’ve regularly encountered in years of driving Detroit 3 cars, who have import bigot behavior but not the attitude to fuel it. Such a person gets in my car, looks around, touches everything, and says: “What is this?” My answer then elicits: “I had no idea makes anything this good. How come I don’t know about this?” I’ve had that exchange multiple times with every Detroit 3 car I’ve owned.
We’ve had people in this thread say, “Yeah, I’m an import bigot; here’s why.” They took no offense. That’s a straight-up response I can respect. Very few have expressed offense, but those who have expressed their offense vociferously, and then tried to deny the existence of such a buyer. The term is working shorthand for a longer list of behaviors. As we see here, it does gain attention.
Phil
Everyone who doesn’t want his preferred products is uninformed, a target of peer pressure, or bigoted.
Once again, a blatant misrepresentation. In the original text and all the follow-up I have been crystal clear that I am not referring to “everyone” in the way you say, and in fact have outlined a minority subset of the total market.
No effort is made here to demonstrate whether these endless accusations are actually true, or to document these alleged truisms. You’d think that after several days of discussion that the author could rise above the fingerpointing by providing some factual information that could support the arguments, but that has been for naught.
There is no fingerpointing. The information you ask for is amply distributed through prior posts. You can read them yourself.
There is a fairly consistent correlation between the conclusions derived from research data culled from such sources as Consumer Reports and the declining market share of those that receive low scores, which would suggest that the marketplace is actually reasonably well informed and knows enough about what it is doing to make decent shopping choices.
So you say.
The only thing that counts here is how to fulfill that need. If an editorial should have been written here, it should have been about what Detroit needs to do in order to improve its position.
That’s a different topic that I may write to later. THIS topic addresses one of the consumer components.
If you want people to donate to the Big 2.8, then let them get non-profit status and become charitable organizations, If the customers can’t get the products they want, let them at least get a tax deduction for their troubles. Since the companies aren’t making any money anyway and apparently won’t be able to do so unless America sacrifices on their behalf, they may as well make the best of their unprofitable business methods by making it official.
Some customers will be able to get products they want and will enjoy owning if they simply expand their view of the market, consider specific current offerings, and make their decision in a larger socio-economic context. Some won’t. I’m not looking for everyone not do I even need most, just some. A mere one-eighth of the import buying market today.
Phil
There is no fingerpointing. The information you ask for is amply distributed through prior posts. You can read them yourself.
Interestingly enough, I have read the article in question, plus all of the responses made by the author, and I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever being provided in support of the argument.
I think that there may be some confusion between repeating one’s case and actually proving it. I see lots of allegations, but no facts or substantive rebuttals.
Again, it is quite uncanny how the quantitative data correlates to the decline in market share. That alone suggests that the consumer is informed.
If anything, the author appears to be uninformed, in that the quantitative data available from several sources does not match the conclusions made by same. This error is further repeated by confusing one’s personal anecdotes with the body of evidence culled from numerous data points, and not just the author’s own naturally biased perspectives. (Obviously, Mr. Ressler has an agenda to see domestic tranquility where it does not exist in the market.)
Phil – On the one hand I suspect you’re correct that many consumers can’t tell the difference between a Cadillac CTS, a Chevy Impala, a Ford Fusion or a Camcord. They do not necessarily make a purchasing decision based on their own “bigotry”, but based on friends they have who read the buff books and closely follow the car business. Some of these friends may be Import Bigots, but many are just practical and reasonably knowledgeable people who are trying to help their friends buy something that works for them. This is why automotive marketing is not aimed at the buyer, but at the person who already owns the vehicle, as the majority of people don’t actually care much beyond the color and the number of seats in the car, choosing instead to follow the advice of (sometimes more knowledgeable) friends.
The snob component comes into play where someone wants to feel that they made a reasonably wise financial choice. If a friend of mine were interested in an XLR, for instance, I would suggest that he or she could save thousands by buying a Corvette, which can now be trimmed out to have a very similar feel to the XLR, albeit without the complexity of the folding top. A neighbor of mine who knows little about cars recently bought a Lexus ES350 knowing that it was basically a tarted-up Camry, but he far preferred the interaction with the Lexus dealer over that of the Toyota store. And in fairness, the quality of interior materials of his ES actually makes my $10k more expensive BMW look somewhat plebian. The “snob” issue is similar to the way in which nearly everyone wants to portray their imagem both to themselves and to their friends, and it is far more complex than simple insecurity about themselves.
Finally, it is not just the products which have to come up to par, but the dealers who are offering those products. I cross-shopped the “old” CTS against my current 3-series when I bought it earlier this year. The CTS was a decent driving car with mediocre switchgear and a so-so powertrain. I might have compromised with that, but the car was represented by someone who knew little about, and cared little about Cadillac as a premium product. This individual was in very stark contrast to the professional salesperson at the BMW store; she not only knew her vehicle well, but also those of competitors so she could address competitive issues against Audi, Cadillac, Infiniti, Lexus, Mercedes. The Cadillac person did not even know his own vehicle.
Again, this is all anecdotal, but that’s where the XLR vs SL500 started…
Phil, remember the guy in the next office over? Before he bought the Accord, he owned a Chrysler minivan and a Honda minivan. His Honda transmission failed at 97K miles and Honda replaced it, free.
His Chrysler is on its third transmission and Chrysler paid for none of the replacements. It was slipping again.
Is he an import bigot? Don’t be silly. It’s brand loyalty. Honda took care of him. Period. Other people with Chrysler minivans (and other kinds of cars, of course) heard about his troubles (some, of course, have their own troubles) and they were favorably impressed with Honda’s reaction. I was impressed. What do you suppose they’ll do when they need a new car? Taking good care of that customer might result in half a dozen Honda sales. What’s that worth? Conversely, failing to take care of that customer might have resulted in half a dozen lost Chrysler sales. What’s that worth?
Phil: “We’ve had people in this thread say, ‘Yeah, I’m an import bigot; here’s why…\'”
In fact, by their own description they are NOT “import bigots” such as you describe. They *have* considered Detroit and they have found it wanting. They have reasons they can articulate. That’s not bigotry.
Phil: “… dumping perfectly good cars…”
Ahem. I *am* old enough to remember the first Arab Oil Embargo and people, generally, did not dump perfectly good cars. The demand for cars swung to high-mpg cars as those who were on the cusp of purchase reconsidered their options. As soon as this began, it was pointed out that the guzzlers were going begging, at prices to match.
And that pattern continues to this day. We hit an oil price shock and the bottom falls out of the Expedition market. It’s a boon for someone who wants an Expedition and can afford to keep it parked except on the days he wants to pull his Chris-Craft (of all of the Expedition owners I know, not one actually has anything to trailer) but at $3/gallon (or more, it’s coming), they’re a millstone around the neck of a commuter.
Phil: “… the patriotism card…”
Just what exactly do you have in mind when you refer to supporting the national economy? If not patriotism, what? Enlightened self-interest? That involves getting the best car I can, minimizing my automotive expense and putting the money into whatever has the best return – even if it’s a Japanese car company.
Should I be buying Korean cars imported by GM? Hah! Is GM looking out for me? Hah!
Phil: “… [the theory] is simpler because it’s incomplete…”
Oh, really? In what way? It describes observed consumer behavior nicely. A more complicated theory involving mythological beings is unnecssary. Your ideas are as useful as phlogiston.
Phil: “Also, KixStart, I should probably mention that I’m counting you out for the one-million unit swing. If I am inferring your sentiment incorrectly and you wish to be included, I’m happy to put you down for a purchase this year or next.”
No need to count me out. I will consider Detroit, along with the other options. In 2009, or so, I intend to buy a reasonably priced ultra-high mpg mid-size car, preferably a hybrid because much of my driving is stop-and-go. I will only consider cars with a proven track record for reliability.
Which Detroit vehicles do you recommend?
Edgett:
If a friend of mine were interested in an XLR, for instance, I would suggest that he or she could save thousands by buying a Corvette, which can now be trimmed out to have a very similar feel to the XLR, albeit without the complexity of the folding top.
Consider this a sidebar specific to the XLR/XLR-V. The Corvette and the XLR are both built on the Corvette platform and are both 2-seat performance cars. However, they are configured under the skin to be distinctly different cars, and the Corvette buyer will not be fully happy with an XLR, nor with the XLR buyer be fully happy with even the leather-loaded ’08 Corvette with the plush interior option.
The Corvette is a sports car with excellent amentities for a sports car, but it is not a luxury car. NVH is compromised in favor of roadholding, responsiveness and low mass. The tractable LS3’s power, torque and ultra-durability are favored over smoothness and low NVH. Corvettes have wide and aggressive tires for performance reasons, but pour higher road noise and road grain into the cabin. The convertible has a soft-top.
The XLR/XLR-V add 600 lbs. of mass in the form of luxury accouterments plus a retractable hard-top. It sacrifices ultimate power by using lower-displacement but smoother dual overhead cam engines that clearly illustrate GM’s claim that volumetric efficiency is on the side of the pushrod small-block when your volume measured is exterior engine dimensions. The Cadillac limits tire footprint as an NVH control measure thereby reducing ultimate grip, compared to Corvette. The XLR/XLR-V is a luxury GT with roadster capability, not a sports car. The sports car buyer will not be happy with it, and the luxury GT buyer will not likely be happy with Corvette. Guess what? I want Corvette too.
A neighbor of mine who knows little about cars recently bought a Lexus ES350 knowing that it was basically a tarted-up Camry, but he far preferred the interaction with the Lexus dealer over that of the Toyota store. And in fairness, the quality of interior materials of his ES actually makes my $10k more expensive BMW look somewhat plebian. The “snob” issue is similar to the way in which nearly everyone wants to portray their imagem both to themselves and to their friends, and it is far more complex than simple insecurity about themselves.
Yes, agreed. The snob buyer may or may not display bigoted buying behavior. I don’t think snob buyers are exclusively comprised of the insecure. They are part but not the whole.
Finally, it is not just the products which have to come up to par, but the dealers who are offering those products. I cross-shopped the “old” CTS against my current 3-series when I bought it earlier this year. The CTS was a decent driving car with mediocre switchgear and a so-so powertrain. I might have compromised with that, but the car was represented by someone who knew little about, and cared little about Cadillac as a premium product. This individual was in very stark contrast to the professional salesperson at the BMW store; she not only knew her vehicle well, but also those of competitors so she could address competitive issues against Audi, Cadillac, Infiniti, Lexus, Mercedes. The Cadillac person did not even know his own vehicle.
You fulfilled my request. You shopped a Detroit 3 alternative in your category, and you weren’t convinced to buy. I had the same experience in my first Cadillac foray — a ragged dealer. I was motivated enough by the larger social context of my decision to try another dealer, and found an excellent one in my useful radius that knew its vehicles and gave me a premium shopping experience. It was even far better than my Maserati and Mercedes shopping experiences. Anyway, I have no argument with your process or outcome. If you are in the US, you met the social considerations appropriate for your national community.
Phil
Is he an import bigot? Don’t be silly. It’s brand loyalty. Honda took care of him. Period.
Which says nothing about the existence of bigoted buying behavior. That’s him. He *could* have included a newer, better-made Chrysler in his shopping. But I understand his specific reasons. There isn’t enough pain from Detroit 3 vehicle problems to go around to explain the behavior of 8 million people annually in this way exclusively.
…people, generally, did not dump perfectly good cars. The demand for cars swung to high-mpg cars as those who were on the cusp of purchase reconsidered their options. As soon as this began, it was pointed out that the guzzlers were going begging, at prices to match.
This is a rose-tinged remembrance of what actually happened. Your recollection is only a subset of the buying activity then.
If not patriotism, what? Enlightened self-interest?
Yup, enlightened self-interest. Expanded self-interest. It’s not patriotism; at least that’s not the appeal I’m making. Others might.
That involves getting the best car I can, minimizing my automotive expense and putting the money into whatever has the best return
That’s restricted self-interest, locally and temporally limited to the purchase at hand, not factoring in larger socio-economic context, and it leaves idle your option to use purchasing power as a shaper of your community. Remember, I’m not asking people to buy uncompetitive vehicles.
It describes observed consumer behavior nicely.
It describes a subset of consumer behavior, not the whole market.
No need to count me out. I will consider Detroit, along with the other options. In 2009, or so, I intend to buy a reasonably priced ultra-high mpg mid-size car, preferably a hybrid because much of my driving is stop-and-go. I will only consider cars with a proven track record for reliability.
Which Detroit vehicles do you recommend?
It’s 2007. Ask me in 2009.
Phil
Wow, 28 pages of post. My hats off to Mr. Ressler for striking a nerve, even if I disagree with most everything he has said, along with the posters (PCH 101 and KixStart especially) who have engaged in a dialogue with him.
KixStart: Two of the last three cars I bought, I didn’t even justify them to my *wife*.
You have presented excellent rebuttals to this editorial, but, as a married man, I must confess that I find this sentence to be utterly unbelievable.
Unless you have been sleeping in the garage for the past decade or so….
Phil: Look, it was an impromptu gas station encounter. Never saw the guy before or since. I don’t know whether he’s a striver over his head with his car or not.
First you brand him as a “striver” who is in over his head with his car purchase, with him buying the Mercedes solely because of its superior status, and now it comes out that you only talked to the guy briefly at the gas station?
You divined all of this from one brief conversation with a complete stranger?
Sorry, but this does not do much for your credibility regarding the description of this encounter.
Phil: The 1989 – 1997 Ford Thunderbird also had a beautifully elegant front suspension, that along with the car’s IRS and its SOHC aluminum V8 defined the car. It was home-grown engineering.
It was a coupe in a market that was turning its back on coupes. Plus, the entire car was overweight, and the original drivetrains were underwhelming and trouble-prone (head gasket issues with the crappy 3.8 V-6).
Ford also forgot that a personal luxury car should have a beautiful and exciting interior. The car’s interior really wasn’t any better than that found in an Accord.
People buy the entire PACKAGE, not one nicely engineered component.
Phil: Personally, I’ve never owned any product of any kind that corresponded with Consumer Reports’ survey impressions. So I and many others ignore it. But the basic point is irrelevant to my argument.
It’s not irrelevant to your argument.
Your argument is that the quality difference between the segment leaders (particularly Honda and Toyota) and the domestics is irrelevant, and that this is backed up by JD Powers results.
When other posters point out that Consumer Reports results show a greater disparity in reliability, you dismiss them because…you don’t pay any attention to Consumer Reports, and therefore conclude that most vehicles buyers ignore it, too.
Which is, quite frankly, nonsense.
Phil: The practical reality is that warranty data is not accessible to consumers, but JDPower has the widest recognition and publicizes data in a form that consumers find readily comprehensible and actionable. Representative or not, it is the number one source of validating data for most people.
Proof, please. (I address this one more thorougly below.)
Phil: I said in competitive vehicles the differences are so small as to be pointless as differentiating reasons to buy one over the other, especially when the larger social context is included. That is, ask yourself if the social cost is worth that small perceived difference in interior? Have you been in an Accord, Camry, Fusion, Taurus lately?
Yes, and the differences are not so small as to be pointless. And the larger social context is that buying superior products, we encourage the home team to upgrade ITS products.
Making excuses for this type of mediocrity is how the Big Three got into this mess in the first place.
And there is no proof whatsoever that buying domestic will encourage the Big Three to keep more production here in the U.S. Detroit has been moving as much production out of the U.S. as it possibly can for years.
Phil: New Malibu will far exceed old Malibu.
That’s not enough. It must exceed the Accord and Camry if it is to score conquest sales.
Current Accord and Camry owners are not going to compare the new Malibu to the old one. Their point of reference will be the current Accord and Camry, as they will probably give those vehicles a look before testing the Malibu.
Please note that the outgoing Malibu was much better than the previous generation, but it still failed to make much of a dent in the market place (it has been a fleet queen for the past few years).
GM needs to target the competition and exceed their offerings, not merely improve on what it offered before.
Phil: In that context, *if* you care about the larger social context of having the Detroit 3 in our economic mix, then you’d be self-interested in considering and perhaps buying a vehicle that is roughly as good — competitive.
The transplant operations are slowly becoming more American as they move more design, engineering and production facilities here. They pay very good wages, and they invest lots of their profits right here in the U.S., so the “where do the profits go” argument is long outdated, especially since the long-term goal of the Big Three has been to move as much production away from the UAW as possible.
And, as has been mentioned before, the transplants are bringing new – and superior – methods of operations with them. These new methods, if properly applied by other companies (and even other industries), will benefit our economy by boosting productivity and quality. (Honda has even opened its plants to GM to let its leaders see how it operates.)
It is in our interests for these companies to succeed in America. It is also in our interests for management and labor of the Big Three to adopt these practices, but that is up to them, not me.
And, quite frankly, encouraging people to buy “good enough” products to “help” the Big Three DISCOURAGES Detroit from making these changes, because the history of both management and labor in the auto industry is that they don’t make changes until their backs are against the wall.
Detroit engages in more wishful thinking than any place outside of Disney World. Let’s not encourage any more of it.
Phil: The reality is that very little of the overall market valued fuel economy over everything else, even in the 1970s. Downsizing was initiated by CAFE, not the customer, which was part of the problem.
Sales of imported cars began accelerating after 1965 – or seven years before the first fuel crisis. Even Detroit’s compacts and intermediates were stealing sales from the big cars during this time.
Please note that the Pinto and Vega debuted in late 1970, long before the Arab Oil Embargo, and part of their sales appeal was supposed to be superior fuel economy and lower operating costs. Plus, increasing congestion in cities made the typical Detroit land barge unpleasant to drive in many areas.
The simple fact is that the market was swinging to smaller, easier-to-handle models long before the Arab Oil Embargo in late 1973. Now, I agree that Detroit would have been foolish to completely dump big cars, as there was still a market for those vehicles.
But by the late 1960s it was apparent that there was a growing market for an economical, high quality, good-handling car that didn’t make the driver feel as though he or she had taken a vow of poverty. The Japanese exploited this market at the low end long before 1973, while Detroit’s offerings ranged from mediocre (Pinto) to terrible (Gremlin) to awful (Vega).
The Japanese gained a foothold and grew from there, while Detroit responded with grudging, half-hearted efforts that, in the long run, did as much to help Toyota and Honda as they did to help themselves. And that is not the fault of CAFE.
Phil: People buy “good enough” all the time, in every market you as a consumer are active in.
And when “top notch” product is also available, the “good enough” product will languish on the shelves, and move solely through hefty rebates and incentives.
Which sounds suspiciously like Detroit’s conundrum right now.
Basically, you want Detroit to conquest sales from the class leaders. Well, “good enough” isn’t going to conquest sales from the leaders in each segment, unless said leaders really stumble. Waiting for the competition to stumble is ultimately a losing game, and one that steals a company’s most precious commodity – time. Ford, GM and Chrysler do not have the time to take that strategy.
No amount of marketing razzle-dazzle will change that.
Also interesting that you criticize “import bigots” as being naive, uninformed consumers, while basically saying that they should accept “good enough” products. Sorry, but if “top notch” is also available, I consider the buyer who settles for “good enough” to be the naive one.
Phil: The Camry and Accord are in dire absence of panache. Pleasant to drive? Try anesthetizing. Seriously, I’d fall asleep trying to log 500 miles in either of them. But even if you like them, the shopper that cares about whether the Detroit 3 survives will be square with that when they include newer competitors.
The Camry, sure, but it doesn’t sell on panache. That makes it vulnerable to a product WITH panache, but what competitive offerings from Detroit have any more panache? The Impala? The LaCrosse? The Taurus? The Sebring?!
Not from what I can see. Not one of those cars is going to get a buyer out of a Camry.
Now, that doesn’t mean that they are necessarily BAD cars (especially the Taurus, although I wouuld argue that the Sebring IS pretty bad).
But offering customers a pale imitation of the original – especially when the original has an undamaged reputation, is sold for roughly the same price and is just as widely avaiable – has always failed to conquest satisfied customers. It didn’t work for AMC and Chrysler against Ford and GM in the 1960s and 1970s, and it isn’t working for GM, Ford and Chrysler against Toyota, Honda, BMW and Mercedes today.
And, no, most buyers don’t care whether the Big Three survive, just as they didn’t care whether Kaiser-Frazer, Studebaker or Packard survived in the postwar years, or whether Hupmobile, Stutz and Auburn survived in the 1930s.
Customers are NOT going to buy a new vehicle just to keep the parent company in business. Never have, never will. If anything, even the mild odor of potential failure will keep customers away in droves.
And this doesn’t just happen with domestic marques. As others have pointed out, customers didn’t exactly flock to Austin, MG, Fiat and Renault dealerships when the chips were down for those companies in the U.S.
We need to accept that and move on.
And the Accord DOES have panache, thanks to the V-6, six speed coupe and Honda’s excellent reputation (supported by its products) for engineering innovation.
Phil: Cite JD Power, which more people use and understand than any other single source, and people say it doesn’t reflect the ownership experience. I pay no attention to CR either way. It’s not statistically representative and my general experience with *any* category of goods they rate and compile data on is largely contrary to their findings.
Consumer Reports is hugely influential with both new- and used-car buyers – more so than JD Powers. YOU may not pay any attention to it, but that doesn’t mean that others don’t. If we are going by anecdotal evidence here, far more people I know pay attention to Consumer Reports than to the JD Powers survey results.
It helps that the magazine is available in EVERY bookstore and newstand I’ve visited. Who subscribes to JD Powers results? Potential customers most often see those results used in advertisements to tout the scores of said brand or model, which, quite frankly, slightly taints the results in most consumers’ eyes.
Consumer Reports does not allow its results to be used for advertising purposes.
Lori Queen, who was the leader of the team that developed the Cobalt, must think that Consumer Reports is influential with buyers, too. After Consumer Reports gave the new Cobalt a mediocre overall ratings and below-average reliability ratings, she lashed out at the magazine in the media. SHE must be believe that it is important, or else she wouldn’t have reacted in such a public way.
And, for what it’s worth, virtually every independent mechanic I talk to still places Toyota and Honda ahead of the domestics in reliability. They also place GM and Ford ahead of the Europeans in reliability, and say that both have improved dramatically over the past 10 years (especially Ford). But “improved dramatically” and “just as good as Honda and Toyota” are two entirely different things.
Geeber,
First, I’m with KixStart. I’ve never justified any of my car purchases to my wife either.
…you brand him as a “striver” who is in over his head with his car purchase, with him buying the Mercedes solely because of its superior status, and now it comes out that you only talked to the guy briefly at the gas station?
You divined all of this from one brief conversation with a complete stranger?
Sorry, but this does not do much for your credibility regarding the description of this encounter.
*I* didn’t brand the Merc driver as a striver. Someone else suggested that idea, in other words. I plainly said I don’t know. It was a gas station conversation, but a lengthy one, for such an encounter. I didn’t “divine all of this from one brief conversation with a complete stranger…”! It was the spark to finally commit to writing something I’ve been observing for many years, most acutely in the past two or three. It also provided a good opening anecdote for an editorial.
It was a coupe in a market that was turning its back on coupes. Plus, the entire car was overweight, and the original drivetrains were underwhelming and trouble-prone (head gasket issues with the crappy 3.8 V-6).
Ford also forgot that a personal luxury car should have a beautiful and exciting interior. The car’s interior really wasn’t any better than that found in an Accord.
Yeah, but that wasn’t why I cited the T-Bird. It was to illustrate that Detroit companies have experience with the kind of engineering another posted exemplified as unattainable when citing the Accord front suspension. T-Bird was a coupe. A great one too, when it had the 4.6L V8, which mine did. The interior was well ahead of an Accord interior in 1997. In any case, I didn’t cite it as an Accord alternative.
When other posters point out that Consumer Reports results show a greater disparity in reliability, you dismiss them because…you don’t pay any attention to Consumer Reports, and therefore conclude that most vehicles buyers ignore it, too.
I don’t pay any attention to CR because they have proven themselves repeatedly wrong, to me. But some people do. Some. The numbers alone say most people do not. Their circulation is 4 million or so. Only a subset of those are buying new cars every year. CR readers make up only a small slice of a 16 million unit annual new car market. They may have somewhat more influence in the larger used car market. May.
Yes, and the differences are not so small as to be pointless. And the larger social context is that buying superior products, we encourage the home team to upgrade ITS products.
Making excuses for this type of mediocrity is how the Big Three got into this mess in the first place.
And there is no proof whatsoever that buying domestic will encourage the Big Three to keep more production here in the U.S. Detroit has been moving as much production out of the U.S. as it possibly can for years.
I made no excuses for mediocrity and openly encourage people to reject uncompetitive models from the Detroit 3, or anywhere else. There will be more retained US production if the Detroit 3 are in business than if they are gone. My case is for more open-minded consumer behavior for ensuring these companies have the cash to complete their reform.
That’s not enough. It must exceed the Accord and Camry if it is to score conquest sales.
Current Accord and Camry owners are not going to compare the new Malibu to the old one. Their point of reference will be the current Accord and Camry, as they will probably give those vehicles a look before testing the Malibu.
Please note that the outgoing Malibu was much better than the previous generation, but it still failed to make much of a dent in the market place (it has been a fleet queen for the past few years).
GM needs to target the competition and exceed their offerings, not merely improve on what it offered before.
Agree on your last point. I haven’t seen New Malibu yet. I know enough about its platform, engineering and improved build quality techniques to be able to say surely that the new model will be much better than the old one. I just couldn’t say more than that from an informed standpoint, so I didn’t.
The transplant operations are slowly becoming more American as they move more design, engineering and production facilities here. They pay very good wages, and they invest lots of their profits right here in the U.S., so the “where do the profits go” argument is long outdated, especially since the long-term goal of the Big Three has been to move as much production away from the UAW as possible.
But the transplants will never have the same economic leverage as domestically-owned production and domestically-owned overseas production that returns profits here. They will always have highest-value HQ jobs at their HQ. HQ will always be destination for profits. And they will always ship in highest value components. We do not get 1:1 return for domestic production transplants displace.
And, quite frankly, encouraging people to buy “good enough” products to “help” the Big Three DISCOURAGES Detroit from making these changes, because the history of both management and labor in the auto industry is that they don’t make changes until their backs are against the wall.
Generally I’m inclined to this thinking, but there is a time-specific imperative that argues for an amended view.
Sales of imported cars began accelerating after 1965 – or seven years before the first fuel crisis. Even Detroit’s compacts and intermediates were stealing sales from the big cars during this time.
This was a small trend. The hockey stick came later.
And, no, most buyers don’t care whether the Big Three survive, just as they didn’t care whether Kaiser-Frazer, Studebaker or Packard survived in the postwar years, or whether Hupmobile, Stutz and Auburn survived in the 1930s.
The prior did not have serious consequences. Losing the Detroit 3 all at once is a different level of consequence.
Also interesting that you criticize “import bigots” as being naive, uninformed consumers, while basically saying that they should accept “good enough” products. Sorry, but if “top notch” is also available, I consider the buyer who settles for “good enough” to be the naive one.
Depends on how broad your context is for the use of your purchasing power.
Lori Queen, who was the leader of the team that developed the Cobalt, must think that Consumer Reports is influential with buyers, too. After Consumer Reports gave the new Cobalt a mediocre overall ratings and below-average reliability ratings, she lashed out at the magazine in the media. SHE must be believe that it is important, or else she wouldn’t have reacted in such a public way.
My next subject may be commentary on the incompetence of Detroit 3 marketers.
Phil
That’s restricted self-interest, locally and temporally limited to the purchase at hand, not factoring in larger socio-economic context, and it leaves idle your option to use purchasing power as a shaper of your community. Remember, I’m not asking people to buy uncompetitive vehicles.
If I were interested in the economic impact of my purchase I would much rather purchase a so called “import” manufactured in the US over a so called “domestic” manufactured in Mexico or Korea. While the profits may go to the shareholders, which may be located anywhere, the economic contribution of profits is minuscule compared to the economic impact of the actual manufacturing. A single assembly plant injects billions of dollars into the economy. Even Toyota only has profit margins of ~10%. The rest of their revenue is used for manufacturing, R&D and the like, much of it in the US. Following this line of thought, it would still be illogical to purchase many so called “domestic” products even if I were concerned about the economic well being of my community. Ultimately, I would be delighted to purchase an Accord, Camry, or Sonata over a Fusion. If the big 3 fold so be it, they are shipping their manufacturing ops overseas as fast as they can. Supporting them will do nothing for the economic well being of the US.
In re, “Two of the last three cars I bought, I didn’t even justify them to my *wife*.”
Geeber: “… As a married man, I must confess that I find this sentence to be utterly unbelievable. Unless you have been sleeping in the garage for the past decade or so…”
I’m not offended by your skepticism; but I really did get away with it. I got the “just buy whatever you want, dear,” license and ran with it. However, I:
1. Didn’t buy a Ford. For that, I *would* have been sleeping in the garage, even if it ran trouble-free, for 30 years.
2. Didn’t spend all that much – I came in significantly under budget (nearly 25%). I didn’t bring home a Corvette, just a fairly practical used car that I decided I really liked.
3. Had been muttering to myself for two weeks about the pros and cons of various cars (this prompted the “just buy whatever…”).
4. It was not the kind of vehicle she was expecting, it was unlike any car we’d ever had and I hadn’t mentioned this kind of car even once but she liked it very much. Maybe we’re well-matched. :-)
I admit, I was a little nervous.
Full disclosure: the second time I did this, it was the same kind of car. I was pretty sure I could get away with it. I still didn’t justify the age, condition, mileage or price but that’s a much narrower range.
The more important point, of course, is that I don’t justify my cars to my neighbors. I don’t know anyone who does that. I guess whenever you spend less than $80K or so, you’re free to ignore the neighbor’s wants.
Well Phil,
I’ll buy your argument as far as import bigots are concerned. I do believe that many of those other groups overlap with the import bigoted and I don’t know if any of that is necessarily a bad thing. The larger issue is that which KBW has brought up. There are many Foreign car manufacturers that support the U.S. economy through both jobs and technology. If you are advocating the larger social context, then you should advocate that new car buyers purchase those vehicles that have the largest percentage of American work product in them from design to assembly and sales.
As far as the Big 3 going under, I don’t think that this will occur simultaneously and erupt into a singular catastrophic event. Rather, the companies will be broken apart and the successful subsidiaries will survive. Now, how the market will shift if that occurs nobady knows. In fact, even if your million import bigots come through, there is no guarantee that the Detroit 3 won’t close plants and shift work to other countries. The reality of a global economy is not as simple as saying that keeping the Detroit 3 alive will be a positive for the country.
Until it is that simple, I will continue to purchase the car that best fits my sensibilities. This will include image as I prefer a car that fits mine among other attributes. Now I suppose you can count me in as part of your one million as I will be considering the Astra when I purchase a car next year. However, I better contain some element that will outclass the mazda 3 hatch or the impreza (my top choices at the moment).
Perhaps the funniest thing about this ridiculous “import bigot” label is that a lot of these “imports” are built in Ohio, Kentucky, California and Ontario.
Meanwhile, I’m supposed to be a better American by buying a “domestic” made in Mexico or South Korea. Was there something in my geography lessons that I missed?
If I were interested in the economic impact of my purchase I would much rather purchase a so called “import” manufactured in the US over a so called “domestic” manufactured in Mexico or Korea. While the profits may go to the shareholders, which may be located anywhere, the economic contribution of profits is minuscule compared to the economic impact of the actual manufacturing.
Except that the economic leverage of buying from the Detroit 3 is about one-third greater than buying from a transplant source. Factor in that Mexican-assembled hardware is NAFTA activity, and includes lots of US content, and the picture becomes clearer. Where the profits go completes the cycle.
Following this line of thought, it would still be illogical to purchase many so called “domestic” products even if I were concerned about the economic well being of my community. Ultimately, I would be delighted to purchase an Accord, Camry, or Sonata over a Fusion. If the big 3 fold so be it, they are shipping their manufacturing ops overseas as fast as they can. Supporting them will do nothing for the economic well being of the US.
There’s controversy around this topic, but…
Admittedly, the issue of transplant product vs. domestic NAFTA product is murkier to most people. But these companies aren’t shipping out jobs any faster than market pressures are encouraging on the cost side. Their new labor contracts are protecting production. The salient point is that the Detroit 3 will have more high-leverage production here if they are in business and healthy than if they are defunct. Your last statement is just plain incorrect, but I don’t dispute you believe it.
There are many Foreign car manufacturers that support the U.S. economy through both jobs and technology. If you are advocating the larger social context, then you should advocate that new car buyers purchase those vehicles that have the largest percentage of American work product in them from design to assembly and sales.
And I’ve said, transplants are better than nothing. But they are not a commensurate replacement for lost domestically-owned primary manufacturing. For another view on this, download the PDF at this link:
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/domestic/2007RoadAhead.pdf
Have at it. 70 pages of summary research from 6 months ago.
Unfortunately, not all domestic production has the same economic leverage, so buying merely on the largest percentage of American work product, while a seemingly simple proposition, isn’t always the answer. In any case, in some cases that can be a car that’s assembled in Canada or Mexico, which makes it a NAFTA car.
As far as the Big 3 going under, I don’t think that this will occur simultaneously and erupt into a singular catastrophic event. Rather, the companies will be broken apart and the successful subsidiaries will survive. Now, how the market will shift if that occurs nobody knows. In fact, even if your million import bigots come through, there is no guarantee that the Detroit 3 won’t close plants and shift work to other countries. The reality of a global economy is not as simple as saying that keeping the Detroit 3 alive will be a positive for the country.
All three companies face existential threats simultaneously. If they all succumbed within a five year period, that would be close enough to be a single regrettable event. They could be broken apart, but if so, make no mistake: broken up, the surviving entities will be only a few relatively low-production brands. While globalization necessitates some dispersal of intellectual, creative, management, manufacturing and assembly resources, it nevertheless is a simple fact that the Detroit 3 in business is positive for the diversity and vitality of the US. I can’t think of any way in which the US is better off without them than with them. There is no advantage whatsoever to the demise of the Detroit 3.
Phil
Perhaps the funniest thing about this ridiculous “import bigot” label is that a lot of these “imports” are built in Ohio, Kentucky, California and Ontario.
Addressed above, immediately prior.
Meanwhile, I’m supposed to be a better American by buying a “domestic” made in Mexico or South Korea. Was there something in my geography lessons that I missed?
I didn’t say “better American,” you did. But sometimes, that’s the case. You’re off the hook for South Korea. I’m not asking anyone to consider an Aveo. Detroit 3 NAFTA assembly vs. transplant? Generally, yes.
Phil
Except that the economic leverage of buying from the Detroit 3 is about one-third greater than buying from a transplant source. Factor in that Mexican-assembled hardware is NAFTA activity, and includes lots of US content, and the picture becomes clearer. Where the profits go completes the cycle.
This is an interesting claim, I would like to see a source for that. The Camry has more domestic content than practically any other car sold in the US(>90%). This means that its production is much more highly leveraged in the US. The assembled in Mexico Fusion has a domestic content of merely 30%. In any case, the difference here is one of degrees and shades of gray rather than black and white. Its not as if failing to support Detroit will cause the collapse of the US economy. Someone will fill the void and will likely do a better job of it than what exists now. Creative destruction can be a good thing.
In any case, the difference here is one of degrees and shades of gray rather than black and white. Its not as if failing to support Detroit will cause the collapse of the US economy. Someone will fill the void and will likely do a better job of it than what exists now. Creative destruction can be a good thing.
Fusion vs. Camry is a specific case of shades of gray with murky comparatives, until you factor in the leverage of HQ location. I don’t say anywhere that losing the Detroit 3 will cause the collapse of the US economy. It clearly won’t. Creative destruction has objective economic benefits that are sometimes socially counter-productive. Economic advantage unfortunately places no value on the overall composition of an economy. It rewards a specific efficiency. It doesn’t care whether robust manufacturing jobs help to pin together a solid middle-class existence for low and moderate-education workers. It actually doesn’t care at all whether economic performance is driven by a more sharply-divided haves/have-nots population, or by a society moderated by a broad middle class. But social and political stability are favored by the latter, and ignoring that reality will incur some significant costs — some direct, some indirect, some costs of opportunity; all unnecessary.
Losing these companies will not bring down the US economy, but such an event will narrow the economic platform on which our social and political progress rest. Consumers have in their purchasing power an instrument for expanding criteria for free market decisions, and shaping the economic underpinnings for the society they want to have. This is not a survival issue at all, but one of economic and social quality in the only major developed country on a demographic curve for significant growth, for the foreseeable future.
Phil
“Except that the economic leverage of buying from the Detroit 3 is about one-third greater than buying from a transplant source. Factor in that Mexican-assembled hardware is NAFTA activity, and includes lots of US content, and the picture becomes clearer. Where the profits go completes the cycle”…This is an interesting claim, I would like to see a source for that.
I believe that the source won’t be forthcoming, and would be suspect even if it was.
I look at this way: Buy a “domestic”, and whatever profits that come from it will be invested in foreign plants, using parts and labor in developing countries. You may as well just buy a true import, because that’s where your dollars spent at the Big 2.8 will end up.
Honda and Toyota have some degree of commitment to building and maintaining facilities in the US and Canada, given their reliance upon quality control (new plants take years to get to efficient levels) and their desire to be intimately involved in their best markets. (Local market knowledge provides the intel that helps to make sales.)
As noted above, more than 90 cents of every dollar of revenue services expense, not profit. The main expenses are parts and labor (in that order), so it’s really the places where those are sourced that get the most benefit from a vehicle sale.
The comment that “profits go to Dearborn” are somehow better than profits that go to Toyota City or where ever else facile at best. “Profits” don’t just sit in a big happy vault, but end up reinvested in the business. Since we know that the Big 2.8 are endeavoring to offshore more of their manufacturing, those profits will help to ultimately exacerbate the offshoring trend and the trade deficit.
The US economy and treasury are better off if one buys an Ohio-made Honda than if one buys a Mexican Fusion or a Korean Chevy, as the money gets spread out to Americans when the money is spent in the US. Since GM and Ford aren’t paying taxes these days (losing companies get writeoffs, not tax bills), you’d do Uncle Sam more good if you spent some time at your local Toyota dealer.
I believe that the source won’t be forthcoming, and would be suspect even if it was.
I see: so you’re the arbiter of source credibility too? I quoted a conservative estimate. I’ve found, over the last few years, studies that quote up to a 7:1 advantage in Detroit 3 production leverage over a transplant, down to a conservative figure quoted in a lengthy Newsweek assessment conducted with independent research 4 or 5 years ago that quoted a 7:5 advantage in a Detroit 3 purchase. I am looking for links, rather than paper, that I can post for a variety of figures.
I look at this way: Buy a “domestic”, and whatever profits that come from it will be invested in foreign plants, using parts and labor in developing countries. You may as well just buy a true import, because that’s where your dollars spent at the Big 2.8 will end up.
I know it’s cool to be cynical, but the link I posted a few items above says otherwise.
As noted above, more than 90 cents of every dollar of revenue services expense, not profit. The main expenses are parts and labor (in that order), so it’s really the places where those are sourced that get the most benefit from a vehicle sale.
And those expenses include the high-value domestic HQ jobs that are not part of the transplant equation.
The comment that “profits go to Dearborn” are somehow better than profits that go to Toyota City or where ever else facile at best. “Profits” don’t just sit in a big happy vault, but end up reinvested in the business. Since we know that the Big 2.8 are endeavoring to offshore more of their manufacturing, those profits will help to ultimately exacerbate the offshoring trend and the trade deficit.
That’s a highly selective view of what happens to profits. Same profits support R&D, technology productization, domestic plant investment, etc. Detroit 3 profits aren’t somehow funneled exclusively to the limited offshoring on their agenda.
The US economy and treasury are better off if one buys an Ohio-made Honda than if one buys a Mexican Fusion or a Korean Chevy, as the money gets spread out to Americans when the money is spent in the US. Since GM and Ford aren’t paying taxes these days (losing companies get writeoffs, not tax bills), you’d do Uncle Sam more good if you spent some time at your local Toyota dealer.
Ohio-made Honda vs. Mexican Fusion: advantage Ford on domestic leverage, especially in light of NAFTA. Honda vs. Korean Chevy? Not so clear. Advantage Honda, let’s say. There are hardly any of these choices to be made, however. If a Honda shopper were considering a Chevy, it would be Cobalt, Malibu, Impala, Silverado, Colorado or HHR, depending on Honda model, not a Korean rebadge.
Tax revenue is not economic leverage. We’d be better off still if those taxes were paid on profitable activities of the Detroit 3, and the economic leverage they generate, than by Toyota.
Phil
… economic leverage … ??
Toyota manufactures something like 1.5 million engines/year here, now, from raw metal. That’s a lot of value-added process. They also build transmissions locally (I don’t have numbers) and use local suppliers for parts. They spent a ton of money building that Tundra plant (some of that money probably paid for a lot of new Ford F-150 trucks for the construction workers :-) ).
I see: so you’re the arbiter of source credibility too?
I would love to be the arbiter of sources, of course. Unfortunately, the author of the piece has provided virtually no sources, and resorts frequently to questionable anecdotes in lieu of sources.
Let’s just take one example. Mr. Ressler made this comment in one of his rebuttals:
Consumer Reports has its influence. However, its subscription and pass-along numbers don’t make it anywhere close to a mainstream influence.
This unproven assertion is handily skewered by this 2003 article in USA Today that refers to Consumer Reports as the leading source of automotive research data for American consumers:
Since its first auto test 50 years ago, Consumer Reports has become the No. 1 source that car buyers turn to when buying a new or used vehicle.
More than 40% of car shoppers use Consumer Reports for information, and in some segments — minivans, for example — nearly 60% of buyers use the magazine, according CNW Marketing/Research. That makes Consumer Reports the biggest single source of information car buyers use…
…Wall Street analyst Scott Hill of Alliance Bernstein estimates that about 18 million consumers see the magazine’s automotive recommendations annually through subscriptions, pass-along copies, online or in stories about its recommendations in other media.
Shoppers “trust Consumer Reports more than any other single source, including recommendations from friends, in helping them shape a decision of what new vehicle to buy,” Hill wrote in a research report.
Now, whether or not the author happens to personally enjoy reading CR is entirely his choice to make. But to contend that a source used in the research process by more than 40% of vehicles buyers is not “mainstream” is obviously devoid of support and verges on the absurd.
Furthermore, this factoid undermines much of your argument, which is centered around the notion that buyers are uninformed about their product choices. Clearly, if more than four of ten use this source, there are other buyers who are using other sources in lieu of Consumer Reports. This would suggest that a majority of buyers do conduct some sort of due diligence in their car shopping, which again raises doubts about the thesis that alleges their lack of knowledge and/or bigotry.
This one example alone brings into question the author’s ability to separate personal opinion and hopes from factual data. Personally, I would prefer to see more verifiable credible sources if such suppositions about the nature of the buying process or US economy are going to be made going forward. Alleged anecdotes at the gas station aren’t a substitute for research, in my opinion.
USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-09-16-cr_x.htm
Since its first auto test 50 years ago, Consumer Reports has become the No. 1 source that car buyers turn to when buying a new or used vehicle.
More than 40% of car shoppers use Consumer Reports for information,
Of course that’s old information. The number one source of research for new car buying is the World Wide Web, with over 80% starting with the manufacturer sites.
…Wall Street analyst Scott Hill of Alliance Bernstein estimates that about 18 million consumers see the magazine’s automotive recommendations annually through subscriptions, pass-along copies, online or in stories about its recommendations in other media.
He can estimate all he wants. In media circles, pass-along readership is generally considered over-estimated and worth only a fraction of the influence subscribers and newstand buyers represent.
But to contend that a source used in the research process by more than 40% of vehicles buyers is not “mainstream” is obviously devoid of support and verges on the absurd.
It is not an undisputed figure, and its influence is smaller than other factors.
Furthermore, this factoid undermines much of your argument, which is centered around the notion that buyers are uninformed about their product choices. Clearly, if more than four of ten use this source, there are other buyers who are using other sources in lieu of Consumer Reports. This would suggest that a majority of buyers do conduct some sort of due diligence in their car shopping, which again raises doubts about the thesis that alleges their lack of knowledge and/or bigotry.
Reading CR or any other source is not the same as being informed. Certainly, such sources don’t offer information on the larger social context for purchasing power, and they don’t ensure that a shopper knows what models are competitive from the Detroit 3. Moreover, all review sources encapsulate biases. If CR, for instance, thinks a Camry has an interior of notable quality execution, then I’m going to discount their assessment of any car interior. Rather, I’ll go see for myself.
Alleged anecdotes at the gas station aren’t a substitute for research, in my opinion.
The incident was real and only a spark to write a running theme in observed behavior in many markets.
Phil
I see the usual tactics being employed here: If you don’t like a source, you claim that it lacks credibility based upon the fact that you….er, don’t like it.
You have to forgive the readership, myself included, for how utterly unconvincing that is. You continue to “refute” factual data by merely restating your opinions, as if your opinions are a meaningful substitute for hard data.
You can believe whatever you want, but until you provide sources that are credible and verifiable, this remains an opinion piece that can’t be cited as anything more than one guy’s (unresearched and factually deficient) opinion.
Once again — your opinions should not be confused with third-party research or hard data. If you want to have a dialog, you need to offer a lot more substance than that.
If you don’t like a source, you claim that it lacks credibility based upon the fact that you….er, don’t like it.
I didn’t say anything about whether I like CR in the prior post. I said reading CR isn’t the same thing as being informed about whether a competitive model is available from the Detroit 3.
CR has 4 million subscribers supplemented by another 300,000 newsstand sales. They review washing machines, cameras, toasters, cars, etc. So you want us to believe that *every* reader of CR is using it to confirm car purchases every year? In a 16+ million units annual market, and 43 million annual used car purchases….uh, no. “Estimates” of pass-along readership do not equate to influence. But I would know that from decades of buying media for marketing purposes, and you might not.
And yes, CR reveals its reviewing prowess and merit criteria with every review it writes. Its own practices and findings frequently undermine their own credibility. If CR actually does influence 40% of car buyers, perhaps that’s another consumer dysfunction to write about.
Phil
I didn’t say anything about whether I like CR in the prior post. I said reading CR isn’t the same thing as being informed about whether a competitive model is available from the Detroit 3…
…And yes, CR reveals its reviewing prowess and merit criteria with every review it writes. Its own practices and findings frequently undermine their own credibility.
I am trying very hard not to laugh, but statements like this bring me close to spitting out my coffee.
Please. We don’t require Mr. Ressler’s blessing of a given source for it to have merit. I’ll go with the third-party research report before I run with your remarkably data-free opinion piece any day of the week if my goal is to obtain factual data. I think we’re all quite aware of your point of view at this juncture, but let’s not confuse one man’s opinion with factual analysis.
Seriously, you can’t possibly value your opinions that much, can you? To expect the TTAC readership or average car buyer to roll the dice just because of Ressler’s Ten Commandments (Thou Shalt Buy Domestic and Thou Shalt Not Believe Any Source That Contradicts Ressler, being among the top two) is a bit over the top. Aside from “I don’t like it”, do you have any substantive observations to make about CR or any alleged flaws in the research report referenced above?
My colleague, who didn’t visit any showroom but Honda (it’s BRAND LOYALTY), still got a copy of the CR Auto Buying Guide.
There’s sometimes a wait for the well-handled copy at the library. I know because I’ve waited.
Phil: “CR reveals its reviewing prowess and merit criteria with every review it writes. Its own practices and findings frequently undermine their own credibility.”
Based on what? Two mistakes in the last few years? That they were happy to admit to? Big deal. Or do you give crediblity to a ton of net blather, principally from people who are *sure* that CR is secretly in the pay of the Japanese? CR is pretty open about how and what they do; I admire that. CR is well-aligned with the other sources I know of. And aggregate warranty cost is a real eye-opener.
Phil: “If CR actually does influence 40% of car buyers, perhaps that’s another consumer dysfunction to write about.”
Sure, Don Quixote, tilt at all the windmills you like. Bring hard data next time.
This is background for anyone who believes that transplant employment is a 1:1 replacement for lost Detroit 3 jobs, in numbers or value, the following excerpts suggest otherwise. Also, the Detroit 3’s investment in plant upgrades dwarfs the total investment in new plants by the transplants. GM alone has, last I saw, 82 plants in operation in the US. Toyota has 13, including parts shops.
The Road Ahead for the
U.S. Auto Market
Office of Aerospace and Automotive Industries
U.S. Department of Commerce
March 2007
Direct employment in the domestic motor vehicle assembly industry (NAICS 33611) was down 5 percent in 2006 to a yearly average of 199,500 employees. This number has slipped considerably from its most recent high-water mark of 251,300 persons in 1995. While American vehicle assemblers restructure and reduce their workforces to reflect their declining share of the domestic market, foreign automakers
continue to add to their U.S. employment rosters as their U.S. production increases, but their additions will not offset the Detroit 3’s reductions.
Motor vehicle production employment has declined in the last ten years by 30 percent from 232,200 workers in 1996 to 162,000 in 2006, while overall motor vehicle employment decreased 17.5 percent. Improved worker efficiency and productivity can
be contributing factors to the decline in production employment, but most losses are a
result of GM’s and Ford’s decreased U.S. production. New jobs created by the foreign-affiliated auto companies’ new U.S.-based auto plants provide only partial replacement
for jobs lost by GM and Ford. University of Michigan economists forecast that seven out
of every ten manufacturing job losses in Michigan over the next two years will be in the auto industry.
As mentioned above, the Detroit 3’s restructuring plans call for further cuts in North America, with almost 80,000 salary and hourly jobs being eliminated, mostly in the United States. The Detroit Free Press reports that these buyouts and early retirements have reduced Detroit 3’s job banks to an estimated 5,000 employees (almost one-third its size from early 2006), which will greatly reduce the automakers’ costs.
+++
The foreign manufacturers do not face the same health care costs as the Detroit 3, giving
them a large cost advantage. A 2006 Harbour-Felax study reported that Toyota’s competitive health care advantage is as high as $1,400 per vehicle compared to the Detroit 3. Nearly all competitors are based in countries that have national health care systems, giving these companies the benefit of a large number of workers for whom health care is already provided. In addition, the foreign manufacturers with U.S. production plants generally have a younger workforce and have far fewer retirees on the books. Nonetheless, as the number of their U.S. employees and retirees grows,
international automakers with U.S. operations are concerned about rising costs. Toyota’s
health care costs have doubled over the past five years to more than $11,000 a year per
U.S. plant worker. In addition, in February 2006, Nissan announced it was dropping company-sponsored health care coverage for its retired U.S. manufacturing employees over the age of 65 and instead pay them an annual stipend of $2,500 to supplement
Pension funds are another cost burden for the Detroit 3, particularly compared to their
foreign competitors. The New York Times reported that Toyota, as of May 2006, only
had 258 U.S. retired production workers, but in 2011 and 2012, the number of eligible
employees will increase to 1,700 workers or 6 percent of its current workforce. Toyota
was expected to pay approximately $700 million in pension benefits in fiscal year 2006,
less than a tenth of what GM expected to pay in 2006. Toyota’s pension includes an investment account in which the automaker deposits 5 percent of a worker’s earnings each year, approximately $3,000 to $3,500. Employees can supplement the account with a 401(k) plan, with Toyota matching contributions up to a maximum of 4 percent of the
employee’s income. Nissan reported it had approximately 500 U.S. retirees and expected
the number to increase by 3,500 by 2015. The automaker discontinued its company pension plan, and instead offers a plan similar to the 401(k) investment strategy. Some analysts say that having to support a much larger number of retirees account for most of the difference in the Detroit 3’s production costs relative to their competitors. In addition, in other markets, an automakers’ responsibility for health insurance and pensions stops when an employee reaches retirement age. To help reduce costs and attract younger employees who prefer their retirement money to be portable, the Detroit 3 have replaced pensions with retirement saving accounts for salaried workers. The buyout packages accepted by its hourly workers should also lessen the Detroit 3’s pension burden.
+++
As the U.S. market has become increasingly competitive, Detroit 3 sales have been on a
long-term downward trend, likely pushing them below half the market in the near future.
The combined market share of the Detroit 3 was fairly stable from 1986 to 1995, averaging 72.4 percent for the period. Of course, this is far below the over 95 percent share they controlled in 1965 when they truly dominated the U.S. market. Their share in 1995 reached 73 percent, but then began a long and steady decline. A loss of a single point in market share is significant, as it is equivalent to approximately 165,000 fewer
unit sales or one assembly plant’s output.
+++
The United States still has the world’s largest
vehicle deficit, and it grew to $108 billion in 2006, an increase of 7 percent from 2005.
+++
The automotive trade deficit with Japan is the largest U.S. sectoral bilateral imbalance. It
has grown from the $30 billion dollar level in the early 80’s to $56.8 billion in 2006 ($43.2 billion deficit in autos and $13.6 billion deficit in auto parts). Meanwhile, overall sales of North American- made vehicles and parts in Japan remain low. According to the most recent import statistics available from Japan Automobile Importers Association (JAIA), sales of U.S. produced motor vehicles in Japan decreased by 17.7 percent in 2005 to 19,130. U.S. automakers currently sell 44.4 percent as many U.S.-made vehicles in Japan as they did in 2000.
Over the last eleven years, the Detroit 3 have lost 19.6 points of U.S. market share, declining from 73.1 percent of the market in 1995 to only 53.5 percent of the market in 2006. Japanese brands have made strong headway during this period, climbing from 22.9 percent to 35 percent, a gain of 12.1 points of market share. (According to Ward’s Automotive Reports, analyzed by Office of Aerospace and Automotive Industries.) The Japanese auto companies have supplied their increased U.S. market share through both export and investment in U.S. manufacturing facilities. Imports from Japan were up 34 percent in 2006 to 2,193,554 units compared to 1,630,186 units in 2005. Prior to 2006, imports from Japan ranged between 1.5 to 1.8 million units since 2000.
+++
Domestic employment in the auto industry (light vehicle manufacturing) was down in 2006 to an average of 199,500 individuals, a decrease of 5 percent from 2005.
Auto manufacturing remains one of the economy’s best paying industries. Production workers’ average hourly earnings were projected to reach $30.02 (excluding benefits) in 2006. Wages were 79 percent greater than the national average for all
manufacturing industries. Medicare coverage and out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Phil
foreign automakers continue to add to their U.S. employment rosters as their U.S. production increases, but their additions will not offset the Detroit 3’s reductions.
Of course they don’t. The transplant facilities are more efficient and better managed, so they require less labor to accomplish the same given level of output.
The only way for the transplants to provide the same level of employment would be for them to begin mismanaging their operations. I prefer that they remain profitable so their factories stay open, rather than hand money to the Big 2.8 so that they can expand their overseas businesses.
The offshoring and downsizing of Big 2.8 labor is inevitable — increased sales would provide the capital to speed up the process. The offshoring of transplant labor away from their current US operations is not.
Seriously, you can’t possibly value your opinions that much, can you? To expect the TTAC readership or average car buyer to roll the dice just because of Ressler’s Ten Commandments (Thou Shalt Buy Domestic and Thou Shalt Not Believe Any Source That Contradicts Ressler, being among the top two) is a bit over the top.
Well, certainly I wouldn’t expect someone to roll the dice on your misrepresentations of my thinking.
Aside from “I don’t like it”, do you have any substantive observations to make about CR or any alleged flaws in the research report referenced above?
You cite USA Today in turn citing a cursory reporting of a CNW study. CNW has published all sorts of drivel, some of which is actually useful. Without seeing that study I can’t say whether I’d count it among their credible efforts. However, the CR distribution numbers, the number of annual auto transactions, the market population and the number of influencers don’t add up.
As for CR itself, I’ll take any copy of the magazine and if in that issue they are reviewing anything I have deep product knowledge about and interest in, I usually find ample reason to suspect I shouldn’t take anything they recommend (or recommend against) seriously, in any category. This goes back 40 years with me. I check in from time to time looking for evidence they are improving, but they do their best to maintain the status quo in where CR stands with me. Cars are the least of it.
Phil
Based on what? Two mistakes in the last few years? That they were happy to admit to? Big deal. Or do you give crediblity to a ton of net blather, principally from people who are *sure* that CR is secretly in the pay of the Japanese? CR is pretty open about how and what they do; I admire that. CR is well-aligned with the other sources I know of. And aggregate warranty cost is a real eye-opener.
Nah, I pay no attention to the net blather. They are quite competent in undermining themselves with me directly, by the tests, reasoning and outcomes of their findings, almost regardless of category.
Bring hard data next time.
If you believe the 40% figure, the dysfunction is identified and supported. Why, in any thinking market, would any influence climb to 40%? Which would you prefer — that I show their influence is less than what’s reported, or deconstruct the value of following their advice?
Phil
This is background for anyone who believes that transplant employment is a 1:1 replacement for lost Detroit 3 jobs, in numbers or value, the following excerpts suggest otherwise. Also, the Detroit 3’s investment in plant upgrades dwarfs the total investment in new plants by the transplants. GM alone has, last I saw, 82 plants in operation in the US. Toyota has 13, including parts shops.
No one is making that claim, you are attacking a strawman here.
The simple fact of the matter is that buying a Detroit product won’t necessarily save US jobs and buying an Import won’t cause any significant negative economic impact. The days of 60k/year jobs for anyone with a high school diploma are over and no amount of patriotic buying will restore that.
No one is making that claim, you are attacking a strawman here.
It came up in some prior posts, with various people essentially claiming, “I bought a transplant and that supports American workers just the same.”
The simple fact of the matter is that buying a Detroit product won’t necessarily save US jobs and buying an Import won’t cause any significant negative economic impact. The days of 60k/year jobs for anyone with a high school diploma are over and no amount of patriotic buying will restore that.
No one here is advocating patriotic buying, least of all me. But reversing marketing share slide by the Detroit 3 will certainly save US jobs, given the Union deals and the 7-10:1 indirect job leverage cited by various researchers.
Phil
It came up in some prior posts, with various people essentially claiming, “I bought a transplant and that supports American workers just the same.”
The logical error that you make in respect to this point is that you presume falsely that with an increase in domestic sales that Big 2.8 employment levels would remain the same.
Of course, that’s folly. We already see that a majority of GM’s production is located outside of North America, with a trend to increase that figure. (And let’s keep in mind that North American includes Mexican operations, which despite your eagerness to jump on the NAFTA bandwagon does not provide as much benefit as does a Toyota built in Kentucky.)
Give the Big 2.8 your money, and it will feed its Chinese joint ventures and its aspirations in Latin America, Korea and Eastern Europe. Revenues “donated” by previous GM customers went into the coffers of Saab, Daewoo and FIAT, among others. Buy a Chevy in Europe, and it invariably will be a rebadged Daewoo made in Korea, not an American-made product. If you want to bankroll offshoring, going with GM is a good way to go.
While the business world has changed, you have missed the evolution of the multinational business model. Corporations have a much broader sense of the business world than do the faux-patriots who believe that the flagwaving done by the automakers extends beyond their marketing departments.
If Consumer Reports is the number one car-buying influence at 40% penetration, they are outranked by kids, 7 to 25 years old. Apparently, other research indicates Gen Y family members influence 52% of car buying.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B10064A4A-D8EB-4D93-8E85-66721AAD8A43%7D&keyword=
Additional sources say 8 year olds are gaining on everyone else. “Data” is always easy to find. Data isn’t the same as information.
Of course, womanmotorist.com says that women influence 85% of car buys. They don’t say who influences them, but they clearly believe womanmotorist is in the running.
http://www.womanmotorist.com/index.php/news/main/1524/event=view
On another topic:
“…Voss cites demand for small cars last year as the reason Toyota’s Japanese imports rose by so much. Altogether, Toyota imported close to half of all the vehicles it sold in the USA last year from Japan, including all its gas-electric hybrids and most of its luxury Lexus division vehicles.
“Honda’s imports soared 30% last year, Mazda’s rose 19%, and Suzuki’s were up 23%, the Congressional Research Service finds in a new report. It says Japanese makers are simply trying to meet customer demand while running their U.S. plants at full tilt.
“Japanese automakers encountered “capacity restraints in their existing U.S. plants as a sharp increase in the price of gasoline sparked greater consumer demand for fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles,” says William Duncan, general director of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association’s office in Washington, D.C.
“All told, each of the Detroit automakers supports 2½ times more U.S. jobs than Toyota, says Jim Doyle, president of the Level Field Institute, a Washington research group….”
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-03-22-american-usat_N.htm
Phil
The logical error that you make in respect to this point is that you presume falsely that with an increase in domestic sales that Big 2.8 employment levels would remain the same.
Of course, that’s folly. We already see that a majority of GM’s production is located outside of North America, with a trend to increase that figure. (And let’s keep in mind that North American includes Mexican operations, which despite your eagerness to jump on the NAFTA bandwagon does not provide as much benefit as does a Toyota built in Kentucky.)
It’s not a logical error, but your claim is a willful distortion. Majority of GM’s production is outside N.A. on a global basis, but that is not true for the cars and trucks they sell here.
NAFTA integrates Mexico’s manufacturing and economic benefits with us. Fusion’s domestic content is still 50%, the Mexican employment reduces immigration pressure, and the profits return to Dearborn. A 2007 Camry has 75% domestic content, but some of the high-value parts are imported, and profits return to Japan. Also, the indirect job leverage is smaller than Ford’s. So, I’ll take Fusion on the social context, as well as for the car. Toyota has also been growing imports faster than domestic production, and their overall domestic content is much lower than that Kentucky-assembled Camry.
For a 2007 content list:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-03-21-car-content-chart_N.htm
Phil
Seriously, I do hope that the next 300 posts aren’t devoted to strawmaning.
If Consumer Reports is the number one car-buying influence at 40% penetration, they are outranked by kids, 7 to 25 years old. Apparently, other research indicates Gen Y family members influence 52% of car buying.
I don’t recall that anyone on the thread argued that there was ONE source of information or influence that motivated car purchases.
As I do recall, it was the author who hung his hat on a single source (J.D. Power), not his critics. Most of the TTAC posters on the thread seem to have a sufficient grasp of nuance to understand that there is no single driver for car purchases, and the erosion of Big 2.8 market share is due to many failures to serve their customers, not just one.
I don’t recall that anyone on the thread argued that there was ONE source of information or influence that motivated car purchases.
The idea was posited that CR is the number one influence. It’s not. Overall, the aggregate WWW is. Or it’s women. Or kids. Maybe it will end up being eight year olds.
As I do recall, it was the author who hung his hat on a single source (J.D. Power), not his critics.
No, I didn’t hang my hat on a single source. What I said was that JDP is the most widely known quality data and it’s considered actionable by more people than CR.
Most of the TTAC posters on the thread seem to have a sufficient grasp of nuance to understand that there is no single driver for car purchases, and the erosion of Big 2.8 market share is due to many failures to serve their customers, not just one.
The response wasn’t to “most” it was to a poster who doesn’t seem to grasp your point.
Phil
(Saw on the TTAC sidebar that this post is still going!)
Phil,
JDP initial quality is not very compelling to me (or anyone I know), because initial quality is a very small subset of the total value proposition of a car. When they come out with lifecycle cost studies in 10 years, then I’ll pay attention.
Secondly, JDP studies rely on self-reported flaws in quality – which means that what constitutes a defect depends on the target consumer group. Do you think that the average Lexus owner has the same definition of quality defect as that of a Buick owner? I’m sorry, Buick self-evidently does not have the same quality as Lexus. Between JDP and my own two eyes, I’ll stick with my eyes – Lexus is still king.
CR has a very transparent and comprehensive methodology, and for the items I’m familiar with (LCD screens), I know they have put thought into their testing design. And CR is definitely more actionable than JDP. Outside of car buffs, no one knows what JDP is.
Finally, coming back to this post, I guess it is an interesting intellectual exercise to wonder if the Big 2.8 are getting screwed by the perception gap. But ultimately, I don’t think it matters. They’re getting screwed anyways. Blame it on whoever you want, it doesn’t change the facts. Consumers are shifting in large numbers to imports, especially the young, rich, and the coasts. Blaming the consumer won’t help. You can argue that consumers aren’t buying in their self-interest, but seriously, anyone who eats Oreo cookies is not eating in their self-interest.
We buy cars we want, not what we need or what’s good for us or what we should have got if we listened to JDP. All that matters is what consumers actually buy.
Altoids,
I don’t doubt that you, specifically, don’t view JDP data as actionable. Personally, I don’t either. I’ve never referenced it in a car buying decision of my own. But millions do. JDP has been extensively promoted, by their own marketing efforts and by the aggregate publicity of the carmakers to the point where their awareness and crediblity is mainstream, and the ratings are easily digestible.
Consumers are shifting in large numbers to imports, especially the young, rich, and the coasts. Blaming the consumer won’t help. You can argue that consumers aren’t buying in their self-interest, but seriously, anyone who eats Oreo cookies is not eating in their self-interest.
True. Nevertheless, continued effort to make people aware of their self-interest alters behavior and also results in transfat-free Oreos. Influencing behavior has to start somewhere. My voice is on the side of open-minded consideration and evaluation, informed by what’s competitive today and going forward, as well as buying criteria that include consideration of the larger social context for using your purchasing power. We really do have a free-will choice to enlarge our view of what our participation in the economy can accomplish.
We buy cars we want, not what we need or what’s good for us or what we should have got if we listened to JDP. All that matters is what consumers actually buy.
Which is why it’s not too soon to try to find some swing back to competitive domestics over the next few critical years. Changing awareness of choices can change wants. It’s not an attempt to get everyone, just enough to make a difference.
Phil
Phil: “If you believe the 40% figure [CR influence], the dysfunction is identified and supported. Why, in any thinking market, would any influence climb to 40%? Which would you prefer — that I show their influence is less than what’s reported, or deconstruct the value of following their advice?
What? It’s “dysfuctional” to get empirical 3rd-party information, at low cost, about a $20K+ purchase?
If you ask me, it’s dysfunctional NOT to get information about the product you intend to purchase from someone without an interest in the outcome. CR doesn’t get a commission but that salesperson you trust… or those manufacturer websites…
And, while I’m thinking about it, who lets a stranger at a gas station get in his car? Who would be so presumptuous as to ask?
Which is why it’s not too soon to try to find some swing back to competitive domestics over the next few critical years.
Waiting for this list of allegedly “competitive” domestics to be presented on this thread has become a bit like waiting for Godot…
Phil, here’s a thought for you… what’s the genesis of all these “import bigots?”
Practically every American over the age of 30 has some sort of strong emotional attachment to *some* piece of Detroit iron; it would be hard to avoid.
My grandfather had a ’64 Olds hardtop sedan with power windows and a radio that found stations for you. He had a ’66 Olds convertible. He had a ’68 Cadillac Sedan deVille with black leather interior, a round cruise control, auto-dimming headlights and a motor the size of a Toyota Corolla – as big as ALL of that Toyota Corolla. I got to drive that thing. Shazam! Drag-raced a buddy in a Mercury Colony Park Wagon with some sort of enormous V8 in it.
My dad had a ’64 Olds F-85, which wasn’t a luxury car or anything like that but which I still admire for its amazingly clean and attractive lines, generous interior room and good-sized trunk; it was an effective and attractive family sedan. I learned to drive in a ’67 Camaro, which I helped my Dad pick out. I owned a ’67 Malibu.
And people developed these attachments without actually being motorheads; these are simply the cars of their youth which get fondly remembered – probably out of all proportion to their actual reliability and utility.
So… what happened? How could there possibly be “import bigots” against this rose-colored automotive background?
Yet, according to you, there are! Vast numbers of them, in fact, who have overcome the emotional ties of their youth to some well-remembered and loved piece of Detroit sculpture to blindly reject all present Detroit product and actively favor the derided “Jap Crap” of the ’70’s.
That’s not possible.
Intersting arguments going on here. Phil, based on the report you posted, it seems that the best thing I can do to save the Detroit 2.8 is to advocate for socialized medicine (not veto bills that cover too many people). This will remove one of the major costs knee-capping the Detroit auto industry compared to foreign competition.
However, you cited that one of the largest reasons for an increase in japanese imports (and not even japanese vehicles built here) is a consumer driven shift to higher mpg cars. That is not the consumers fault. In fact, Detroit has a tendency to push larger motors in their fleet compared to the competition. This hurts them when the market is shifting. While your ideations may be true, there is no gaurantee that even one more domestic product will be purchased when they are considered.
In the end, the issue becomes that there is no gaurantee that the money I use to purchase an American vehicle will be used in an manner which will bolster the future of said companies. God knows, that the Detroit 2.8 are good at flushing money down the toilet. Given that and the fact that, at least in some cases, the issue is sime shade of grey, why not just buy the car I like the most. Perhaps, I am okay with supporting the economy to a slightly smaller extent in order to get a car that I enjoy more, even if that enjoyment or peace of mind has no rational basis. That is to say, a car at its core, is an emotional purchase for most people. No matter what the facts say, I will likely enjoy a detroit vehicle less due to a bias. I will also be more likely to blame overall quality for any problems. Removing a bias that may be implicit is no easy thing and most will find no reason to change for that reason when there is a reasonable alternative.
As a sidenote, I saw the new Malibu article in Motortrend todat at work. It looks like a nice car. However, I hope GM doesn’t make the same mistake of making the top of the line model really nice and allowing the base model to suffer from some deficiences comapred to the competition. I feel that was the biggest issue with the Aura.
What? It’s “dysfuctional” to get empirical 3rd-party information, at low cost, about a $20K+ purchase?
If you ask me, it’s dysfunctional NOT to get information about the product you intend to purchase from someone without an interest in the outcome. CR doesn’t get a commission but that salesperson you trust… or those manufacturer websites.
The dysfunction, if you believe the 40% number, is in such a source given that much attention, regardless what they’re recommending.
Waiting for this list of allegedly “competitive” domestics to be presented on this thread has become a bit like waiting for Godot…
Already addressed. You seem to be the only one asking for more. We’re not going to turn this thread into a model-by-model debate. Everyone’s list will be different, depending on their selection criteria. My list is mine. I am not, for example, a minivan customer, so I have no opinion. I haven’t been in a minivan of any make for over 15 years – not even for a ride. But Chrysler has remained a serious player. I can’t say anything about the category personally.
And, while I’m thinking about it, who lets a stranger at a gas station get in his car?
Me.
When I drove British sports cars, this was a common request. Jeeps? Check. Ford SVT cars? Yup, every other week. F150 Harley? Ayuh. Marauder? Uh-huh. CTS-V? Weekly. XLR-V? Just about every gas stop.
Who would be so presumptuous as to ask?
I suppose people more socially gregarious than you. I don’t know; maybe I’m just the open & approachable sort. Look for me at a gas station when you’re in southern California.
So… what happened? How could there possibly be “import bigots” against this rose-colored automotive background?
Yet, according to you, there are! Vast numbers of them, in fact, who have overcome the emotional ties of their youth to some well-remembered and loved piece of Detroit sculpture to blindly reject all present Detroit product and actively favor the derided “Jap Crap” of the ’70’s.
That’s not possible.
The first of my Dad’s cars that I have vivid memory of was a ’49 Buick, medium blue with medium brown mohair upholstery. It has that big cream resin steering wheel of the era, a six and a column shifter for the tranny. An uncle had a cream Chevy of the same year. A three-tone ’51 Olds with a Rocket V8, pastel green with dark green accents and a cream roof followed. Still had a tube radio like the blue Buick, and man did those old paper cone mono speakers have tone with that round brown tube sound. Plymouth, Dodge, Oldsmobile again, then again. I learned to drive in a massive ’66 Olds Delta 88 4-door with woven nylon upholstery and a house-pulling 425. Got serious highway time on a ’69 Poncho Bonneville, 429 cubes, black nylon upholstery and wide-track bench seats for…well…you get the idea.
I ended up spending my own money more on Fords than anything else so far, despite that early GM immersion and really no exposure to Fords.
What many of you don’t remember, or don’t want to, is that in the ’70s, it began to become uncool in some circles to drive an American car. That was when, other than a few college professors earlier in the ’60s, I began to hear people who didn’t know anything about cars, and didn’t care to, turning up their noses at Detroit iron for no reason other than cultural bias. Even if you could make the case for imports, I’m talking about people who were plainly ignorant. They had become import bigots as a result of being (allegedly progressive) social bigots. Most were fellow boomers, still young and abandoning Detroit out of spite as much as anything. The imports they bought sure weren’t as reliable as the Detroit iron others were driving. I was driving British roadsters, not because I didn’t like Detroit iron, but because I wanted a small roaster and Brit was it. (Mine were reliable, by the way — never stranded roadside, though I did always carry an extra fuel pump and switched a couple out, shoulder-side.) By 1983, I circled back to Detroit because each time I needed a car, I shopped across the divide and hit a winner.
I don’t know what you characterize as “vast numbers,” but I didn’t say import bigots exist in vast numbers. I have posited that there are enough of them to make a real difference to Detroit 3 survivability if a significant percentage of them can be swung to competitive domestics. Surely one-million out of 16 million annually isn’t “vast.”
Intersting arguments going on here. Phil, based on the report you posted, it seems that the best thing I can do to save the Detroit 2.8 is to advocate for socialized medicine (not veto bills that cover too many people). This will remove one of the major costs knee-capping the Detroit auto industry compared to foreign competition.
This if true if you believe that socialized medicine is a viable solution (I don’t). Some way of normalizing the health care burden relative to imports will improve circumstances. But health care legislation can take years. Purchase decisions are made every day and are tunable for real consequence. It’s a way to help right now.
However, you cited that one of the largest reasons for an increase in Japanese imports (and not even Japanese vehicles built here) is a consumer driven shift to higher mpg cars. That is not the consumers fault.
One reason, not the only. And when you tally up the totals on a product basis, mileage-sensitive customers were and are still in the minority. Nevertheless, Detroit should have been more responsive to fuel-sensitive shifts in 1974 and 2007.
In fact, Detroit has a tendency to push larger motors in their fleet compared to the competition. This hurts them when the market is shifting. While your ideations may be true, there is no gaurantee that even one more domestic product will be purchased when they are considered.
I’m not seeking or expecting guarantees. Just a market shift of minority proportions, one decision at a time.
In the end, the issue becomes that there is no guarantee that the money I use to purchase an American vehicle will be used in an manner which will bolster the future of said companies. God knows, that the Detroit 2.8 are good at flushing money down the toilet. Given that and the fact that, at least in some cases, the issue is sime shade of grey, why not just buy the car I like the most.
Surely buying a competitive vehicle from a company bolsters it more than not buying one at all. No, you have no guarantee on the outcome, other than that doing nothing has consequences too. Why not just buy the car like the most? I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’m asking that import buyers include competitive domestic offerings in their evaluations, add the larger social context as part of their criteria for selection, and then if convinced, buy appropriately. Or not. It’s up to you. No free will is compromised.
Perhaps, I am okay with supporting the economy to a slightly smaller extent in order to get a car that I enjoy more, even if that enjoyment or peace of mind has no rational basis. That is to say, a car at its core, is an emotional purchase for most people. No matter what the facts say, I will likely enjoy a Detroit vehicle less due to a bias. I will also be more likely to blame overall quality for any problems. Removing a bias that may be implicit is no easy thing and most will find no reason to change for that reason when there is a reasonable alternative.
I’ll accept what you say is important to you. Equally, perhaps you will lift your perspective and your emotional drivers — wants — may be amended. Further, the passive sense of observation about “removing a bias that may be implicit” is regrettable. We each can consciously alter a bias if we want to. At what point is it worth consciously dropping a bias? That’s the question auto buyers have to ask themselves if they understand the leverage in their purchasing power.
As a sidenote, I saw the new Malibu article in Motortrend todat at work. It looks like a nice car. However, I hope GM doesn’t make the same mistake of making the top of the line model really nice and allowing the base model to suffer from some deficiences comapred to the competition. I feel that was the biggest issue with the Aura.
I concur on Malibu. I can’t say until I see the car up close. The advance info is encouraging. The Aura stands up well against competitors, but it is a different idea of how a car should feel than Japan, Inc. has evolved to.
Here’s a link worth reading:
http://www.levelfieldinstitute.org/docs/lfi_report_FINAL090706.pdf
Some people here will kick and cry that the publishing organization, the Level Field Institute, is not neutral on the subject. They’re not. It’s an advocacy group of retired car industry people who have been gathering data to help consumers understand the economic leverage of domestically-owned car production. The data is compiled from sources Level Field does not control. It’s legit. They have run a data analysis that outlines the number of jobs supported per car purchase, comparing domestic production vs. imports (including transplants.) There is a lot of conflicting data on this subject available on the web. As I said before, estimates of leverage advantage on the US economy for the Detroit 3 range from 30% greater to 7:1. In this case the average is 2.7:1 in favor of buying from the Detroit 3.
I’ve just found this, by the way, so everything I’ve written prior to this post is not informed by this data analysis. You will see it makes assumptions about market share going forward 5 years from 2005, and it normalizes data disparities wherever they can be documented. The leverage advantage to buying competitive Detroit 3 iron is way beyond the statistical error range. If you read it, follow the data analysis closely. The numbers are all publicly available. Nothing is proprietary. The data are credible, the reasoning is a legitimate lens for deducing economic leverage in your purchase. The main question to be answered is , do you want to include this larger context in your selection criteria or not? It’s your free market choice.
Phil
The so called report by the level field institute is ridiculous. The numbers they use do not mesh with the Department of Commerce reports at all. Who are we to believe, the Department of Commerce or a special interest group set up by retired autoworkers with a vested interest in the subject. Their multiplier of 10.4 for domestic automaker jobs is simply ridiculous. It is much higher than most estimates for employment multipliers, which range from 2-10. Indeed, they seem to have used the highest value they could find and applied it to their analysis of the domestics. Their analysis is so flawed that anyone with even a cursory background in economics can see the gaping holes in it.
The numbers they use do not mesh with the Department of Commerce reports at all.
Level Field is very straighforward about explaining how their numbers for total employment are larger. As I said, there are many conflicting statistics on this matter, but Level Field’s superset quantification of auto employment is proper once you understand their explanation. It is more conservative than some other numbers, since they explicitly exclude dealerships. However, the primary reason the Commerce Department number for total employment is smaller is found in this statement in their document:
“Direct employment in the domestic motor vehicle assembly industry (NAICS 33611) was down 5 percent in 2006 to a yearly average of 199,500 employees.”
Level Field is including the non-assembly employment.
Their multiplier of 10.4 for domestic automaker jobs is simply ridiculous. It is much higher than most estimates for employment multipliers, which range from 2-10.
9.4 is the ratio excluding the one vendor manufacturing job (they’re relating jobs to cars, not jobs to carmaker jobs). That number is actually very well supported across many data sources and economic studies. Another number that frequently appears is 7:1. Even if you plug in the 7:1 number, their basic analysis holds together. But as explained in their method, the 10.4:1 number has strong independent support, though it’s a little higher than what I’ve accepted in the past. How is 9.4:1 “much higher” than a range of “2-10?”
You have to remember that for the domestics, Level Field includes the HQ and in-country R&D, management, design job leverage. For the transplants and direct imports, the job leverage for these job categories that are in HQ outside the US, are excluded. Hence the (proper) disparity between domestic job leverage and transplant/imports.
Their analysis is so flawed that anyone with even a cursory background in economics can see the gaping holes in it.
It’s not an economic analysis, it’s a numerical accounting. A background in economics doesn’t provide basis for undermining their case. It’s a jobs accounting issue with straighforward arithmetic, and a good range of statistical research says their base numbers are in consensus range.
Phil
Phil, you’re still going….
KixStart you summed it very well, your father had Detroit Iron, perhaps he did not have much of choice, but when your time came the choice was wider and you elected to exercise your choice.
Forty year old Detroit Iron drive like you know what, and a 40 year old Japanese or German iron drives the same…you know what.
Phil’s father had one brand of Detroit Iron, and Phil went for a different brand of Detroit Iron, which at the time was probably viewed as an act of treason or close….something like ‘we always had GM in this family, and you got a Ford???
Folks of a certain age grew up, learned how to drive, tinkered, modified, took apart, put it back together again, drove the $%^# out of them, and it was Detroit Iron.
Back then the biggest downfall of Detroit Iron, was not reliability, no car was reliable by today’s standards, the majority of Detroit Iron was challenged negotiating turns, and was beyond challenged to stop…drum brakes were poor at stopping, especially when the brake pedal started its travel to the floor with brake fade.
In a straight line nothing came remotely close to Detroit Iron with a V8, the cars powered by diminutive 4 cylinders knew their place in the “car order” the left lane was not one of their place in the “car order”.
Who is putting V8’s in small rear wheel drive cars, and gearheads go bonkers for these cars, with all sorts of nomenclature to make them distinctive. Every buff magasine writes about them. The best part is that they fianlly learned how to make a V8 sound like a V8, Detroit Iron was doing that gig over 40 years ago.
Detroit Iron had its days in the Sun, it fell out of grace(they became very stupid), and it might just have its day in the Sun again in a different way.
OK, so we’re left with this:
-Consumer Reports is bad, because the author says it is so
-CR is not “mainstream”, because the author says it is so
-The mysterious Level Field “Institute”, whose membership seems to consist of no one in particular (they list no personnel, board of directors, etc. on their website) is wonderful, credible and believable, because the author says it is so
Previously, I had requested credible arguments and credible sources, not just more stuff lobbed at the wall by the author in the hopes that some of it would stick. Not all links are created equal, you know.
Incidentally, I decided to spend a few minutes figuring out who the Level Field Institute is. (I guess somebody had to, since the author seems uninterested.) Its head, Jay Heidbrink, went to Boston College, was a history teacher, lived in Dallas for awhile and has worked on some political campaigns. He also likes to play soccer. Not sure what Mr. Heidbrink’s connection is to the auto industry, but it seems to be virtually non-existent. But of course, I’m sure he’s a lot more credible than is Consumer Reports…
Phil:
Thanks for your reply.
I don’t doubt that you, specifically, don’t view JDP data as actionable. Personally, I don’t either. I’ve never referenced it in a car buying decision of my own. But millions do. JDP has been extensively promoted, by their own marketing efforts and by the aggregate publicity of the carmakers to the point where their awareness and crediblity is mainstream, and the ratings are easily digestible.
I think you underestimate the average consumer – the average consumer today is very very skeptical. Given the ads on TV, I don’t think the marketing community has fully appreciated this yet. No one is misled by the flashy trophies the Saturn Aura allegedly has. Credibility and authenticity is what people are looking for, and people look to their peers and personal “experts” for buying advice.
True. Nevertheless, continued effort to make people aware of their self-interest alters behavior and also results in transfat-free Oreos. Influencing behavior has to start somewhere. My voice is on the side of open-minded consideration and evaluation, informed by what’s competitive today and going forward, as well as buying criteria that include consideration of the larger social context for using your purchasing power. We really do have a free-will choice to enlarge our view of what our participation in the economy can accomplish.
This just boils down to a difference of opinion. I think the open-minded person can easily conclude (as I have), that imports still provide higher build quality, more reliability, and higher resale value than domestics. As a fully-aware and self-interested consumer, I choose the my Accord/Camry/whatever.
Your position appears to be that if only people knew more about domestics and seriously considered them, they would buy more domestics. I contend that people know all too well what domestics are like, and even if they were forced to sit in a domestic car and drive it for hours, they would come to the same conclusions as before. In other words, their prejudices and pre-judgements are fully justified.
Herd behavior is usually villified, but most of the time, herd behavior means everyone benefits from the expertise of the few, allowing each person to make high-quality decisions with little effort.
Again, you are arguing that many people reject domestic for irrational reasons, and I don’t agree – there doesn’t seem to be much left to say after that.
Pch101 wrote:
OK, so we’re left with this:
-Consumer Reports is bad, because the author says it is so
-CR is not “mainstream”, because the author says it is so
You missed one:
-CR is mainstream and that’s bad, because the author says so.
Phil wrote: “You [Pch101] seem to be the only one asking for more [examples of competitive Detroit cars].”
Actually no, Phil, I was waiting to hear that one, too.
And while I’m not expecting you to identify a million-plus “import bigots” by name, I am still waiting to see hard evidence that they exist at all.
We can count your jealous and insecure SL550 pilot as one, I suppose. Now all you need are 999,999 more.
Get cracking!
You have to remember that for the domestics, Level Field includes the HQ and in-country R&D, management, design job leverage. For the transplants and direct imports, the job leverage for these job categories that are in HQ outside the US, are excluded. Hence the (proper) disparity between domestic job leverage and transplant/imports.
Ahh, but that’s assuming level field is honest and actually bothered to do all that work. In reality, they pulled the number straight out of this report.
http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/AIAMFinal.PDF
Which ironically refers to the economic impact of foreign automakers in the US.
Never trust a paper without a bibliography, they always have something to hide, this one is no different.
the average consumer today is very very skeptical
I certainly agree with that. However, I don’t think the average consumer’s skepticism is matched by their methods for overcoming it. Consumers are still figuring that out, with the web both enabling and confusing them.
Your position appears to be that if only people knew more about domestics and seriously considered them, they would buy more domestics. I contend that people know all too well what domestics are like, and even if they were forced to sit in a domestic car and drive it for hours, they would come to the same conclusions as before. In other words, their prejudices and pre-judgements are fully justified.
Specific domestics, not all. And some of the market of buyers but not all. But yes. If you believe what you described applies to 100% of the import buying population, then we disagree.
OK, so we’re left with this:
-Consumer Reports is bad, because the author says it is so
-CR is not “mainstream”, because the author says it is so
-The mysterious Level Field “Institute”, whose membership seems to consist of no one in particular (they list no personnel, board of directors, etc. on their website) is wonderful, credible and believable, because the author says it is so
I didn’t say CR is bad because I say it’s so; I said I don’t pay any attention to it for reasons I mentioned. Obviously if it has no credibility with me (never has) then I don’t recommend CR to anyone else, but nevertheless I recognize some people consider CR reviews and data actionable. Regardless how many people like CR in it’s present form, I still don’t recommend paying any attention to it. Again, majority behavior has no sway with me. You think it is more influential than I do. Fair enough. I’d be happy to see it go away, and cars are the least of the reasons. But that’s me. Is it mainstream? It’s not a majority influence factor. Maybe to you it’s status as a minority influence is “mainstream.”
Actually, I didn’t make any statements about the Level Field Institutes’s credibility. I plainly described the organization, what it is, and disclosed that it’s not neutral on the issues discussed here. I posted a link to one of its documents. Level Field exists specifically to bring to light arguments for persuading Americans to buy domestically-produced products (not just cars, btw).
I haven’t seen enough of their output to comment on their general credibility. But this specific report, which I posted as “worth reading,” provides a verifiable jobs accounting that outlines the employment leverage of domestic purchases and production. The numbers are explained with respect to sourcing, and they are supportable by a couple hours (which I did) of independent web research that helps you triangulate their veracity. If you interpret their data differently than they do, you’re free to say so and outline why. But you don’t have much to stand on if you attack their counts. Even if they are 1/3rd high — which I don’t see — the US domestic job leverage would still come out conclusively in favor of the Detroit 3. The transplants don’t and won’t have enough plants, capacity and supply chain here to obliterate Detroit’s job leverage, and the job leverage that reaches back to their home markets doesn’t count. It’s simple and straightforward.
Let’s not go down the path of the logical fallacy of attacking the source. I don’t car whether Level Field is one guy or thousands. If their data is objectively derived, verifiable and the reasoning behind the analysis is openly explained, it’s a contribution to the debate. All of those ifs are answered affirmative.
Phil
Ahh, but that’s assuming level field is honest and actually bothered to do all that work. In reality, they pulled the number straight out of this report.
Level Field cites AIAM as a source; it’s right there. My own digging found other sources that allow triangulation to accept the estimates.
Phil
Actually no, Phil, I was waiting to hear that one (list of competitive Detroit 3 vehicles), too.
Already addressed. My posts have several mentions of some contenders. I am not going to turn this thread into a model-by-model debate on competitiveness. Everyone will have their own view.
And while I’m not expecting you to identify a million-plus “import bigots” by name, I am still waiting to see hard evidence that they exist at all.
We can count your jealous and insecure SL550 pilot as one, I suppose. Now all you need are 999,999 more.
I don’t think I described the SL driver in the opening anecdote as “jealous” at any time. In my personal experience, I can add import bigots to the count every day. So can virtually everyone else here, including you if you’re honest about it. It’s very easy to get get to a few million in every vehicle model year. I was talking about this thread with a business associate a couple nights ago. He’s a serial import car owner. His response: “…yeah, most of my friends are import bigots in the way you define them. In fact, that describes almost everyone I know.”
Phil
Let’s not go down the path of the logical fallacy of attacking the source.
Er, that “logical fallacy” is standard practice in any university or academic institution. Sources do matter, and anyone who claims otherwise is himself suspect.
Just as I wouldn’t refer to a White Power website to obtain quantitative data for a genetics research project, nor would I cite this bogus “institute” of one for anything credible on the automotive industry. The quality of one’s research determines whether the conclusions reached can be deemed to hold any merit.
What’s absolutely laughable is the author’s ability to misrepresent basic facts (i.e. claiming CR isn’t mainstream when just about half the country is using it for its car shopping) and condemning any reference to same while embracing “sources” that are about as solid as a block of Swiss cheese after a week in the desert. Perhaps the author missed Mr. Farago’s news blog piece that ridiculed the very same “source” being so boldly touted here?
Er, that “logical fallacy” is standard practice in any university or academic institution. Sources do matter, and anyone who claims otherwise is himself suspect.
No, I’m sorry. In the discipline of logic, the attacking the source has no merit. In fact, it interferes with the truth. I accept that most people are not adherents to the discipline of logic. The focus has to be on the argument and the information that supports it. Good information can come from biased sources. Bad reasoning and bad information can come from “good” sources. It’s a particular document, not the issuing organization, that is under scrutiny here.
The quality of one’s research determines whether the conclusions reached can be deemed to hold any merit.
The quality of what’s inferred, deduced or concluded from the research is equally important. Good data acquisition isn’t enough for credibility.
What’s absolutely laughable is the author’s ability to misrepresent basic facts (i.e. claiming CR isn’t mainstream when just about half the country is using it for its car shopping) and condemning any reference to same while embracing “sources” that are about as solid as a block of Swiss cheese after a week in the desert. Perhaps the author missed Mr. Farago’s news blog piece that ridiculed the very same “source” being so boldly touted here?
The comic element is always a social lubricator, right? Robert ridiculed a different matter from Level Field entirely, and he criticized their position and reasoning, more than their data. Everything the organization publishes isn’t tainted by Robert’s criticism of another matter entirely.
I posted the document link with a note explaining its origins, and pointing out that I’d just found it so everything written prior was uninformed by that data. It happens to be a good accounting of comparative job leverage. That’s it.
This data, and its accounting-driven conclusion, are straightforward and can be verified through multiple sources. There are no overcounts so large as to change the outcome if any were found. You can take the position that you don’t care about the job leverage of Detroit 3 domestic production. You can argue that said job leverage isn’t worth preserving, nor worth a change in your automotive biases. You can argue that other industries might take up the slack. But the hard data supports their basic case that buying Detroit 3 products supports a significantly longer tail of related jobs than buying transplant or import product. Whether you care to make that knowledge actionable in your automotive purchasing is up to you.
And yes, I am free to opine on the quality of CR as a resource for sorting out your shopping, just as you are to laud it. If you see it as a mainstream influence with 40% penetration, that’s your call.
Phil
That’s a lot of effort made just to defend a highly questionable source.
Once again:
-A reputable source is better than a mysterious source
-A source with a reputation is better than an “institute” that is largely manufactured out of thin air
-A source that does not provide verifiable footnotes that lead to properly quoted credible sources just ain’t much of a source.
And really, the attack here wasn’t on the source per se, but on the credibility of the person who would rely so heavily on such a source. That shows an inability on your part to discern good research from bad opinion making.
The fact that the author would quote liberally from this “institute” without knowing the first thing about it (or in this case, the one guy who operates said “institute”) really says more about the author’s research skills than it does about the actual “institute” itself.
All sources are not created equal. The inability to tell the difference is indicative of one’s poor judgment. If it’s that obvious in this example, one wonders in which other ways this behavior manifests itself.
If the one dude who runs the “institute” wants to do so, that’s fine. But it’s pretty clear that he wants to represent himself as an “institute” because his position papers convey more faux-credibility to the naive than they would if the guy just put his own name on the same work. Not bad from a marketing perspective, but I wouldn’t cite this work in a research paper subject to any basic level of scrutiny.
-A reputable source is better than a mysterious source
-A source with a reputation is better than an “institute” that is largely manufactured out of thin air
-A source that does not provide verifiable footnotes that lead to properly quoted credible sources just ain’t much of a source.
Level Field is not mysterious. The article’s data and reasoning are explained. Sources are identified. It doesn’t require academic-level footnoting to be correct. The data is verifiable multiple ways.
And really, the attack here wasn’t on the source per se, but on the credibility of the person who would rely so heavily on such a source. That shows an inability on your part to discern good research from bad opinion making.
You explicitly attacked Level Field as a source. As for me, I explicitly stated my posts were not informed by that data, so it’s a misrepresentation to say I’ve “heavily relied on such a source.” Nothing about this data has influenced my position. It happens to be consistent with it after-the-fact.
All sources are not created equal. The inability to tell the difference is indicative of one’s poor judgment. If it’s that obvious in this example, one wonders in which other ways this behavior manifests itself.
I didn’t say all sources are created equal. I just said that in logic, the source is irrelevant. The argument and its supporting information must be basis for validity. Sources are widely variable in quality. Flawed research comes from reputable sources, and valid work comes from “mysterious” or discredited ones. How people perceive them and whether their work output is valid are two different things.
If the one dude who runs the “institute” wants to do so, that’s fine. But it’s pretty clear that he wants to represent himself as an “institute” because his position papers convey more faux-credibility to the naive than they would if the guy just put his own name on the same work. Not bad from a marketing perspective, but I wouldn’t cite this work in a research paper subject to any basic level of scrutiny.
It’s a group. They plainly say they are ex-auto-industry workers, and they are forthright about their mission. The data is multi-vector verifiable, and the accounting of job leverage is reasoned and sound. You’re free to ignore it.
Phil
the US domestic job leverage would still come out conclusively in favor of the Detroit 3. The transplants don’t and won’t have enough plants, capacity and supply chain here to obliterate Detroit’s job leverage, and the job leverage that reaches back to their home markets doesn’t count. It’s simple and straightforward.
The CAR/AIAM report found a multipier of 10.4 for transplant manufacturers in the US. What you claim is simply counter factual. The point here is simple, if the CAR/AIAM report is to believed, transplant manufacturers in the US have the same jobs leverage as the big 3. If it is to be discounted, the level field report must also be discounted.
Phil, in a situation like this, where you can’t reasonably expect people to go and check your figures, you can either bring your facts from a source that’s got some credibility or you can get laughed at.
You chose poorly.
CR would probably pass some tests of credibility; people actually PAY them for their advice.
As for, “Which Detroit cars are competitive?” “Been there, done that…” I must have missed that paragraph. You certainly didn’t extend yourself on that topic.
And you didn’t describe your SL550 pilot as jealous; I did that. Otherwise, why would he gaze longingly at your XLR and “wish” he had the courage to go domestic?
If I were thinking of a really far upscale car (I can’t imagine ever doing such a thing, a Miata would satisfy all my automotive wants… maybe send it out for a bit of performance upgrade…), I wouldn’t buy a Cadillac. And it’s not blind rejection of Detroit; going way upscale is an image thing. For Cadillac to again achieve that sort of image first requires that everyone who remembers the Cimarron has died off. That would include me, so the whole idea of buying a Cadillac, in my case, is pointless.
Maybe the last time your SL550 pilot was thinking “Cadillac” something jolted him into remembering the Cimarron. Or the V-8-6-4. Of the FWD “training Cadillacs” of the ’80’s. Or the El Dorados that were actually clones of something else (including the not-quite-strong-enough door hinges that eventually let the doors sag into inoperability).
34 pages and counting, and much credit goes to Phil’s perseverance in defending his original editorial.
In the anecdotal evidence department, my son recently told me of going off on a weekend fling with his bride-to-be and ordering up a Saturn Sky for the purpose of some open-air motoring. He said that the rental agency directed them to the Sky and he thought it looked great. Then they opened the trunk. He and his girlfriend had both packed light, as he was assuming that their bags would be going into a Miata-sized trunk; he found that, when the top is down, the Sky has sufficient trunk for some documents, but would not carry what was a light weekend’s pack for two people. He asked the rental company if they could instead take an available Mustang convertible.
The fact that the Sky/Solstice tops both look like a 1960’s British-Leyland invention 40 years hence, and the fact that these two cars are nearly 400 lbs heavier than the Mazda they are trying to mimic is all in addition to the lack of reasonable trunk space when the top is in the folded position. Given the dramatic styling, these two should have been hits out of the park for GM, and came in only as weak singles. To any engineer, a cursory look at these roadsters shows that they were simply rushed through the development process to meet a cost and time schedule inconsistent with a high quality product. Couple the ergonomic issues and weight penalty with the fact that GM appears unable in the 21st century to build a 4 cylinder engine which operates as smoothly as competitors from Honda or Toyota and you are not selling people on voting for the locals.
Every car built by Detroit is, whether they like it or not, a rolling ad campaign. The C6 is a winner; all indications are that the 2nd gen CTS is a winner, but these really are specialty vehicles. When I rent a car, I typically ask for a Japanese car and not because I am an “import bigot”, but because even for a couple of hours use in the day, I’d prefer not to listen to the drone of a crap GM V6, mire myself in the cheapness of a Taurus, or deal with the incredibly poor responsiveness of the latest Sebring. I rent cars fairly frequently and am often disappointed that a satisfactory alternative is unavailable. The last car I rented was a very basic Mazda6 and even compared to the BMW 335i that I normally drive, the Mazda was a thoroughly decent car; quiet 4 cylinder engine, great 5-speed automatic, excellent seats, the whole nine yards. I rented a Lincoln MKZ earlier this year and it did not compare nearly as well to my BMW as its more plebian brother under the skin.
I think that most of us reading this are, despite experiences with all of the car makers, pretty optimistic about what is happening to the car business as a whole. Yet I cannot help but feel sorry for those who toil away for the 2.8, as they are being managed into oblivion and largely by overpaid morons who care little for cars or the companies they represent.
A similar death overtook the U.S. steel industry several decades ago. They did not respond to the market, produced often inferior products and were simply overrun by their competitors. The thousands of workers who were with Bethlehem, U.S. Steel and others certainly suffered as a result, but most were repositioned into other more viable businesses. Pundits at the time wrote that the loss of the domestic steel business signaled our doom as a nation, yet here we are thirty years later just plugging along with a very ill currency which has nothing to do with corporate management but a great deal to do with corporate greed.
Thanks, Phil for your resilience and to everyone else for days of excellent commentary. People who don’t give a damn do not put this kind of energy into stating their points of view!
As far as highly competitive mainstream light vehicles go, you have the Chevy and Ford full sized trucks. Both continue to sell well into shrinking markets. Toyota is having to price aggressively to win any business away from them and has only taken a fraction of the market. Other than those segments, Detroit’s best volume product is probably the Japanese designed, Mexican built Fusion trio. There is little about that trio to woo Camry or Accord buyers away from their folds. Heck, even the Prius is outselling the Fusion.
Outside of a few Jeeps, Chrysler doesn’t have a single best in class vehicle. Some say their minivans are, but in fact the Toyota and Honda minivans are both superior products to the Chryslers.
Camry, Corolla, Altima, Accord and Civic are going to continue to sell extremely well because they are consistently some of the best at what they do. They are in fact the heart of the US retail car market. Everything else is a niche product by comparison. GM’s only volume selling cars are the Impala and Cobalt, but a large fraction of those sales go into rental fleets and Buy American governmental and commercial fleets.
Phil’s dreamed of million more domestic buyers will have to be in the heart of the car market and there are no signs that products strong enough to woo those customers are anywhere on the horizon. There is also no sign of real warranties strong enough to overcome past negative experiences. If GM, Ford and Chrysler are making such great products, why not give a 10 year, 100k mile bumper to bumper warranty contingent on the customer proving that all required maintenance was done by the book? Chrsyler’s recent “lifetime” powertrain warranty which only covers defects doesn’t count. If a transmission wears out, how do you prove it was a defect and not normal wear?
It is the seller’s job to woo the customer, not the customer’s job to do business with the supplier. A self-described marketing guru like Phil should know that you never win by guilting customers into doing business with you. I cannot think of one single example of when a buy-from-me-or-else-you-are-less-good-of-a-person has been a winning message.
The CAR/AIAM report found a multipier of 10.4 for transplant manufacturers in the US. What you claim is simply counter factual. The point here is simple, if the CAR/AIAM report is to believed, transplant manufacturers in the US have the same jobs leverage as the big 3. If it is to be discounted, the level field report must also be discounted.
Two things to note. First, in researching dozens of sources for jobs data and the leverage of domestic vs. transplant purchasing, AIAM is the only place I can find attributing the 10.4/9.4 multiplier to transplants as well as domestics. The closest any other source I’ve found puts the two is 7:1 for Detroit 3, vs. 5:1 for transplants — same accounting method. The second is that no accounting of that leverage can reach that number if you discount transplant job leverage that extends back into the home country economy. Take out the foreign component of transplant employment long tail, and they must fall short. Add the huge disparity of total employment at stake and you can see that the aggregate economic leverage of domestic purchasing is quite large in total economic terms. I know of no other source that accepts CAR’s view that import and domestic US job leverage is equal. I couldn’t use the link you posted earlier, but if I can get to that report, I will be able to explain more succinctly, in terms of what it does say. BUT LEVEL FIELD ACCEPTS THAT multiplier nevertheless! There’s just an intermediate consideration in determining job leverage.
The leverage difference is in the number of jobs supported per car. Because import companies with transplant manufacturing are selling a mix of local assembly and finished products shipped in, and because they have most of their HQ level work handled at home, they cannot have the same ratio of US jobs supported by each car purchase. The CAR/AIAM multiplier is a per-job multiplier, not a jobs-per-car multiplier. Level Field accepts the dubious notion of job leverage parity because that multiplier is then applied to each of the far fewer company jobs supported by a car purchase, on the import/transplant side. The inclusion of non-manufacturing jobs accounts for the difference in total reported employment between the Commerce Department study and Level Field’s. That’s accurate and verifiable, but a different matter.
Phil, in a situation like this, where you can’t reasonably expect people to go and check your figures, you can either bring your facts from a source that’s got some credibility or you can get laughed at.
You chose poorly.
Why can’t I reasonably expect people to check my figures? I check theirs. Do you think I am concerned about being laughed at by people representing the quality of debate here where that would be even a mention? No. The facts I cited are widely verifiable, and they certainly haven’t been refuted by anything said so far. If some members of the group choose to attack sources rather than examine facts and reasoning, let them. I’m not going down that illogical route, and I won’t reinforce the behavior.
CR would probably pass some tests of credibility; people actually PAY them for their advice.
Which is unrelated to whether CR is correct on any given issue.
As for, “Which Detroit cars are competitive?” “Been there, done that…” I must have missed that paragraph. You certainly didn’t extend yourself on that topic.
Correct. As I said, everyone has their own view and I am not going to turn this thread into a debate on the merits of specific cars.
so the whole idea of buying a Cadillac, in my case, is pointless.
Why would I expect someone to consider a Cadillac who in the same sentence wrote that they couldn’t imagine buying an upmarket car?
Maybe the last time your SL550 pilot was thinking “Cadillac” something jolted him into remembering the Cimarron. Or the V-8-6-4. Of the FWD “training Cadillacs” of the ’80’s. Or the El Dorados that were actually clones of something else (including the not-quite-strong-enough door hinges that eventually let the doors sag into inoperability).
Which of course has nothing to do with my XLR-V or CTS-V. My memory of those prior cars is clear. But the engineering of these cars is unrelated to them.
edgett:
The Sky/Solstice were clearly rushed cars, but that’s not to say they are not high quality in their execution of the chosen design route. I don’t fit in either, so I can’t consider owning them. A friend who is a CEO of a software company bought a Poncho Solstice GXP, so he has the 2.0L turbo 4. He’s thrilled with it and is piling up miles rapidly. The car is both quick and fast, a little squirrelier than a Miata and you do feel the extra mass. But it is a strong structure. My brother bought a Sky, with the 2.4L nat-asp 4. It’s surely coarser than a Miata or S2000 engine, but a big step forward compared to the GM 4s of a decade ago. (I don’t mind a little coarseness in engines, personally. I think my XLR-V mill is sometimes too smooth, but the LS2-equipped CTS-V scratches that itch with a little pushrod love.) Anyway, he’s thrilled with his Sky and uses it as his daily driver on a 90 mile r/t commute. The trunk is definitely a top-up proposition if you have some luggage. In SoCal we have a lot of both cars and the owners I meet or know are happy to have them.
Still in need of further refinement, these cars have nevertheless moved perception of GM forward for many people, and if the General makes the right improvements to v2.0 of these cars, they’ll be on their way. The Miata was fun but not a fully polished jewel in 1991 either.
When the steel business was collapsing, I didn’t believe its demise would signal collapse of the US economy, and I am not sounding that alarm here, either. It’s a different set of issues. I was living in Pennsylvania in the 1970s when the steel industry was heading off a cliff. I grew up less than 50 miles from Bethlehem and went to university for my first degree outside Pittsburgh. As late as 1975, I could drive toward Pittsburgh along the Monongahela River, and miles of steel mills lit the night sky orange. By 1980 it was mostly gone. Of course, economists then said it would take 30 – 50 years for Pittsburgh to come back. By 1986, the city was smaller, cleaner, reduced unemployment and on its way to becoming a more diversified mini-tech and medical center. However, what many missed was the high spike in divorces, broken families, people whose incomes went into permanent decline, higher crime rates in the surrounding counties, tax burdens carried, social costs born.
Everybody agrees Pittsburgh and to a lesser extent Bethlehem became something other than steel cities. Recovery is good. But most people also know that if we hadn’t lost as much of that industry as we did, it would be even better those regions and the country.
Domestic manufacturing underpins a large portion of our middle class economics, which is an anchor for our politics as well. We will all pay a variety of costs if the Detroit 3 are lost, and we will have a contraction of economic diversity. When the differences between cars are slim, or the advantage is Detroit’s, your purchasing power can shape the society you live in if you choose to use it that way.
A self-described marketing guru like Phil should know that you never win by guilting customers into doing business with you.
I said I was a marketing professional. It’s for others to use the term “guru,” or not. I didn’t describe myself that way. SO….
Do I have to say again(?): I am not in this editorial or thread giving marketing advice to Detroit’s auto companies. In fact I’ve written explicitly that the Detroit 3 cannot make this appeal. I am pointing out a consumer element to the Detroit 3’s predicament, citizen-to-citizen. My marketing advice to the manufacturers is a different subject entirely, and I may write that column. This just isn’t it.
Phil
Why can’t I reasonably expect people to check my figures? I check theirs. Do you think I am concerned about being laughed at by people representing the quality of debate here where that would be even a mention? No. The facts I cited are widely verifiable, and they certainly haven’t been refuted by anything said so far. If some members of the group choose to attack sources rather than examine facts and reasoning, let them. I’m not going down that illogical route, and I won’t reinforce the behavior.
Nay, the refutation of facts are simply dismissed with anecdotes or hand waving. The meat of your claims are widely verifiable and have proven to be incorrect.
The fact of the matter is that mainstream “domestic” cars are simply not as good as their “imported” counterparts and buying these inferior products will do nothing for the long term health of the US economy.
Phil: “Why can’t I reasonably expect people to check my figures?”
Because, except for the authors, no one is paid to be here and no one is paid to check your work. If you wish to be persuasive, use a source that isn’t easily dismmissed because it’s *clear* it has an agenda. You make cloudy references to these other sources, from which you “triangulate,” but you don’t bother to use them. What are these sources? “GM’s Annual Report to Stockholders?” “Whining Auto Executives Before the House Panel on Ways and Means?”
Phil: On people paying for CR… “Which is unrelated to whether CR is correct on any given issue.”
No, I was discussing “credibility,” which does not necessarily mean “correct.” People are not paying CR to get something just to paaper the bottom of their bird cage; people *believe* it.
Phil: On the Cimarron and other Cadillac disasters… “Which of course has nothing to do with my XLR-V or CTS-V. My memory of those prior cars is clear. But the engineering of these cars is unrelated to them.”
A Cadillac sedan and an Impala both have comfortable seating for five. What’s the big difference? Image. Or, it was the big difference before the Cimarron, etc. Which is the big difference between your XLR-V and the SL550.
Phil: On appeals to ‘take one for the team’ and buy a Detroit product… “In fact I’ve written explicitly that the Detroit 3 cannot make this appeal.”
And why would you think that it would be useful for you to make this appeal in a venue where people care about the car they drive?
In this venue, when the car is worthy, the car will be praised.
You’d be spending your time more productively if you wrote about the XLR-V or some other competitive Detroiter. Of course, if you want to win over that extra million in sales, you’ll have to review a car or range of cars that might conceivably sell into the millions. You might start with the XLR-V but you’re going to have to include some competitive mass-market metal, too.
The same person said these two things:
“I and other good marketers can go into nearly any company and boost demand, unit sales and revenue with changes restricted to marketing alone.”
“I said I was a marketing professional. It’s for others to use the term “guru,” or not. I didn’t describe myself that way.”
OK fine, call yourself a professional and not a guru, it makes no difference.
Phil – I’m greatly encouraged by V2.0 of the CTS, as they did diligently address many complaints about the original and have added real content as well. Yet Detroit’s history in this regard remains unimpressive; the Lincoln LS was a really solid first effort and Ford let it languish while they spent money on trucks. The Chrysler 300/Dodge Magnum were also solid efforts, but we haven’t seen the incremental updates that would be natural for Honda or Toyota.
I have great hopes for at least GM and possibly Ford (I think Chryslerberus is just a set-up to sell the assets), yet turning the culture in a company is one of the most difficult management acts there are. The one that consistently gnaws at me is the poor quality 4-cylinder engines from Detroit; how difficult is it to buy a Honda or Toyota motor and figure out the details? Both makers just keep polishing their eggs, much like BMW (who have made some real stinkers over time), and I suppose I judge Detroit on this basis. Certainly no one can argue with the remarkable efficiency of the Chevy small block V8, but GM V6’s and 4’s have been also-rans for years. I’m looking forward to driving one of the new DI V6’s in the CTS to see if they’ve moved the bar.
On the marketing side, Detroit must get their supply under control so that people don’t view their cars and trucks as Wal-Mart level hardware. People want to feel good about their purchases, and when the rebates come out, it doesn’t say much good to those who paid near list for the product.
If marketing alone was enough to save GM, this discussion would be moot. The advertising budgets of Detroit have not been lacking during the last three decades, yet that hasn’t prevented sales from tumbling downward.
Furthermore, I’ve seen enough automotive advertising to say that in the sense that Ogilvy et. al. would critique advertising that for the most part, GM has better ads than does Toyota or Honda. The TV spots are bigger, louder, better orchestrated and have better music, just for starters. They certainly get your attention.
Once again, I believe that Mr. Ressler has hit the nail on the head, albeit unintentionally, as to what is wrong in Detroit — the mentality that marketing will save everything is pervasive at the Big 2.8, despite decades of evidence that marketing is not enough.
Just so long as the Big 2.8 are convinced that the public is so naive and wretchedly stupid that it is possible for them to be duped by a name change and new ad campaign, the Detroit automakers are doomed. There comes a point where everything else about your brand is so damaged that marketing doesn’t help because it is simply ignored or discounted before you’ve started. That’s certainly where GM is today in the minds of many consumers, and securing the rights to another Led Zeppelin song for a new ad isn’t going to convince them.
Incidentally, here’s Mr. Farago’s view of the wonderful machine described in the beginning of the editorial. You can decide for yourself whether he regards the vehicle as being competitive. (OK, he doesn’t.) And based upon the sales figures, Mr. Farago would be right: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=3395
This thread is STILL going strong!
KixStart: I should have phrased my skepticism of your claim a little more gently, but I did have a hard time believing that you would buy a car without your wife’s approval.
Interestingly, in our house, my wife had a 1999 Cavalier that gave up the ghost at 113,000 miles. She was forced to buy a new car, and ended up with a 2005 Focus SE, which, at 53,000 miles, has been a reliable car so far. But she wasn’t about to look at another GM car after her experience with the Cavalier.
Phil: I appreciate your willingness to answer posts, but…
When other posters criticize the Level Field Institute, they are not merely attacking the source. We are questioning the competence and bias of the individuals who make up this institute (and, let’s face it, all organizations consist of individuals), their ability to make unbaised, accurate conclusions, and, hence, the conclusions themselves.
If we criticize a politician for being old or not looking like a movie star, that is below the belt.
If we point out that said politician lacks the necessary experience to really lead in one particular area, or has a history of bias on one subject, which therefore taints his or her opinions on it – that is different.
People who question the Level Field Institute’s findings are doing the latter, and it is entirely legitimate.
They aren’t saying that the Level Field Institute personnel have bad teeth or are hopelessly stupid.
As for the economic impact of the transplants versus the domestic companies – you are looking at one moment in time, and then saying that the number of jobs generated by the transplants versus the domestics will continue indefinitely, so we must therefore preserve our domestic manufacturers.
The auto industry is a dynamic one. It is ever changing, and the simple fact is that Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai are doing in this country what Ford did in Europe, South America and Australia.
They are setting up subsidiaries that will eventually become self-contained units that engineer, style and produce vehicles for local tastes. (Please note that Europeans, for example, largely consider Ford of Europe to be a local company.)
To look at their employment levels in the U.S. NOW, and say that this will continue indefinitely, is a mistake. And, as Pch101 has noted, their operations are more efficient than the domestics, so they will not have the same employment levels as the Big Three did.
In her book, The End of Detroit, Micheline Maynard quoted a former GM executive who noted that Toyota can produce the same number of vehicles as GM with 1/3 the number of blue-collar workers. That sort of imbalance will lead to fewer blue-collar workers being employed by the domestics, no matter how many vehicles we buy from them.
As for the Consumer Reports controversy – is it perfect? No, but, as the saying goes, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. I certainly welcome a superior source (i.e., more comprehensive and even more accurate) of information, but, so far, I have not seen it.
The fact of the matter is that mainstream “domestic” cars are simply not as good as their “imported” counterparts and buying these inferior products will do nothing for the long term health of the US economy.
Once again, I am not advocating buying the inferior models, only what’s competitive.
On appeals to ‘take one for the team’
Not my position. If you consider & evaluate competitive products from Detroit and are convinced to buy them, you haven’t “taken one for the team.” You would if you bought uncompetitive product for the purpose of buying domestic production. But that’s not what’s suggested.
You’d be spending your time more productively if you wrote about the XLR-V or some other competitive Detroiter. Of course, if you want to win over that extra million in sales, you’ll have to review a car or range of cars that might conceivably sell into the millions. You might start with the XLR-V but you’re going to have to include some competitive mass-market metal, too.
I’ll be the judge of whether I’m spending my time productively. Google vastly enlarges the potential audience for the content I’m generating above this specific audience of recurring readers. The active posters here are then a vociferous subset of TTAC’s active readership, so this group engaged in this discussion is the least important group to convince. Point is, the intense dissent by a small group here, combined with my willingness to participate, boosts likelihood that the main article is found via search.
On the marketing side, Detroit must get their supply under control so that people don’t view their cars and trucks as Wal-Mart level hardware. People want to feel good about their purchases, and when the rebates come out, it doesn’t say much good to those who paid near list for the product.
Agree completely.
Furthermore, I’ve seen enough automotive advertising to say that in the sense that Ogilvy et. al. would critique advertising that for the most part, GM has better ads than does Toyota or Honda. The TV spots are bigger, louder, better orchestrated and have better music, just for starters. They certainly get your attention.
I don’t agree. The Detroit 3 ad budgets are ample, but the content and communication discipline are poor. GM has highly-produced ads, but their messaging misses the mark for defending or winning market share. Toyota and Honda have been managing their messaging much more effectively for peeling share away from the incumbents, regardless of product quality. This is a topic for a separate article. GM’s flying cars campaign and Ford’s Edge campaign where the Edge is driven on two wheels on various ledges are both examples of widespread communications dysfunction in the Detroit 3.
Incidentally, here’s Mr. Farago’s view of the wonderful machine described in the beginning of the editorial. You can decide for yourself whether he regards the vehicle as being competitive. (OK, he doesn’t.) And based upon the sales figures, Mr. Farago would be right
Robert’s view of the XLR-V is irrelevant to this discussion. Anyone who wants my view of where he gets it wrong can read it in my rebuttals within the response thread. But, the sales figures are a distraction as well. At the time Robert reviewed the car it was in the market just over a year. As a first-year car in an established market with a player that has been in the segment for decades, no one expects XLR-V to outsell same-price SLs and similar performance SL-AMGs. Further, Cadillac has done what many people here advocate: Don’t make too many of them. The V has a hand-wrenched engine and is limited to under 1000/year production for now. It’s not going to compete for every $100K SL sale and GM doesn’t intend for it to.
When other posters criticize the Level Field Institute, they are not merely attacking the source. We are questioning the competence and bias of the individuals who make up this institute (and, let’s face it, all organizations consist of individuals), their ability to make unbaised, accurate conclusions, and, hence, the conclusions themselves.
Except in this case, the organization in question used other people’s referenceable data, created a jobs leverage accounting exercise in which the methods and math are openly disclosed, and their conclusions are driven by the arithmetic, not by ideology. Again, I haven’t seen enough of their work to have an opinion about whether distorting bias infects other output of Level Field. But in this case, their documentation is straightforward and if there are doubts, they should be directed to the data and reasoning. The origins are logically irrelevant. Anyone who wants to make the organization a factor in their emotional acceptance of the case made is free to do so, but I’m not going to indulge that.
As for the economic impact of the transplants versus the domestic companies – you are looking at one moment in time, and then saying that the number of jobs generated by the transplants versus the domestics will continue indefinitely, so we must therefore preserve our domestic manufacturers.
The very nature of transplant production leaves many high value jobs at home, makes the point of returns for profits remote, and preserves a practice of shipping in high-value components that preserve high-precision manufacturing in the home market. Given enough time, it’s possible for transplant production to steadily reduce the job leverage gap, but it is unlikely to close and if it did that’s a long time off. The socio-economic damage incurred will be large while waiting for foreign manufacturers to attain the same job leverage. I see no trend that says they ever will. In fact if the Detroit 3 are plowed under, it’s less likely that the pace of domestic investment by the import makers will continue on its present course. GM has 80+ plants in the US, Toyota has 13. I don’t see Toyota ever equaling GM’s footprint in the American economy even if they win this market war to the point of GM’s destruction. You’re free to believe otherwise, but I am certain time will prove that belief mistaken.
The auto industry is a dynamic one. It is ever changing, and the simple fact is that Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai are doing in this country what Ford did in Europe, South America and Australia.
Yes. And our companies were better off for having grabbed commanding share in those markets when they did. We have a choice about allowing same to be done to our market. It’s a consumer choice at the end of the day.
They are setting up subsidiaries that will eventually become self-contained units that engineer, style and produce vehicles for local tastes. (Please note that Europeans, for example, largely consider Ford of Europe to be a local company.)
Which is not the same economic leverage as if those entities were locally owned and controlled. But that arrangement *is* locally more beneficial than importing everything.
To look at their employment levels in the U.S. NOW, and say that this will continue indefinitely, is a mistake. And, as Pch101 has noted, their operations are more efficient than the domestics, so they will not have the same employment levels as the Big Three did.
Well, actually no source I’ve cited assumes this, nor do I. Level Field goes so far as to presume continued market share erosion for the companies they want to protect. The efficiency gap between the best domestic plants and the transplants isn’t wide enough anymore to explain the job leverage gap. It is also fed by the fact that the majority of production remains in the home market and those jobs have no leverage here. The other issue is that Detroit 3 job leverage is also fed by their deeper/longer domestic supply chain.
In her book, The End of Detroit, Micheline Maynard quoted a former GM executive who noted that Toyota can produce the same number of vehicles as GM with 1/3 the number of blue-collar workers. That sort of imbalance will lead to fewer blue-collar workers being employed by the domestics, no matter how many vehicles we buy from them.
I’ll have to read some or all of the book to have enough context to comment, but that figure is so at variance from anything comparable I’ve seen that I need to know more to comment. I suspect at the least that’s already dated, and isn’t comparing the most productive plants.
Phil
Phil, I skimmed back through your older posts and you certainly haven’t dwelled at any length on what might be a “competitive” Detroit product. I did catch this Phil-ism: “My brother bought a Sky, with the 2.4L nat-asp 4. It’s surely coarser than a Miata or S2000 engine, but a big step forward compared to the GM 4s of a decade ago.”
When does “surely coarser” than others’ 4-bangers plus “big step forward” for GM become anything akin to “competitive?” That pretty much described the brand-new ’05 Cavalier, as compared to my ’82 Cavalier, so I bought a used Toyota instead. My ’00 4-banger Toyota pulls smoothly. From low rpms. In 5th. Up hill.
As for my earlier remark about how it would be a more “productive use of your time” to review competitive Detroit cars, I stand by them. Given your further remarks, I’ll amplify that: It would also be a more appropriate use of this forum. I’m not here to provide Google “leverage,” which sounds like marketer-speak for “I dunno, let’s try it on the Google;” this is a gearhead site.
So far, you have failed to point out much of anything that makes the grade as “competitive,” which is, not coincidentally, why my driveway is chock-full of Toyotas, as I failed to find anything from Detroit to be “competitive.”
If you want to make Detroit’s case, you should be able to do it the old fashioned way, with steel, gas and rubber; strength, horsepower and grip.
And, tediously returning to an old theme…
Phil, I challenged you to explain how a nation brought up with fond memories of times spent in Furies and Lincolns and Starfires and Country Squires, etc, etc, etc, could become “import bigots” blindly refusing to consider Detroit cars, the descendants of the vehicles of their youth.
Afer waxing poetic about your own childhood automotive experiences, you skipped the question to observe how it somehow became, in the ’70’s, “uncool” to own American cars.
In fact, I don’t remember such a time. What I remember is people waking up to the idea that cars didn’t have to rust out overnight (as happened to us), the transmissions didn’t have to self-destruct (yep), the engines didn’t have to leak and seize (yes and yes), that fuel-injection was an idea whose time had come and those furrin’ cars *worked,* dammit!
And every time a Detroit car drove by with its vinyl roof flapping in the breeze and rust falling off the rear quarters, people started to consider, anew, the problem of getting from point A to point B without looking stupid AND spending a crapload of cash. OHC engines were simpler, high-revving, perky motors that attracted the attention of certain car magazines. Cars could get *good* fuel economy. Honda didn’t whine about EPA requirements, they just built a technically advanced engine to deal with them. Some people even noticed that cars didn’t have to be the size of aircraft carriers and similarly hard to parallel park.
Detroit cars didn’t become “uncool” other cars just got “cooler” and left Detroit behind.
Phil, I skimmed back through your older posts and you certainly haven’t dwelled at any length on what might be a “competitive” Detroit product.
No, I haven’t, for reasons stated.
“My brother bought a Sky, with the 2.4L nat-asp 4. It’s surely coarser than a Miata or S2000 engine, but a big step forward compared to the GM 4s of a decade ago.”
When does “surely coarser” than others’ 4-bangers plus “big step forward” for GM become anything akin to “competitive?”
First, there’s more to a car than the engine in determining what’s competitive, and these engines mentioned are good. Personally, while Mazda, for instance, makes a nice silky four, its smoothness over GM’s fours is not a significant factor for me, and the Miata’s drivetrain feels weak on torque in the accessible spin. Honda’s S2000 engine is a jewel but it has to be driven in a screaming rage to get any power out of it, and that’s going to feel embarrassing to some potential buyers. But nobody in that category makes anything I fit in. The people I know who own these cars are very enthusiastic about them. When I’ve driven or ridden (as a contortionist) in them, I’ve been impressed by the strength and rigidity of their structure, their grip, their accessible power. The interiors are fine for open cars of their price range. Materials are high quality. Assembly is precise on every one I’ve seen. If I did fit in one well enough to own it, I’d like to see it lose weight in the next iteration, revise the fuel location for more usable stowage, and refine the top assembly. Then there’s the X factor of sports cars — appearance. To the Solstice/Sky buyer, the Miata is too bland and mild, and the S2000 too plain and high-strung.
My ‘00 4-banger Toyota pulls smoothly. From low rpms. In 5th. Up hill.
So does the GM 2.4L four. But Toyota is absent in the category mentioned.
I’m not here to provide Google “leverage,” which sounds like marketer-speak for “I dunno, let’s try it on the Google;” this is a gearhead site.
Perhaps you misunderstand the Google reference. I can’t tell because your comment doesn’t make sense to me. Leveraging Google means this content is indexed by them and becomes visible in relevant search topics. I’m sure Robert cares about that. Google expands the audience for every writer here, and that includes expanding the gearhead audience, since non-TTAC gearheads do gearhead searches. Still, you’re providing Google leverage whether you like it or not.
And, is TTAC strictly a gearhead site? I don’t think so. Not in the way a Mustang modifiers forum site is. This site is business and market as much as it is metal. TTAC doesn’t seem remotely gearhead to me, relative to gearhead communities I’ve been active in.
So far, you have failed to point out much of anything that makes the grade as “competitive,” which is, not coincidentally, why my driveway is chock-full of Toyotas, as I failed to find anything from Detroit to be “competitive.”
In 36 pages of posts you’ll find them. But I’ve already stated the reasons *my* list is unimportant and not the direction this thread will take.
If you want to make Detroit’s case, you should be able to do it the old fashioned way, with steel, gas and rubber; strength, horsepower and grip.
Exactly why my garages and driveways have had mostly Detroit vehicles since 1983 and two Cadillacs reside there now.
Phil
I propose Phil be nominated for the First Annual TTAC Energizer Bunny award.
He has tirelessly responded to virtually every point raised, perhaps differently than the pointee imagined, but with a dedication to his original editorial that is truly admirable. If GM or Ford had his tenacity, we wouldn’t today be discussing their potential demise.
Phil, I challenged you to explain how a nation brought up with fond memories of times spent in Furies and Lincolns and Starfires and Country Squires, etc, etc, etc, could become “import bigots” blindly refusing to consider Detroit cars, the descendants of the vehicles of their youth.
Simple: a progressively larger portion of the market has no memory of the cars you mention. They were born too late. Import bigots are born out of the explosive growth of social referencing, purchasing on cultural cue, fad buying, and other forms of momentum behavior separated from real knowledge of products. This has been an accelerating trend since circa 1980, and Boomer materialism and social climbing had a lot to do with it.
observe how it somehow became, in the ’70’s, “uncool” to own American cars.
In fact, I don’t remember such a time. What I remember is people waking up to the idea that cars didn’t have to rust out overnight (as happened to us), the transmissions didn’t have to self-destruct (yep), the engines didn’t have to leak and seize (yes and yes), that fuel-injection was an idea whose time had come and those furrin’ cars *worked,* dammit!
I do. The uncool factor was vivid in many social circles in the Northeast and California coasts by 1975.
I haven’t at any time represented import bigots as anything more than a subset of the import-buying market. Some people had the experiences you cite. However, as I pointed out in a prior post, the hundreds of millions of vehicles sold by Detroit from the mid-70s until now is far larger than the number of such negative experiences. Moreover, all cars were prone to those problems at the time. If anything, imports dissolved faster than domestics in the rain and snow. Fuel injection was not yet ubiquitous. There were plenty of carburetted import cars that vapor locked and had trouble starting on a cold morning. Pretty much everything made in the 70s tanked.
So if *you* had those experiences, that’s your history. It is not the history of even the bulk of the market. Every consumer market has socially-driven momentum buying, brand bigotry, import bigotry, peer-referenced buying, etc. No one denies this in any other sector. People freely admit it. They freely admit it in cars, in my experience. So why would anyone even think to sell the notion that much, most or all of the automotive market is comprised of rational customers informed by universally bad experiences with Detroit iron, inclined to data-drive their decisions to extreme detail, just because a few people here do? Well, unless you were trying to sell an idealized notion of consumerism, you wouldn’t.
Phil
Phil, my references to The Gopher State disguise the fact that I grew up in the Northeast.
I assure you in the Northeast Detroit didn’t become “uncool,” it got left behind.
As for the post-Boomer generations lacking the opportunity to be imprinted by domestics, that’s not the case. Import share has been building since the early ’70’s, it didn’t start out at nearly half, it took 37 years to get to where it is. Plenty of post-Boomers were available for imprinting by Detroit because the market shares didn’t shift overnight. As late as 2000, domestics owned about 70% of the market. Even if your parents didn’t own a Detroiter, a good friend’s parents almost certainly did.
And “imprinting” can be bad. My own Gen-Y’ers got “imprinted” when we left our Aerostar behind in East Overshoe and finished a trip in a rental car.
Phil
Another dime’s worth of personal opinion, if I may.
I’m much more in agreement with pch101 than with you, but I’d like to start out with one thing we do agree on. Namely, that we, as consumers, can incorporate, if we choose, larger social context issues than just merchandise we are buying.
For example, I am one of those people who will not shop at WallMart. I object to their labor practices, I object to what they are doing to the trade imbalance with China, and I object to the generally shoddy Chinese products. (I am, admittedly, and anti-Chinese product bigot. I equate made in China with junk)
So I’m with you to the extent that one might want to consider other factors besides the product itself. I’m quite content to pass up “good deals” and I freely make a decission that may not be in my own best interest, as far as saving money.
Now, here’s where your editorial starts to get wonky for me – the whole idea that the man you met at the gas station is at all representative of more than a tiny fraction of import buyers. I just don’t believe that’s the case. It may be a few country club types would committ a social faux paugh by purchasing domestic, something akin to serving the wrong wine, or wearing white shoes after Labor Day – but my real world anectdotal experience is as valid as yours, and my experience tells me 98.37% of buyers don’t give a damn whether their friends/neighbors/co-workers, etc. approve or disapprove of their purchases.
In fact, if you lived where I do (a GM town) you’d see the exact opposite side of the coin. Here, people who buy “foreign” (albeit made in the US with higher domestic parts content) may be subjected to barbs, sarcastic comments, snide remarks, and occassionally outright hostillity for buying a transplant vehicle. They do it anyway. They may qualify under your definition of an import bigot, but they certainly aren’t afraid of what others will say. If there are 1 million buyers who’ve hopped on the import band wagon out of fear of what others might say, then there are at least 10 million who’ve hopped on the band wagon despite what others might say.
The second place your editorial goes wonky for me is your mistaken premise that people should spend a lot of time researching and comparing vehicles. Let me illustrate why this is wrong by reference to my own buying decissions. (Well, actually me and my wife) In the mid ’80s we decided to buy a new car. Our choices were limited, financially, to a Civic or a Chevette. There was nothing else locally available that we could afford. I think we made the right choice going with the Civic.
Our Honda experience has been automotive bliss. A car as reliable as an anvil, and a wonderful dealership experience. Over the years, our fianancial condition has improved, but we’ve continued to buy Hondas, because our initial experience was great. Out subsequent experiences have been equally great.
We prefer to buy our cars locally, so we don’t shop out of town dealers. This has been bad news for Toyota, because even though we are convinced of their quality and reliability, we just don’t like the local dealership. And as I’ve already mentioned, we have had nothing but wonderful experiences with the local Honda dealer. (Though their routine maintenance work is rather expensive – but I’m sure any oher dealership would be as well)
Now, let me shift to our current plans for a future purchase. I’ve recently decided that I don’t need to replace my Ranger with another pickup. I reason that a small utility trailer will serve for those “4×8” trips to Home Depot, and most any car made would pull a small trailer with 4 sheets of plywood, or a dozen 2 x 4s. I find that I never buy 20 sheets of plywood or 20 sheets of drywall at a time. So, 98% of the time I really don’t need a truck. When I do need a truck, a trailer will serve just as well. I promise, this is leading to something related to your editorial.
Having decided against another truck, our focus will be on small economical cars. Neither my wife or I are intending to impress anyone with our next purchase – scratch Lexus off our list. Scratch Caddy off our list. Having decided we’re in the market for a economical car doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll get something really small. We’re probably in the market for something in the Civic catagory.
Now, here is where you’re idea of looking at everything available falls down. What incentive do we have for looking at anything other than a Civic? As mentioned, we don’t like the attitude at the local Toyota dealer, so Toyota won’t even make the short list. (But logically, most any Honda buyer is a potential Toyota buyer)
Why should we go look at a Fusion? It’s made in Mexico, and IMHO is less an American car than many Honda models. (Though I admit, I do not know where Civics are made – but what’s the difference when considering the foreign made Fusion?)
Why should I look at the new Malibu? Even if it’s a great car, (you’ll forgive me for not taking Bob Lutz’s proclamations at face value) how much better will it be than a Civic? (Or how close will it be to a Civic? ) I suggest that the probability of it being substantially better (or even substantially the same) is very low. It might be “competitive” with Civic, but that’s not a better value, just the same value. And of course that assumes that it’s going to be as reliable as a Honda, which so far, just isn’t proven.
In short, shopping around at the D3 for a Civic competitor simply wastes a lot of my time. I already know (or at least there is an extremely high probability) that I’ll be happy with the Civic. The new ‘Bu, is an unknown entity, at best. It’s a Chevy, at worst, and by reputation, I’d be silly to choose a Chevy over a Honda.
To put this in another context, shopping around at other “foreign” car dealers is also a waste of my time. Do I really care what Mazda or Nissan have in this catagory? Not really, because the odds are that it won’t be better than a Civic.
If I buy Honda, I expect a reliable vehicle, with good gas mileage. The odds are I’ll get what I’m after. If I buy anything else, foreign or domestic, the odds of my getting a better overall value are very very small. There’s the possibility of gettng substantially the same value, but that’s no advantage. The odds of my getting a substantially worse value need to be considered as well.
If some day I wake up in a Brave New World where millions upon millions of people swear up and down that a Malibu or Fusion is a better car than a Civic, then it would make sense for me to look at those cars. We are not yet in that Brave New World. Shopping on line is slightly worthwhile, just to see if price disparities are great enough to act as an inducement. If not, then it makes little sense for me to spend my time test driving the “competitors”.
I should add that basically I’m a Honda man, in the same fashion that my Dad was an “Olds” man, or my grandfather was a “Hudson” man. I have my brand, I’m delighted with it, and I have little reason to switch.
I assure you in the Northeast Detroit didn’t become “uncool,” it got left behind.
I was there. Uncool happened before “left behind” settled in.
As for the post-Boomer generations lacking the opportunity to be imprinted by domestics, that’s not the case. Import share has been building since the early ’70’s, it didn’t start out at nearly half, it took 37 years to get to where it is. Plenty of post-Boomers were available for imprinting by Detroit because the market shares didn’t shift overnight. As late as 2000, domestics owned about 70% of the market. Even if your parents didn’t own a Detroiter, a good friend’s parents almost certainly did.
The hockey stick came much later. My point was that the post-Boomers came on the scene too late to experience the generation of Detroit cars referenced in that prior post. Post-Boomers came on the scene after the romance models were gone.
I’d like to start out with one thing we do agree on. Namely, that we, as consumers, can incorporate, if we choose, larger social context issues than just merchandise we are buying.
That’s welcome. You grasp the central point of my text.
Now, here’s where your editorial starts to get wonky for me – the whole idea that the man you met at the gas station is at all representative of more than a tiny fraction of import buyers.
HE represents himself. That encounter was just the latest in years worth of such comments, and I chose it as the opening hook for the narrative.
but my real world anectdotal experience is as valid as yours, and my experience tells me 98.37% of buyers don’t give a damn whether their friends/neighbors/co-workers, etc. approve or disapprove of their purchases.
We disagree.
If there are 1 million buyers who’ve hopped on the import band wagon out of fear of what others might say, then there are at least 10 million who’ve hopped on the band wagon despite what others might say.
I didn’t cite “fear of what others say” as the only driver of import bigot buying behavior. It’s one, and the weakest reason. Also contributing are social reference, laziness, momentum purchasing, joinerism, etc.
The second place your editorial goes wonky for me is your mistaken premise that people should spend a lot of time researching and comparing vehicles.
I haven’t commented on how much time it should take. It doesn’t have to be consuming.
What incentive do we have for looking at anything other than a Civic?
Your incentive is in your own opening: your purchasing power helps shape the world around you.
Why should we go look at a Fusion? It’s made in Mexico, and IMHO is less an American car than many Honda models.
Today, doing business with Ford has more leverage than doing business with Honda. That Fusion is a NAFTA car with US content, revenues and market share accrue to Ford, and the revenue stream supports high-value HQ jobs that Honda does not equally field in this market. Plus profits go to Dearborn.
Why should I look at the new Malibu? Even if it’s a great car, (you’ll forgive me for not taking Bob Lutz’s proclamations at face value) how much better will it be than a Civic? (Or how close will it be to a Civic? )
You’ll know when you drive it, right?
In short, shopping around at the D3 for a Civic competitor simply wastes a lot of my time. I already know (or at least there is an extremely high probability) that I’ll be happy with the Civic. The new ‘Bu, is an unknown entity, at best. It’s a Chevy, at worst, and by reputation, I’d be silly to choose a Chevy over a Honda.
If my prior experience prevailed, your Chevy would be anvil reliable.
If I buy Honda, I expect a reliable vehicle, with good gas mileage. The odds are I’ll get what I’m after. If I buy anything else, foreign or domestic, the odds of my getting a better overall value are very very small. There’s the possibility of gettng substantially the same value, but that’s no advantage. The odds of my getting a substantially worse value need to be considered as well.
The answer to this is in the opening of your own post.
If some day I wake up in a Brave New World where millions upon millions of people swear up and down that a Malibu or Fusion is a better car than a Civic, then it would make sense for me to look at those cars. We are not yet in that Brave New World. Shopping on line is slightly worthwhile, just to see if price disparities are great enough to act as an inducement. If not, then it makes little sense for me to spend my time test driving the “competitors”.
Unfortunately, if you, and most people, need millions upon millions of endorsers for new Malibu and Fusion to feel safe about buying them, then kiss the Detroit 3 goodbye.
Phil
Phil: “The hockey stick came much later. My point was that the post-Boomers came on the scene too late to experience the generation of Detroit cars referenced in that prior post. Post-Boomers came on the scene after the romance models were gone.”
Nope. The “romance” models are whatever your parents were driving when you were little enough to be impressed by whatever your parents did.
I might have loved the Country Squire like the earlier F-85, except that I was old enough to end up helping Dad try and stop the cancer creeping up the fenders. We certainly had some fun with that car, moreso than the F-85, I believe, but one can also be impressed with Dad’s creative ability to curse Henry Ford and all of his offspring and ancestors and as a youth, one can draw some conclusions from that.
If GM or Ford had his [Phil Ressler’s] tenacity, we wouldn’t today be discussing their potential demise.
I’ll disagree with that. In fact, I’ll go a step further and say that his responses are illustrative of the problem.
Detroit, and GM in particular, has regarded itself as being immune to criticism. It has long blamed the outside world (unions, currency, economic conditions, “unfair playing fields”, consumers who are apparently are too dumb or, er, bigoted to hear The Gospel, etc., etc., etc.) while taking measures that are half-hearted or half-assed at best in order to make improvements. Meanwhile, the world keeps spinning and the competition improves as well, so the gap remains.
Excuse making is a cancer among the US automakers, and these editorials only embody the toxin therein. What these companies require are constructive effective initiatives to win back the customer through merit, one customer at a time. That includes acknowledging that they have earned their declining reputations, and that is entirely their responsibility to earn back the favor of the customer.
If Detroit can ever escape this mistaken view of the customer as dumb and gullible, incapable of intelligent decision making and susceptible to simplistic marketing messages, then it might actually get serious about saving itself.
In a corporate world addicted to mediocrity, bureaucracy and alibis, editorials such as this serve as an enabler to the addict in need of treatment. As is the case with any addiction, not only does the enabler do the addict no favors, but is actually a curse by serving as an anchor that deters recovery.
What Detroit needs is not more of our money, but more gentlemen such as Mr. Farago to give them a needed kick in the ass. Complacency and fingerpointing are exactly what have gotten Detroit where it is today, so why encourage more of it when we can all see the harm that it does?
Look to boil this down to basics, I will parallel your premise with a differnt situation. Say, your boss is going out of town and wants to you to find somebody to house-sit for him. This is a big opportunity for you; If you impress the boss you’re golden, if not… You have two people that are available and willing.
1. Your formerly drug addicted cousin who stole money from family members to finance his habit. However, he has finished rehab, apologized, and says that he is a different person.
2. A friend that you have known for a while that has always been reliable and trustworthy. He has not let you down in the tenure of his friendship.
For many of the people you are talking about, you are asking them to pick candidate #1 over #2. Now, while it is nice to help family and guy could use the money, many people wouldn’t bet their job on it. This is what you are asking many to do, trust someone (Detroit 3) that they have not necessarily seen behave well towards others or, possibly, themselves. Many would choose the respectable friend since they believe that to be the safer bet.
Now, you might say that the situation is reversed for you. Fine, but you aren’t asking those biased toward the Detroit 3 to try out a Toyota or Honda. What many here are suggesting is that import bigotry does not appear out of nowhere. For me, a 1976 ponitac ventura, a chevette, and a cavalier in the family along with a Grand National (fun car) and a 2001 Grand AM have all come together to bias me against the Detroit 3 (particularly GM). A 1987 civic, my old 1992 corolla, two CR-Vs, and a Camry along with dozens of family and friends’ cars have biased me toward the japanese. The two Nissans I have had an experience with have been somewhere in the middle and I likely won’t be going back after my Altima is gone. This is how human behavior works. If you see someone eat something that makes them sick or eat it ans get sick yourself, you avoid it out of a survival instinct (or common sense). Similarly, even if I took your advice and went and bought an Astra or Aura, it would be like driving a time bomb based on past experience. It would be an expensive bomb to boot.
On another point, appealing to our socioeconomic interests in the large scheme will make it difficult to convince anyone of anything. People want personalization. This is why you don’t see Christian Children’s Fund throwing only stats at you. They personalize it with the story of a single child. Similarly, many have had a good experience with Honda and the really liked the dealership service. They want to support their local guy and the company that has done well by them. What you call bigotry many see as loyalty.
pch101 –
When I suggested that Phil’s tenacity at the helm of GM or Ford might have won the day, I was referring to any number of decent designs which they simply abandoned. The original Corvair, once it got to true IRS in 1965, was a really good specialty car. Not a VW competitor, but a roomy and zoomy ‘compact’ that was miles ahead of the unlamented Ford Falcon. Porsche took the same rear-engine/RWD platform and removed the handling nasties from it and it is *still* selling the damn thing! So they give up on the Corvair and come out with the Vega, which did indeed have some problems, yet was a pioneer in alloy engines. The modern C6 has an all alloy V8 which seems to have none of the problems of the Vega, but that brand is dead and gone.
And the much reviled X-cars were a superb job of packaging, albeit rushed to market (a GM theme perhaps?), but not unsalvageable. Gone, rather than fix the suspension and FWD ills. The last Caprice was on the way, albeit in a certain whale-like fashion – where is it today?
On the Ford side, the IRS/RWD Thunderbird was a solid platform which needed a diet. Did they bother? The Lincoln LS was a solid base hit, but where is it today?
The Corvette is an example of a car which, in the 80’s had turned into a sad and underpowered poser-mobile, yet tenacity turned it into a world-class sports car. The Ford panther platform is not a bad car, except that Ford has done virtually nothing to it in the last 15 years.
Contrast this to the early rusting Accords, which Honda cured, then continually refined. The first Camry nearly rivaled the Aztec for ugly, but Toyota kept working at it. That’s persistence.
The difference is that the majority of non U.S. companies are looking far down the road. When GM and Ford were flush with cash in the 80’s, they went out and bought other companies rather than reinvest the stockpiles in the product. Toyota and Honda have stayed true to their product, focusing on continual improvement, and I characterize that as persistence.
GM does show some signs of life. The new CTS should be on anyone’s list if you’re looking for a near-luxury car (3-series, G35, IS350, etc). They did take the time to address many of the weaknesses of the old one and the DI-V6 looks to be a really strong engine.
I’ve owned one American car (a Taurus MT-6) in the last 30 years; although it was mechanically not up to snuff, it was a decent driver that needed only polishing to turn into a good car. It was really the crappy dealer that made the car a write-off and removed Ford from my ‘buy’ list for a while. Yet I do agree with Phil that we should not just write off Detroit because of past sins. Hyundai has made remarkable progress in just ten years, from real POS-mobiles into mainstream high-value and well warranteed cars. I still have hopes that GM and Ford will make the turnaround, regardless of where the cars are built.
When I suggested that Phil’s tenacity at the helm of GM or Ford might have won the day, I was referring to any number of decent designs which they simply abandoned.
Innovation is the least of the Big 2.8’s problems. They have trouble enough building yesterday’s designs, let alone anticipating what is needed for tomorrow.
What commentators such as the author miss is very basic — Honda and Toyota are superior builders and designers of cars. It’s as simple as that, they do a better job and set the standard for building mainstream vehicles. They need to be thoroughly studied and emulated, for it is clear that they are far more capable than anything you’d find within spitting distance of Detroit.
There is a real reticence among the true-blue loyalists to acknowledge defeat and a need to start from scratch. A customer service ethos and creative thinking take a back seat to excuse making and import bashing.
Editorials like this convince me that General Motors in particular is in serious trouble. Every day devoted by the company “leadership” (and we use that term loosely to describe such extreme levels of incompetence) to emulating the rhetoric contained here is another day lost that could have been used for making improvements. If they continue to externalize their problems instead of addressing and accepting responsibility for them, these firms will just shrink in the face of better producers who actually care about the desires of the customer.
Sanman111,
I don’t regard your hypothetical choice as analogous to this situation. Unlike the drug addict, whose mental hardwiring hasn’t and cannot be changed, in the car world, the corporations in question have demonstrated years of progressive change, and the cars you’d be betting on for the most part have nothing in common with any prior cars that might have let you down. Some on the import side may think the choice is this stark, and I am here to say that if competitive models are considered, fair-minded people will not draw that conclusion.
This is how human behavior works.
Depending on how much responsibility individuals take for evolving or devolving their behavior.
If you see someone eat something that makes them sick or eat it ans get sick yourself, you avoid it out of a survival instinct (or common sense). Similarly, even if I took your advice and went and bought an Astra or Aura, it would be like driving a time bomb based on past experience. It would be an expensive bomb to boot.
If you believe all of this, you are a victim of your fears.
From the heart of the dark period, say 1975, to 2007, the US automakers have delivered around 300 million cars into the US market. The number of cars that induced bad experiences has been a small but vivid fraction of that. If the prior record were as bad as you purport, their loss of 30 points of market share should be far greater and steeper.
Maybe it’s because I grew up around Amish and Mennonites — people who are careful and parsimonious but also community-minded in everything they do. For me it’s a no-brainer to consider the larger social context of major buying decisions. I could own a much larger house, for instance, but stay under 3000 s.f. I could tear it down and build a new house out to the lot limits, but I don’t want to damage the character of my neighborhood. I limit my water-intensive planting. I go to car washes because they recycle water, even though I have to detail out the clearcoat damage more often. The last time I furnished a house I bought furniture that is made in California where I live.
Competitive models of vehicles produced by the Detroit 3 are not going to decompose as you fear. Current interiors will likely be less weathered and beaten than today’s Toyotas in 5 years, based on what I see in rental Toyos compared to Detroit rentals of same mileage. Engines quality is high pretty much across the market today. If you ignore what’s uncompetitive and focus on what’s competitive, the larger social context should be second nature to factor into your consideration. In fact it’s painless. Completely losing willingness to do so, and being so self-centered about the modest extra time needed to be informed about competitive domestic alternatives, seems to me a social ill in itself. I’m not asking anyone to buy against their best interests. I’m asking people buy with their self-interest; to be fair, open-minded, community-conscious and at least give competitive domestic vehicles a chance to overcome your bias or skepticism. There’s no free will sacrificed at all.
My position on that is immovable. whether you are aware or not, your purchasing power shapes the world you live in, as much as your voting power does politically. You may as well use it consciously, because you’re shaping your world even if you don’t. What kind of world do you want? Answer that for yourself, factor it in your decisions, and you’ll know what to do.
Phil
Honda and Toyota are superior builders and designers of cars. It’s as simple as that, they do a better job and set the standard for building mainstream vehicles.
I can’t help but point out that those of us who don’t buy them, don’t agree.
They need to be thoroughly studied and emulated, for it is clear that they are far more capable than anything you’d find within spitting distance of Detroit.
Studied for what they do well, not for what they don’t.
There is a real reticence among the true-blue loyalists to acknowledge defeat and a need to start from scratch. A customer service ethos and creative thinking take a back seat to excuse making and import bashing.
Except I’m not a Detroit 3 loyalist. I simply bought competitive cars on their merits in wide-open comparative shopping. I haven’t seen any excuses nor import bashing here; certainly not from me.
If they continue to externalize their problems instead of addressing and accepting responsibility for them, these firms will just shrink in the face of better producers who actually care about the desires of the customer.
And certainly nothing advocated here suggests they should externalize their problems. They must compete. My message isn’t to them.
Phil
“Unfortunately, if you, and most people, need millions upon millions of endorsers for new Malibu and Fusion to feel safe about buying them, then kiss the Detroit 3 goodbye.”
I disagree. I don’t think the D3 are about to die off (despite the death watches). GM has half the market share it had 50 years ago. Same with Ford. Chrysler only has about 2/3s what Ford has. Yet all 3 are alive and building cars.
Even if everything the D3 built had been “competitive” for the past 30 years, they’d still have lost some market share, simply because there are more players – and good players- than there were in the past. The competition is no longer with Studebaker, AMC, Renault, and Fiat.
The D3, imo, will survive, they just havn’t figured out yet that they’ll be much smaller companies than they are today. They aren’t done contracting, because they havn’t faced the real challenge yet – making a better car.
Getting back to endorsements, I would need millions of people singing the praises of the new Malibu before I’d buy one. Honda already has millions of people singing it’s praises, but more importantly, I already have experience with Honda, which for me counts more than what anyone else says. I don’t have experience with the Malibu or Fusion, and there is considerable risk involved. There is almost zero risk buying Honda.
As I mentioned before, my initial purchase of a Civic was simply because my only alternative was a Chevette. Immagine that Chevy had a competitive vehicle in the mid ’80s. (They’d already had 25 years to work on a decent small car) I might well have bought the Chevy. I might today be one of those who’ve never owned a “foreign” car. The D3 simply gave away the small/mid sized car market. Now they want it back but they have to play catch up. And when they catch up all they will be is even, not ahead. And of course it questionable whether they ever really will catch up.
This is getting closer to the heart of the matter.
“Honda and Toyota are superior builders and designers of cars. It’s as simple as that, they do a better job and set the standard for building mainstream vehicles”….I can’t help but point out that those of us who don’t buy them, don’t agree.
That’s an ironic answer, in light of the entire point of this op-ed.
Let’s understand something — this group of consumers such as yourself who don’t buy them is rapidly shrinking. (That’s exactly the purpose of the article in the first place, to decry this shrinking number.) Clearly, the tide of sentiment is running against this Big 2.8-at-all-costs ideology, as consumers steadily take their business elsewhere. If that wasn’t the case, you could have happily gone about your business and not written anything, as sales would be just terrific. But they aren’t.
In any case, it is well understood in the world of manufacturing that Toyota’s application of Total Quality Management and use of just-in-time inventory methods to mass production has turned the production model on its head. (All of us but Mr. Ressler can thank the much-revered-in-Japan and much-ignored-in-America Deming for that brainstorm.)
It’s a system that yields higher efficiency, greater employee satisfaction, a lower defects rate, a more efficient use of labor, and more careful attention to customer satisfaction. This is not an opinion, but a fact that has been demonstrated time and again through academic studies of the production process, such as those conducted by MIT, and borne out through long-term reliability surveys such as Consumer Reports.
Now, you can put your head in the sand and ignore it (as the author certainly has in the piece), but Detroit has done a generally poor job of implementing TQM and JIT systems in its own plants. While you get the occasional plant such as Oshawa and the NUMMI plant in Fremont (the latter of which is really operated by TMC, anyway) where they do well with it, in large part their implementation of it has lagged the transplants. I would submit that this is largely because TQM requires a culture change at the management level that runs counter to the bureaucracy and requires power sharing that the traditionalists find unnerving to their preferred ways.
Which leads us back to the consumer. The consumer benefits from these production methods. Street prices on mainstream car sales indicate that they’ll even pay a premium for them, including for cars built in the United States by the firms that know them best. When Dynamic88 above speaks of being a “Honda man”, he is speaking in part for of Honda’s ability to produce a consistently highly reliable product that results from TQM methods correctly applied, designed with customer requirements in mind, with a continuous improvement ethic incorporated into its production. That’s a win-win for the manufacturer that operates the facility, the employee who works on the line and the customer who puts the product in his driveway.
There are a lot of folks who buy cars the way Dynamic88 does, and I frankly don’t blame them — they want a damn-near sure thing, and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t get it. Cars are too costly, and bad ones too aggravating, to afford many risks to very many members of the buying public.
A smart producer will give it to him. A dumb producer will continue to make excuses and not attempt to address and surpass the benchmarks established by the production masters such as Honda and Toyota. You can talk about “competitiveness” all you like, but the market has already defined what “competitiveness” is, and it is not in sync with your vision of it.
Clearly, the tide of sentiment is running against this Big 2.8-at-all-costs ideology, as consumers steadily take their business elsewhere. If that wasn’t the case, you could have happily gone about your business and not written anything, as sales would be just terrific. But they aren’t.
It’s not an ideology and nothing akin to “(Detroit 3) at all costs” is suggested. Consider, evaluate and buy what you want from true open-field shopping.
In any case, it is well understood in the world of manufacturing that Toyota’s application of Total Quality Management and use of just-in-time inventory methods to mass production has turned the production model on its head.
This is very old news. We’re way past TQM and JITI having “turned the production model on its head.” These were topics of discussion 25 years ago.
This is not an opinion, but a fact that has been demonstrated time and again through academic studies of the production process, such as those conducted by MIT, and borne out through long-term reliability surveys such as Consumer Reports.
This is well-understood and not contested here. Again, old news.
Now, you can put your head in the sand and ignore it (as the author certainly has in the piece)
Untrue. TQM and JITI are topics orthogonal to the editorial.
I would submit that this is largely because TQM requires a culture change at the management level that runs counter to the bureaucracy and requires power sharing that the traditionalists find unnerving to their preferred ways.
That’s one reason. Again, old news not being contested here.
There are a lot of folks who buy cars the way Dynamic88 does, and I frankly don’t blame them — they want a damn-near sure thing, and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t get it. Cars are too costly, and bad ones too aggravating, to afford many risks to very many members of the buying public.
And no one is suggesting he buy a bad car.
A smart producer will give it to him. A dumb producer will continue to make excuses and not attempt to address and surpass the benchmarks established by the production masters such as Honda and Toyota. You can talk about “competitiveness” all you like, but the market has already defined what “competitiveness” is, and it is not in sync with your vision of it.
The shrunken differences in vehicle quality demonstrate the entire range of producers are migrating to the smart end of that spectrum, including Detroit. A portion of the market’s view of competitiveness is not informed by your presumptions of process, thinking or behavior. If buying behavior were uniform, product improvements would more readily drive changes in behavior.
Companies can be catalysts as well as primary drivers for changes in market behavior. So can third-parties. People who understand this are not concerned about being in a minority in this kind of discussion.
…the market has already defined what “competitiveness” is, and it is not in sync with your vision of it.
I remain doubtful you understand my view since you continue to be unable or unwilling to represent it accurately.
Phil
Lets see if this thread can reach 400…
If Detroit is dead or in intensive care, and Japan is alive and kicking butt and has been doing so for a generation. We all agree on that.
What is the next generation going to do? The one that shops online, the one that is influenced by the online experience.
The one that will change manufacturer if the online experience is not to their liking. Over 80% of the car buying process is done online, hunting and gathering information, and so on.
Where does the product fit in to this online experience, that by the time the “prospect” visits 1 or 2 dealers his mind is already made up by what he experienced online.
It might be easier than we all think for Detroit Iron to win over prospects.
Mr. Ressler, I think that you need to move beyond the eerily teenage nobody-understands-me shtick.
For the record, I completely comprehend your arguments. Furthermore, they are not at all unique or particularly different from what can be found on a number of pro-“domestic”, anti-Asian websites, so I am well acquainted with your position and your defenses of same, being that I have seen it presented many times before (albeit with generally less refined verbage than you have employed here.) I’m sure that others commenting here are in a similar position as I am.
What I am merely pointing out here, time and again, is that your arguments are flawed to the core. Since your foundation is completely erroneous in just about every way possible, it’s hard to argue any of their merits, as there aren’t any.
A lot of this discussion is preceding as it is largely because you presume too much about your knowledge level and your ability to divine public opinion. You use this alleged knowledge level to then condemn and indict anyone who disagrees with you as being ignorant, bigoted and/or incapable of comprehending your wisdom.
In turn, these claims of ignorance, etc. are then used as an excuse to sidestep the offering of a fact-based, credible rebuttal that uses legitimate third-party sources to prove your allegations. Since it’s your article, it’s your job to prove its arguments, but you haven’t done much more here aside from reciting the original arguments in a different fashion.
Any argument that puts a burden on the consumer to change his preferences for the sake of a given company is a flawed argument on its face. That’s not how free enterprise functions in this society.
And since the gap in products is real and measurable, changing to a domestic truly is a compromise for those consumers who are not inclined to do it, even if you don’t personally believe it to be so. Obviously, some consumers like domestics, but given the declining market share, there is clearly a disconnect between what the public wants and what Detroit offers it, which is ultimately Detroit’s problem.
I think that there were possible approaches to this article that would have been more persuasive, but ridiculing the customer base or claiming that the gap is a fallacy were not particularly wise moves if you wanted to win converts.
If I was in your position, I would have appealed to the need for employment and heavy industry to our economy, and accepted that buying domestic would involve compromises, but that those compromises could be dealt with, were not as great as they once would have been, and were a small price to pay for helping the industry. But I’m not here to make your argument for you, so I won’t.
I think that you need to move beyond the eerily teenage nobody-understands-me shtick.
Actually, I think most people do understand my text, whether they agree or not. I just don’t think *you* grasp it, either because you’re unwilling to or unable to. I can’t say which.
pro-”domestic”, anti-Asian websites
I don’t have this bias. I’m not pro-domestic/anti-asian.
…flawed to the core. Since your foundation is completely erroneous in just about every way possible, it’s hard to argue any of their merits, as there aren’t any.
Your only refutation has been to misrepresent what I’ve written and then attack the misrepresentation. Everything else has been your opinion vs. mine.
you presume too much about your knowledge level and your ability to divine public opinion
Obviously we disagree on this. That’s probably permanent.
these claims of ignorance, etc. are then used as an excuse to sidestep the offering of a fact-based, credible rebuttal that uses legitimate third-party sources to prove your allegations
My only obligation in an editorial is to be observational, yet everything is supported normatively, statistically or both.
Since it’s your article, it’s your job to prove its arguments, but you haven’t done much more here aside from reciting the original arguments in a different fashion.
The only obligation of an editorial writer is to posit an argument, but I’ve gone far beyond that. Your main objection has been lack of statistical proof of bigot buying behavior, and yet this exists in every consumer sector. I don’t have to supply a statistic and no one measures it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and I am free to surmise it is significant enough for comment.
Any argument that puts a burden on the consumer to change his preferences for the sake of a given company is a flawed argument on its face. That’s not how free enterprise functions in this society.
No, it’s not a flawed argument, it merely proposes different behavior than you’ve defined as valid. We have semi-free enterprise in this country. Don’t even bother going down the path of claiming we have a pure free market economy. Free enterprise allows the buyer market to define acceptance criteria as it sees fit, including to factor in larger social context.
If I was in your position, I would have appealed to the need for employment and heavy industry to our economy
I did.
those compromises could be dealt with, were not as great as they once would have been, and were a small price to pay for helping the industry.
I did. I clearly posited that small differences aren’t worth incurring the other costs.
But the argument can’t be fully made without making the point about import bigots being a component of the problem.
Phil
Phil: [in reference to the crack addict minding the house analogy…] I don’t regard your hypothetical choice as analogous to this situation.”
Ah, but many people DO regard it as analogous.
Phil: “Unlike the drug addict, whose mental hardwiring hasn’t and cannot be changed, in the car world, the corporations in question have demonstrated years of progressive change,”
They sure have changed… all way from “not as good” to “not as good.”
Look, Detroit is demonstrably *worse*. There are three different measures in, more or less, agreement posted here earlier (2 or 3 hundred notes back). Detroit is *worse*. Accept that and we move on to…
And people know it. It’s no big secret. You can see a Saturn or a Taurus or a Sebring by the side of the road every day. People *do* read CR. CR *does* get passed around. People *do* ask for rides to the Chevy dealer to pick up their TrailBlazers (time and time and time again, that co-worker now drives a Pilot).
Even Detroit knows they’re worse. Did GM introduce a really *good* extended warranty? Even Chrysler dared a 7/70 some years ago. Noooo… GM chickened out with 5/100, playing the odds of covering only easy highway miles and 5-year cutoffs for everyone else. Did Chrysler introduce a really *good* extended warranty? Nooo… it covers “defects” only, not “wearing out. Is it transferable? Don’t make me laugh.
Do they think we’re stupid? Apparently. Are they disappointed? Probably. I sure hop so, anyway.
Here’s Detroit’s problem in a nutshell: They manage to the quarter. The Japanese appear to be very capable of taking a very long view and hewing closely to a strategic plan and they’ve done very well at that.
Detroit is just the opposite. They want short-term profits and they’re willing to take them at the expense of long-term business. They’re letting traders on Wall Street dictate what they do, instead of building for the future. Executive compensation is geared towards guarantees and short-term rewards.
There may be a lot of “stakeholders” in Detroit’s business but their interests are all long-term and only the “instant cash” crowd gets to call the shots.
Until that changes, anybody spending a nickel on a Detroit car in the hopes that it will return something good to the country could have done better by buying a stick of gum.
Phil,
I don’t regard your hypothetical choice as analogous to this situation. Unlike the drug addict, whose mental hardwiring hasn’t and cannot be changed, in the car world, the corporations in question have demonstrated years of progressive change, and the cars you’d be betting on for the most part have nothing in common with any prior cars that might have let you down. Some on the import side may think the choice is this stark, and I am here to say that if competitive models are considered, fair-minded people will not draw that conclusion.
I would disagree about the drug addict’s inability to change, but the point was that trusting a damaged and unproven reputation is more difficult than trusting a good reputation when the decision is significant. See, you say that you are not biased; however, you assume that one can only be fair-minded if they find deroit 3 products to be competitive. I say that many fair-minded people have drawn the conclusion that the choices from the Detroit 3 are stark.
If you believe all of this, you are a victim of your fears.
What you call being ruled by my fears, I call prudence. Other than your assertion that these cars will be reliable, there is no hard data to back that up. No objective research has shown better long-term reliability in Detroit 3 cars. Therefore it would not be a prudent decision for me to spend my hard earned money on a company that has a spotty history of producing reliable vehicles. I also don’t deem it prudent to buy a first model year car, not even from Honda or Toyota. So, all the hard data I have would suggest that these new products are unproven and a bit of a gamble. Hard data and personal info suggest that Detroit 3 cars have a tendency to be problematic. The only thing that suggested any different are some initial qulity surveys and you. Are you going to argue with the dealer for warranty repairs on my behalf? Cover large repair bills if I get a lemon? Loan me your car while mine is in the shop?
I am not suggesting that every car that the Detroit 3 made was bad. Nor am I suggesting that every Toyota or Honda is bulletproof. Hell, even VW puts out a trouble free car on occaision. However, Toyota and Honda do so more CONSISTENTLY than other companies. That is the reason they tend to top reliability surveys. So, until that magic divining rod that can tell me which car on the dealer lot of the Detroit 3 isn’t going to fall apart on me I will stay away. Now if there is a 4-5 history of a particular model be dead reliable I will consider it. The only domestic car that fits that criteria as far as I know are the Ford panther platform cars. However, that is not a car I want.
Of course Detroit has made SOME reliable cars; if there were none than they would have been out of business long ago. That is not hte point of my argument, the point is
Unkown car X with a good reputation trumps Unknown car Y without a good reputation. While Y may be better for the economy, I don’t particularly feel the need to increase the risk to my time and money (both of which are scarce resources) so that some UAW worker can continue to make $30/hr reading the paper in the Jobs Bank.
From the Canadian Financial Post, an opinion by Diane Francis on the North American automotive industry
http://communities.canada.com/financialpost/blogs/francis/archive/2007/10/12/miti-2030-the-end-of-the-age-of-oil.aspx
“This is very old news. We’re way past TQM and JITI having “turned the production model on its head.” These were topics of discussion 25 years ago.”
With respect, I believe it’s still very current. IMO, the D3 simply have not embraced the Deming methods to the extent that Toyota has, and it shows in the products.
“And no one is suggesting he buy a bad car.”
No, you certainly havn’t asked me, or anyone, to buy a bad car. You have suggested that we “import bigots” take a look at the D3 offerings, when they are competitive.
But there simply isn’t any competitive product, because people’s own history with a brand, or lack of history, mean a lot in a purchase of this size. Even if the new Malibu is taken for a test drive, and it appears to me -a non expert- that it is in all respects as good as a Honda, there is still the corporate reputation for quality to consider. Honda has a good rep. GM’s is spotty. Therefore, I buy Honda.
I do understand your point about incorporating social concerns into purchasing decissions. I do this, as I mentioned, when I avoid WallyWorld. When it comes to cars, I don’t calculate the factors the same way you do.
I live in a GM town. I am keenly aware of the effects of GM sales on the local economy. GM makes nothing in Lansing that I can afford and/or would be interested in. Therefore, I won’t be supporting the local economy no matter what I purchase.
Of course I could support the Detroit metro area economy by purchasing something from the D3, (or the St. Louis economy, or the Lordstown economy) and this does weigh on my mind.
Other things weigh on my mind as well. For instance, the D3 have tripped all over themselves to move production outside the US, while Honda has steadily built new plants and created jobs here in the US. (As well as Toyota and Hyundai) Honda and Toyota work with suppliers to help them impliment TQM because in the long run it will improve conditions for H/T. In a larger social context, I think it’s arguable that businesses employing Americans, and using state of the art management systems are to be prefered to those who employ Mexicans and Koreans, and are unable to make good decissions and continue to do harm to the American economy by steadily shrinking their business. Why should I give GM my money only to watch them abandon America? Ditto for Ford and Chrysler.
AGR:
What is the next generation going to do? The one that shops online, the one that is influenced by the online experience.
The one that will change manufacturer if the online experience is not to their liking. Over 80% of the car buying process is done online, hunting and gathering information, and so on.
Where does the product fit in to this online experience, that by the time the “prospect” visits 1 or 2 dealers his mind is already made up by what he experienced online.
It might be easier than we all think for Detroit Iron to win over prospects.
I agree with this as one of the pertinent and critical path items. All the talk about product competitiveness misses the point that both consumers and manufacturers who care about their survival have to look at what can be done *today* to move the needle on the Detroit 3 businesses, for immediate or near-term results. Marketing is the answer. Every business has to figure out how to sell what they have today, while development gestates next products. Detroit isn’t doing enough to sell what it has, nor to best engage and motivate the newest generation of buyers.
Automotive manufacturer web sites are currently configured only to wage the left brain rational appeal for consideration, evaluation and sale. They are all trying to argue their way to success in a business that is more emotionally than rationally driven. This is a mistake. Essentially, the Detroit 3 have let the Asian automakers define the conversation between the industry and consumers.
For young people, web sites should be me much more intensive in their use of advanced rich media. The challenge is to make the car as vivid as absolutely possible through remote visual media. Past perceptions continue to color consumer assumptions about what a real interior looks and feels like compared to the photographs. For the most part, images are too small and have insufficient resolution to compellingly suggest the textures, colors, material richness in upgraded interiors. Paint colors are poorly represented. Manufacturer web sites aren’t rich enough to emotionally put the shopper in the car. There aren’t enough good demonstrations of what fits in a car, how much room there is for someone my size. They show static shots that suggest ample back seat legroom by pushing the front seats forward to where a driver and passenger about 5’2″ would adjust them.
Configurations are good at guiding you through lists but the image of how the car changes is small. Most of the screen real estate is left-brain engagement. They need to emotionally pull shoppers into their cars, online.
Major brand, major market vendors who are using the web as 1st-tier shopper engagement must understand that this puts them in the media business. Marketing’s job is to “publish” the company and its products to the marketplace for effective projection into the unsupervised conversation between the maker and the market. We have the world’s best marketers and creative media content developers, but none of them are working for the Detroit 3. And the only way they’re going to get that talent is to move marketing out of Michigan, because the best community builders, media content creators, creative marketers and human engagement professionals will not live there. Every Detroit automaker is seriously deficient in leveraging emotional marketing and the two great media for spurring open-minded engagement: television and the web.
Also, for the next generation of buyers — and that includes whatever generation is moving up from one class of vehicle to another — also wants customization. Toyota understands this with Scion. Mini gets it. Maserati gets it at the $100K threshold. Ideally, since Detroit ships the vast majority of its products from plants in the US or close to its borders, the Michigan firms should have set the bar for short lead times on ordered cars. And they should increase the dealer-installed options.
GM has a minor hit on its hands with the HHR. The HHR SS is coming. Go Mini or Scion with it — ready customization options. Same with Cobalt. Regardless what you think of Cobalt, it’s a perfectly good car for some people and they will sell it. They’ll sell more if they make it cooler while they’re taking time to make it better. More sharply distinguish the Pontiac Vibe from its NUMMI sister. Pontiac G6 Coupe, Sky/Solstice, Monte Carlo, HHR, Cobalt, Torrent, even Aveo. Make these affordable cars cooler to own, more emotionally engaging *now*.
Cadillac makes fewer than 1000 XLR-Vs per year and less than 5000 XLRs. Why can’t I get more than 2 interior colors? Why can’t I order one with a custom paint color? Why won’t Chevy sell me a red leather interior in the blue Corvette?
The mainstream vehicles depend on trendsetters and alpha influencers getting behind the wheel of GM, Ford and Chrysler-branded vehicles. If you have a slight disadvantage on statistical incidence of defects, make the cars more emotionally compelling to narrow the perceived penalty of those differences. If you’re in the Detroit 3, you know that you’re making steady progress on the quality gap, perceived and real aspects of it, but that has its own schedule. Moving some buyers more toward the emotional drivers for a purchase can improve units sales, revenue and profitability *now*.
If you have 7,000 dealers, hire 14,000 people to be full-time manufacturer representatives in each store. Factory pays, dealer gives them an office and run of the place. Every dealer has a factory ombudsman on premises all the time, empowered to settle problems on the spot. Those staff also get to observe the dealer’s business practices, police when necessary, cajole and coax as required. The person who runs this staff of ombudsman reports directly to the CEO, not up through sales, marketing, or the dealer organization.
This is just a start, but the fact that these things aren’t done already points to the lack of marketing domain expertise and intellectual horsepower in Detroit 3 management.
Phil
I would disagree about the drug addict’s inability to change, but the point was that trusting a damaged and unproven reputation is more difficult than trusting a good reputation when the decision is significant. See, you say that you are not biased; however, you assume that one can only be fair-minded if they find deroit 3 products to be competitive. I say that many fair-minded people have drawn the conclusion that the choices from the Detroit 3 are stark.
The drug addict might change his outward behavior, but his software problem remains the same. He learns to battle and control it. I agree trusting a damaged reputation is more difficult. I’m saying you have a reason and it’s going to be OK. I do not assume fairmindedness correlates exclusively to finding Detroit 3 products competitive. I think fairmindedness correlates to considering new competitive products and some of the people who do this will find *some* products that overcome their skepticism.
The only thing that suggested any different are some initial quality surveys and you. Are you going to argue with the dealer for warranty repairs on my behalf? Cover large repair bills if I get a lemon? Loan me your car while mine is in the shop?
You incur this risk when buying *any* specific model. Every manufacturer has produced lemons. Market data does not assure you’re car won’t have problems, nor that your dealer will be fair, nor that your manufacturer will be cooperative.
Unkown car X with a good reputation trumps Unknown car Y without a good reputation. While Y may be better for the economy, I don’t particularly feel the need to increase the risk to my time and money (both of which are scarce resources) so that some UAW worker can continue to make $30/hr reading the paper in the Jobs Bank.
And that is your choice. But you know that the jobs bank has shrunk and is but a sliver of the total assembly employment. Most UAW workers are on the line building cars.
With respect, I believe it’s still very current. IMO, the D3 simply have not embraced the Deming methods to the extent that Toyota has, and it shows in the products.
True. However the Detroit 3 are showing, for better or worse, that there are other ways to narrow or eliminate the quality gap. Deming’s ideas are infiltrating.
Honda has a good rep. GM’s is spotty. Therefore, I buy Honda.
Yup. But if you consider the larger social context of your decision, you *might* accept that risk. It’s your choice.
Therefore, I won’t be supporting the local economy no matter what I purchase.
You live in Michigan and the U.S. In a globalized world, state and country become local entities to you, too.
Why should I give GM my money only to watch them abandon America? Ditto for Ford and Chrysler.
The overwhelming majority of Detroit 3 manufacturing for the vehicles they sell here in the US is in the US. The majority of what isn’t in the US is in NAFTA locations. The best way to keep that situation is for volume sales to be won on that build infrastructure. If they are forced to become too small without dying, offshore production will accelerate. Nevertheless, you’ve been clear you believe your concerns and practices are right for you.
Phil
You can see a Saturn or a Taurus or a Sebring by the side of the road every day.
I have to say, here in the most car-intensive metro area of the country, I rarely see any of these cars on the side of the road. I see more Audis, BMWs and Mercs stopped on the shoulder with driver standing by his steed with a cell phone to his ear. I see busted down Toyotas and Nissans more than the cars you named. Here in SoCal where 40 year old daily driver Mustangs aren’t unusual, sure I see early ’80s GM product dead on the road. But not very often for post 1988 vehicles.
Here’s Detroit’s problem in a nutshell: They manage to the quarter. The Japanese appear to be very capable of taking a very long view and hewing closely to a strategic plan and they’ve done very well at that.
I fully agree with this. It’s been an ongoing problem in American business that has acute implications in some consumer sectors, for decades, and the intensifying focus on financial and vaulation management in public companies is exacerbating the problem.
Until that changes, anybody spending a nickel on a Detroit car in the hopes that it will return something good to the country could have done better by buying a stick of gum.
But we part ways here. Sales success will improve retention of domestic carbuilding. Management and work practices are changing faster in the Detroit 3 than at any time in memory. Products are under continuous improvement and most new models are sharply better than what they replace. These companies are becoming less insular with respect to where they are recruiting management from. And you can buy and drive competitive reliable product now. I’ve been doing it most of the last 25 years.
Phil
AGR:
From the Canadian Financial Post, an opinion by Diane Francis on the North American automotive industry
She’s absolutely correct. Management, the workers’ unions and consumers all have a role to play in accelerating the competitiveness of the North American vehicle production industry. Everyone who cares about this has influence and leverage. Yours, as consumers, is your purchasing power. These companies don’t have ten years to get on the right footing. They don’t have ten years to show you 5 years’ worth of in-market use data and five more for you to think about it whether you’re ready to forget that 1985 Celebrity. Consumers are going to have to put themselves in the game as interested parties to assure the fuel for accelerated change is present in the Detroit 3. The large responsibilities of the other parties are a different subject. The consumer role doesn’t take anyone else off the hook. If you care about shaping your world for retaining this industry here in the US, and you’re buying a new car this year or next, you have an opportunity to be a contributor. If you elect not to, that remains your choice and no one is seeking to interfere with that.
Phil
For the past few years shareholders have been selling away Canada. On paper it all makes perfect sense, and profit, no big change either, Inco is still in Sudbury, Stelco is still in Hamilton, Alcan is still in Jonquiere, and so on.
At some point the C suite decision making shifts from Canada to another country, who cares the company is still in Canada.
Ontario’s economy might not grow as originally expected in 2008 from a report published today by RBC. A portion of Ontario’s economy is good ole manufacturing.
Oshawa is similar to Lansing, years ago everyone in Oshawa drove a GM product, the employees, the doctors, dentists, the store owners, especially that Oshawa is also GM’s head office in Canada. Times have changed, not everyone drives a GM product anymore.
Canadians are very proud that Oshawa scores extremely high on the annual Harbour report. Its one of the better plants on the planet.
If you go to Sindelfingen and visit the M-B plant and get a tour, besides all the information, and the history, there is national pride, and all the workers are represented by IG Metall.
Technically a Harley is no match for a Japanese bike, Harley still has over 50% of the market, and its a pre historic machine compared to a Japanese bike. Harley might have the same challenges, the Boomers that bought Harley’s are getting older, the generation that follows in not really into cruisers, the sport/naked/ dual purpose is their bike of choice.
Increasingly purchase decisions are done online especially by younger people. All manufacturers are not there yet, and are still in the brick and mortar glass palace business when it comes to retail outlets. These guys are in the dark ages of automotive retailing, but its a glass palace, which creates an image for the brand, and the end user of the brand does it online…go figure.
WOW me online, WOW me with the “retail outlet experience”, because your product is a commodity probably not better than any of the others, and I’m only going to lease it for 36 months. I have no desire to spend any money maintaining this vehicle, better yet offer me a full maintenance/service package for the duration of the lease.
Up until the software is proprietary, I have no desire to keep the vehicle long term, and since you will crank up the residual to be competitive, I’ll let you the manufacturer subsidise my ownership experience with your vehicle.
“Also, for the next generation of buyers — and that includes whatever generation is moving up from one class of vehicle to another — also wants customization. Toyota understands this with Scion. Mini gets it. Maserati gets it at the $100K threshold. Ideally, since Detroit ships the vast majority of its products from plants in the US or close to its borders, the Michigan firms should have set the bar for short lead times on ordered cars. And they should increase the dealer-installed options.”
Interesting observation. If true, then Honda might be in trouble. Often Honda only has a few options. I’m not completely convinced this is true however.
“The mainstream vehicles depend on trendsetters and alpha influencers getting behind the wheel of GM, Ford and Chrysler-branded vehicles. If you have a slight disadvantage on statistical incidence of defects, make the cars more emotionally compelling to narrow the perceived penalty of those differences. If you’re in the Detroit 3, you know that you’re making steady progress on the quality gap, perceived and real aspects of it, but that has its own schedule. Moving some buyers more toward the emotional drivers for a purchase can improve units sales, revenue and profitability *now*.”
Hmmm. Not sure I’ve ever seen a trendsetter or alpha influencer in a Honda. Honda has rarely achieved “coolness”.
I doubt there is much room to make up for higher defect incident by increasing emotional appeal. Those who are concerned with reliability aren’t likely to take a flyer on a car because it has racing stripes or whatever the emotional driver is.
Interesting observation. If true, then Honda might be in trouble. Often Honda only has a few options. I’m not completely convinced this is true however.
Toyota is outselling Honda with inferior product. Honda’s long-term status as an independent carmaker is not secure.
Hmmm. Not sure I’ve ever seen a trendsetter or alpha influencer in a Honda. Honda has rarely achieved “coolness”.
Honda benefitted highly from the late Gen X/early Gen Y hot-rodder crowd adopting their cars as preferred platforms for customization. The early Acuras were also embraced by trendsetters and helped to establish that brand. Alpha influencers are those buyers who influence another 7 car buying decisions per year — a category of consumer every car company covets. They are different from trendsetters. Alpha influencers have vividly embraced Honda at key points in the company’s past.
I doubt there is much room to make up for higher defect incident by increasing emotional appeal. Those who are concerned with reliability aren’t likely to take a flyer on a car because it has racing stripes or whatever the emotional driver is.
What you’re missing is that a substantial portion of the market is not data-driven, so pumping up emotional associations is a competitive weapon, especially when you have to do something *right now* and can’t passively wait for the next model upgrade. Racing stripes are barely an afterthought in this equation I’m suggesting.
Phil
Phil
I took you up on your challenge – or tried. I went to my two closest Chevy dealers and asked to look at ’08 Malibus. The first dealer told me they’ll have some in in a couple weeks. The second told me the end of the year. The first dealer was wise enough to take my name and number and promise to call me when the new ‘Bu is in. It’s only mid October, so maybe I jumped the gun a bit.
I’m about a year away from buying a car, and havn’t settled on the ‘Bu/Accord/Camry catagory yet, but if that’s the type of vehicle I decide on, I’ll give the Malibu a look. As a customer I think that I’m givng GM all the opportunity they have any reason to expect.
As an aside, I’ve got 6 Chevy dealers within 10 miles of my home (well, 10.1 miles for the furthest one) so if I should settle on the Malibu I’ll certainly make them all bid against each other for my business. That’s hard to do with Honda, as the next closest dealer is 32 miles away.
D88,
Come back and let me know how it turns out.
Phil
Phil: The very nature of transplant production leaves many high value jobs at home, makes the point of returns for profits remote, and preserves a practice of shipping in high-value components that preserve high-precision manufacturing in the home market.
That’s today. Note that in Europe and Australia, GM and Ford locate most of the high-value jobs in each respective market, because they are designing and building vehicles specifically for that market. (Which is what Honda, Toyota, Nissa and Hyundai are doing today in North America.)
Any car maker that wants to sell large volumes in a particular market must maintain a fair number of design, engineering and managerial jobs in that market. To succeed on a large scale, new vehicles must be designed for a particular market.
Phil: Given enough time, it’s possible for transplant production to steadily reduce the job leverage gap, but it is unlikely to close and if it did that’s a long time off.
No, it is happening now, and much more quickly than you realize. Again, you underestimate the success and presense of Japanese, along with their commitment to the American market.
Phil: The socio-economic damage incurred will be large while waiting for foreign manufacturers to attain the same job leverage. I see no trend that says they ever will.
Companies and communities need to adapt to change. If they can’t, that is their problem. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we must have three major American-based automakers, and that our country must maintain current employment levels in the auto industry to survive.
Phil: In fact if the Detroit 3 are plowed under, it’s less likely that the pace of domestic investment by the import makers will continue on its present course.
It is extremely unlikely that all three domestic car makers would collapse simultaneously. The more likely scenario is that one goes away (most likely Chrysler, in my book), and the other two capture the its remaining retail buyers, who are likely buy-American diehards anyway, and will thus have no where else to go but Ford or GM.
The problem dogging the domestics is overcapacity. If one went out of business, it would give the remaining two some badly needed breathing room.
Phil: Which is not the same economic leverage as if those entities were locally owned and controlled. But that arrangement *is* locally more beneficial than importing everything.
Ford of Europe and Opel/Vauxhall are self-contained companies that serve the European market with little, if any, design or engineering assistance from their North American parents.
Phil: I’ll have to read some or all of the book to have enough context to comment, but that figure is so at variance from anything comparable I’ve seen that I need to know more to comment. I suspect at the least that’s already dated, and isn’t comparing the most productive plants.
Here, on page 221, is the quote:
“In addition to the master agreement (the industry-wide UAW contract), there are individual contracts for every assembly plant. All these pages add up to additional cost and complexity that the transplants simply don’t have. They also cut into the speed with which information gained on the factory floot can be transmitted upward in the organization. It’s hard to quantify with any certainty just how many addtional jobs this means. But Russ Scaffede, the former manager of Toyota’s engine plant in Georgetown, estimated that it was a significant number. Scaffede, who worked at GM before joining Toyota, said that because of the GM conract with the UAW, he would have to have three workers on the GM assemly line to every one at Toyota.” (emphasis added)
That book was written a few years ago, and if the disparity is less today, it is because the latest round of buyouts and early retirements launched by GM (and Ford) have reduced their blue-collar ranks, not because Mr. Scaffede is incorrect. Given that he has worked at both GM and Toyota, I am inclined to take his word for it over the opinion of anyone at the Level Field Institute.
Phil: I can’t help but point out that those of us who don’t buy them (Honda and Toyota), don’t agree.
The problem is that the market is a lot bigger than “those of us who don’t buy them,” and percentage of those who don’t buy them gets smaller every year, and expert car reviewers and testers disagree with you.
I can understand the reluctance to accept, say one reviewer’s verdict that an Accord is better than an Aura, but when testers with different criteria (Car & Driver and Consumer Reports, for example) arrive at the same conclusion, the logical thing to do is realize that these testers may be on to something.
People should buy what they want, and if someone prefers a Cobalt to a Civic, then he or she should buy it. But don’t argue that the Cobalt is just as good as the Civic (sorry, it isn’t), or that people who buy Civics would change their mind if they saw how good Cobalt really is.
If anything, studies have consistently shown that it is DOMESTIC buyers who do less research, and are less likely to use the internet, before buying a new vehicle.
Phil: Yup. But if you consider the larger social context of your decision, you *might* accept that risk. It’s your choice.
And, for lots of us, the larger social context is encouraging the domestics to adopt better manufacturing and vehicle development practices, which will result in superior vehicles. Buying a “good enough” domestic vehicle only encourages management and labor to delay making the inevitable changes.
This is as important as anything else to our country’s manufacturing future.
Phil: Toyota is outselling Honda with inferior product. Honda’s long-term status as an independent carmaker is not secure.
Highly doubtful. BMW has had no trouble remaining independent, and most likely neither will Honda, given that it is large enough to enjoy economies of scale that come with size, while retaining a corporate culture that emphasizes flexibility, forward-thinking and responsiveness to customer needs.
Note that virtually all of the mergers and purchases of the past decade or so, except the Nisan-Renault deal, have failed. Think Daimler and Chrysler, Ford and Jaguar and Land Rover, GM and Saab, Fiat and GM…
“I went to my two closest Chevy dealers and asked to look at ‘08 Malibus. …. ”
In Northern California this is a big problem for GM and Ford. The dealers stock very, very few cars. One time when I was helping a friend shop for a new car we went to the biggest Chevy dealer in San Jose, CA. They had two Impalas, one Malibu, no Malibu-Max and no Cobalts on the lot. However, they did have HUNDREDS of trucks. We then went to try and find a Mercury Montego. Exactly four on offer at the combination of three regional dealerships. The largest Lincoln-Mercury dealership had already closed up shop.
Contrast that with a Toyota or Honda dealer where anywhere from dozens (at the small dealers) to hundreds of Camrys & Accords were on the lot.
In the 1970s Detroit gave up on building cars on the west coast and closed a bunch of factories. Here a few decades later they sell very, very few cars out here. Could it be that in closing the regional factories they also lost massive amounts of mindshare? Could it also be that the California dealers and buyers have concluded that GM and Ford cars aren’t compelling and have instead put all of their investment into trucks?
Granted that the Asian companies don’t have any factories here either, but the west coast of the US in many ways has closer ties to Asia than it does to the US midwest. For example, Los Angeles International airport hosts five daily nonstop flights to Tokyo, and exactly one to Detroit.
“Toyota is outselling Honda with inferior product. Honda’s long-term status as an independent carmaker is not secure.”
I agree with the first statement for sure. As to the second, the long-term independent carmaker status isn’t secure for any of the current players except perhaps Toyota. Honda has overtaken Nissan as Japan’s #2 automaker and is a much more efficient users of development resources than Toyota by a lot. In many ways it works to Honda’s advantage that they are smaller and less wealthy than Toyota. In fact, when Honda first entered the auto business the Japanese government tried to push them out of it, but Honda carried on. It is one of the most unique and interesting companies in the automotive business today.
Phil’s statement that the young hot rodder crowd (often called ricers) has traditionally been crazy for Honda/Acura products is also correct. However, Honda seems to be distancing itself from that segment.
The Harley comments above are interesting as well. It seems that their buyer demographic is getting a year older every year and is starting to die off. Very, very few under 30 year olds aspire to Harley ownership. I don’t see anything on the horizon which is likely to change that trend. Honda, on the other hand, probably has the world’s strongest motorcycle brand with a broad range of product spanning all the way from quads for kids to luxury cruisers for the grandparents. I would put my money on Honda staying independent a lot longer than for Ford or GM.
“What you’re missing is that a substantial portion of the market is not data-driven, so pumping up emotional associations is a competitive weapon, especially when you have to do something *right now* and can’t passively wait for the next model upgrade. Racing stripes are barely an afterthought in this equation I’m suggesting.”
But this will only work for the right brain buyers. That’s why I said the substitution of emotional appeal to make up for the reliability gap won’t work. Left brain buyers, they type who pour over reports of defect incidents, aren’t going to respond to emotional appeal. IOW, Detroit is getting all the emotional buyers it can get. It’s the unemotional buyer they need to appeal to, if they want to increase market share.
Re: Ricers. Aren’t these guys mostly driving used cars? Do they really have any influence at all on new car sales? I’m very doubtful.
Dynamic88, ricers will help prop up resale values so, yes, they do have some influence.
JTHorner, I only recently noticed that my two young colleagues who own “Harleys” don’t own actual Harley-Davidsons. Do they still aspire to Harleys? I don’t know.
Phil,
You’re still talking about “competitive” Detroit product and your >1 million “import bigot” but you’ve yet to demonstrate the existence of either one. As for “extrapolating” from you personal experience, who says your acquaintances are typical? Your fleeting encounter at the gas station hardly describes typical sedan purchasers.
Dynamic88’s written another sad chapter in competitiveness; the 2008 Malibu *will* be the competitive one; but it’s *still* not yet here (Huh? I thought 2008’s came out in September?). Even if it is competitive(issues of *proven* reliability aside), the Camry will be all-new in another couple years, and the Malibu will have another opportunity to fall behind. Sic transit Gloria. For some.
Your friend who says he’s an import bigot as you describe, I’ve got questions for him. Has he been burned? Is he a luxury car buyer? A “yes” to either of those to questions removes him from “import bigot” consideration.
In a luxury car, image is everything. A colleague’s 2006 Honda, with leather interior, is one heck of a nice car. No rational person actually requires anything more than that in terms of luxury. The remainder of luxury branding is .0001% effective content (quad-zone temperature instead of dual, etc) and then image. If Cadillac squandered its image on the Cimarron, that’s practically game over until everyone who remembers it is dead. Cadillac has to make some extroardinary moves in the luxury car business (like the Cadillac 16) to bring the luster back. For a luxury car buyer, you can talk about Cadillac until you are blue in the face but since the image IS NOT THERE, Cadillac IS NOT COMPETITIVE.
And, of course, if your buddy has other reasons for Detroit rejection (like he bought one at some time), that’s not bigotry, that’s painful experience.
Mark Twain, I think, once said, a cat will only attempt to sit on a hot stove once. I believe you (or someone) reminded us that a cat also won’t subsequently sit on a cold stove.
However, from the cat’s perspective, there are plenty of other places to sit, so there’s no big downside to writing off the stove.
“Dynamic88’s written another sad chapter in competitiveness; the 2008 Malibu *will* be the competitive one; but it’s *still* not yet here (Huh? I thought 2008’s came out in September?). …”
As far as I can tell, Ford doesn’t have their all new Focus on the showroom floors either.
It is hard to make the sale when you don’t have product. I don’t know whether to praise Detroit for not rushing the product to market before it’s ready, or criticize them for lagging their competition. A bit of both I guess.
In my case, I’m not buying for a year or longer, but how many sales are they loosing right now?
That’s today. Note that in Europe and Australia, GM and Ford locate most of the high-value jobs in each respective market, because they are designing and building vehicles specifically for that market. (Which is what Honda, Toyota, Nissa and Hyundai are doing today in North America.)
Yes, but their world HQ jobs are higher-value still, and are more numerous due to the size of the empire HQ manages.
Any car maker that wants to sell large volumes in a particular market must maintain a fair number of design, engineering and managerial jobs in that market. To succeed on a large scale, new vehicles must be designed for a particular market.
Yes, but see above. HQ is HQ is HQ.
Companies and communities need to adapt to change. If they can’t, that is their problem. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we must have three major American-based automakers, and that our country must maintain current employment levels in the auto industry to survive.
You keep confusing what I am suggesting with something other people advocate. I haven’t mentioned anything about rights, government, constitution, etc. This is a consumer choice. We don’t have to keep these automakers or their employment, but we will incur the consequences of losing them, and every consumer’s purchasing power grants them a role. The economic leverage of your buying power is a vote for the economy you want. All emotionalism aside, you have a stark choice of whether to include consideration of social context, or be bound by your worries about whether what’s happened in the past will happen in the future. If one of the Detroit 3 made you angry in the past, you don’t have to stay angry. Generally, competitive products are new products that are divorced from whatever burned you before.
It is extremely unlikely that all three domestic car makers would collapse simultaneously. The more likely scenario is that one goes away (most likely Chrysler, in my book), and the other two capture the its remaining retail buyers, who are likely buy-American diehards anyway, and will thus have no where else to go but Ford or GM.
That’s been true in the past. The cash positions of these companies relative to burn has never put all three of them in the path of existential threat simultaneously. If they all die within a decade, that’s as much as losing them at once.
Ford of Europe and Opel/Vauxhall are self-contained companies that serve the European market with little, if any, design or engineering assistance from their North American parents.
Their degree of operating independence is subject to executive management’s consent in Dearborn, and profits head for Michigan. This is not the same as locally-owned.
Book quote: I agree with the observations in principle, but the jobs ratio commented on has been headed down for reasons you mentioned. It also doesn’t compare GM’s most efficient, productive plants, which are the model they are trying to push into the less efficient factories. However, this is not in conflict with the Level Field info.
The problem is that the market is a lot bigger than “those of us who don’t buy them,” and percentage of those who don’t buy them gets smaller every year, and expert car reviewers and testers disagree with you.
I can understand the reluctance to accept, say one reviewer’s verdict that an Accord is better than an Aura, but when testers with different criteria (Car & Driver and Consumer Reports, for example) arrive at the same conclusion, the logical thing to do is realize that these testers may be on to something.
People should buy what they want, and if someone prefers a Cobalt to a Civic, then he or she should buy it. But don’t argue that the Cobalt is just as good as the Civic (sorry, it isn’t), or that people who buy Civics would change their mind if they saw how good Cobalt really is.
If anything, studies have consistently shown that it is DOMESTIC buyers who do less research, and are less likely to use the internet, before buying a new vehicle.
Those of us who don’t buy Hondas and Toyotas (and for me it’s a product quality and design issue, not origin) have a variety of reasons for eschewing them, and all told it’s more than half the market when all the sales all other manufacturers are considered.
Are magazine reviewers “on to something” because a relative handful of people agree? I used to think so. Or at least maybe. But then I noticed over the last 15 years or so that what they describe about a car has gotten progressively divergent with what I experience when I go drive the same thing. I also notice that reviewers evaluation criteria push into ever more trivial and superficial aspects of the object. And further, that reviewers are rewarding the most appliance-like aspects of a car. No, I no longer believe that reviewers are “on to something.”
I didn’t argue that Cobalt is as good as Civic. I don’t think it is. But my neighbor is convinced otherwise. Some people will prefer Cobalt to Civic.
I don’t care whether a person is a right-brain buyer who does no research and decides experientially or if they are relentlessly data-driven. Both types of buyers can end up with vehicles that satisfy them.
And, for lots of us, the larger social context is encouraging the domestics to adopt better manufacturing and vehicle development practices, which will result in superior vehicles. Buying a “good enough” domestic vehicle only encourages management and labor to delay making the inevitable changes.
Then you missed a key aspect of my suggestion: long product cycles mean your denial of your buying power to Detroit 3 effectively forfeits your ability to influence the situation in the near term. That is to say, with the cash position of these companies, you can’t simultaneously care about giving them a chance to complete their reforms and withhold your support until every shred of doubt you hold is overcome. Either buyers who want these companies to survive will put some skin in the game or they are willing to let these companies die.
Highly doubtful. BMW has had no trouble remaining independent, and most likely neither will Honda, given that it is large enough to enjoy economies of scale that come with size, while retaining a corporate culture that emphasizes flexibility, forward-thinking and responsiveness to customer needs.
BMW would have been gobbled up by someone by now if it weren’t for the Quandt family. Honda can easily find itself marginalized in time by Toyota, or forced to sell.
Note that virtually all of the mergers and purchases of the past decade or so, except the Nisan-Renault deal, have failed. Think Daimler and Chrysler, Ford and Jaguar and Land Rover, GM and Saab, Fiat and GM…
In the tech business, most mergers and acquisitions fail to meet their business objectives, and yet consolidation accelerates. The difficulty of making combinations work will not stem the tide of consolidation. Capital flow demands it, and there’s always a management team that’s tired and wants a way out.
But this will only work for the right brain buyers. That’s why I said the substitution of emotional appeal to make up for the reliability gap won’t work. Left brain buyers, they type who pour over reports of defect incidents, aren’t going to respond to emotional appeal. IOW, Detroit is getting all the emotional buyers it can get. It’s the unemotional buyer they need to appeal to, if they want to increase market share.
First, even the left-brain buyer is susceptible to emotional appeal. Marketers just have to make an emotional appeal that doesn’t conflict with the data-driven buyer’s view of the superiority of his own process. Second, there are a lot of right-brain buyers in the import crowd too, and some can be peeled off with the right marketing.
Re: Ricers. Aren’t these guys mostly driving used cars? Do they really have any influence at all on new car sales? I’m very doubtful.
In SoCal there’s enough wealth that young “Ricers” buy new cars in surprising proportion to their overall market. But even the used-car-buying young hot-rodder segment influences the view of what’s cool held by other new car buyers in their demographic.
You’re still talking about “competitive” Detroit product and your >1 million “import bigot” but you’ve yet to demonstrate the existence of either one. As for “extrapolating” from you personal experience, who says your acquaintances are typical? Your fleeting encounter at the gas station hardly describes typical sedan purchasers.
I realize there are a lot of posts here so you may have missed what I’ve said about both before: I’m not going to turn this thread into a debate over the perceived competitiveness of specific cars. Everyone will have their own view, so my list isn’t important. But even a cursory review of the nation’s press reveals that competitive Detroit 3 iron is on the field and coming. If you believe nothing from these companies is competitive, then I have to conclude you’re just not open-minded. On the second point, I don’t have to tally up the number of import bigots. I don’t think anyone has done the census. My personal experience across multiple metros is not only extrapolatable, but more to the point, until TTAC published *this* editorial, no one has ever disputed the point. Rather, people have freely admitted to me that they are import bigots, even when I’ve used the term. You, PcH101 and one or two others here are the first to attempt to deny this type of buyer exists in 20 years of me talking about it. I think most people readily recognize the truth of the observation. In any case, the opening anecdote I used in the editorial was just the most recent random example and was vivid (and pathetic) enough to grab attention. Seems to have worked. But I’ve had the same kinds of conversations over sedans, sports cars, trucks — any mainstream category you can mention. All of my prior vehicles, even when I owned a few at once, were mainstream price-sector purchases except for a Corvette.
Your friend who says he’s an import bigot as you describe, I’ve got questions for him. Has he been burned? Is he a luxury car buyer? A “yes” to either of those to questions removes him from “import bigot” consideration.
He hasn’t been burned and he was a confessed import bigot when all he could afford was an Accord, as well as later when his situation enabled him to buy a luxury car. Import bigots exist in the luxury market too, perhaps more so.
For a luxury car buyer, you can talk about Cadillac until you are blue in the face but since the image IS NOT THERE, Cadillac IS NOT COMPETITIVE.
And yet here in image-obsessed Southern California, Cadillac’s sales are rising, and even the expensive V cars which people of modest means can’t afford, are steadily more visible. Cadillac has a long road back to be sure, and yet here perceptions are already turning. I can even see it in the evolving reaction to my car over the past 19 months of driving it. Initial reactions in my peer group were negative, and now those people want a second look, especially after hearing about lack of problems and seeing how the car weathers daily use. The veiled disdain for the brand that I witnessed almost two years ago from people in chance encounters has mostly evaporated from the social discourse prompted by the car in new circles. If SoCal is a harbinger, Cadillac’s image is mending. Say what you want — Cadillac was competitive for me when I made my last purchase, and it’s more so now.
It is hard to make the sale when you don’t have product. I don’t know whether to praise Detroit for not rushing the product to market before it’s ready, or criticize them for lagging their competition. A bit of both I guess.
We no longer have a September launch product model year. We’ll see 2009 cars begin to be launched as early as next March or April and we could see 2008 specialty cars shipped as late as next May. The new US Focus and the New Malibu will show when they show. Sooner is better than later, all other things being equal. Certainly vehicle availability of Detroit’s hottest models seems to be a recurring problem.
Phil
This tidbit highlights the disconnect here:
Those of us who don’t buy Hondas and Toyotas (and for me it’s a product quality and design issue, not origin)
You’re entitled to your beliefs, but it highlights how out of touch your personal opinions are with the lion share of quantitative data, the automotive press and the average American car buyer.
We’ve reached a point at which very few people beyond some vociferous flagwavers could possibly believe that Hondas and Toyotas are deficient in product quality or design. Virtually no one these days regards the Big 2.8 as a consistent producer of desirable or quality vehicles, which is exactly why sales are tumbling toward oblivion. Consumers are exercising their right to choose, they’re just choosing something else.
I suspect that the hierarchy within GM agrees with Mr. Ressler, which explains much of the problem. These boneheads honestly believe that they make good products and it is the consumer’s fault for not figuring this out. Instead of the sales figures being used as a wake up call, they are used instead as a call to whine.
That’s too bad. Just as the alcoholic can’t quit without first recognizing the drinking problem, Detroit won’t bother making better cars until it can first admit that the cars really aren’t all that great and consumers have had good reasons to stay clear.
The last thing I would want to do is to hand my money to a company that had a long history of shafting consumers, but has never conceded to there having been a problem.
You’re entitled to your beliefs, but it highlights how out of touch your personal opinions are with the lion share of quantitative data, the automotive press and the average American car buyer.
We’ve reached a point at which very few people beyond some vociferous flagwavers could possibly believe that Hondas and Toyotas are deficient in product quality or design.
I’m not out of touch. I know what the data and the trends say. However, I personally don’t value all the same things in automobiles. From what I’m seeing in today’s Toyotas, equating their interiors with any notion of quality is laughable. Not when new nor after some use. Seriously, the state of a contemporary Camry, Corolla, or SUV interior after less than a year’s use by a family with kids, let alone a 2500 mile rental, compared with the better domestics, is telling. Then there’s the quality of handling, braking, steering, accessible engine power, automatic transmission shifting behavior — all of these traits are seriously comical if you represent them as standard-setting. Yup, the cars run. Yes, their engines spin smoothly. The cars are also numbing and isolating. As for Honda, their engineering of FWD vehicles is sound. They drive well for the sector. Drivetrains are standard-setting for FWD. Their interiors are better than Toyotas by leagues. But their control interfaces are too light. Their space utilization doesn’t work as well for me as some of the better Detroit offerings. And both Honda and Toyota are guilty of crushingly bland styling. Is it really necessary to trade aesthetic drama for nth-degree build quality in an affordable car? Apparently both these companies think so. Why does everything they make have to be either vanilla or, more apropos, tofu? There’s more to quality and design than the reliability factors.
Virtually no one these days regards the Big 2.8 as a consistent producer of desirable or quality vehicles…
Including me. To buy quality from the Detroit 3 today, you must cherry-pick and choose specific models.
I suspect that the hierarchy within GM agrees with Mr. Ressler, which explains much of the problem. These boneheads honestly believe that they make good products and it is the consumer’s fault for not figuring this out. Instead of the sales figures being used as a wake up call, they are used instead as a call to whine.
Except if they believed this, they wouldn’t be in agreement with me. Management of these companies cannot assume they are making good products across the board, and as executives on the supply side, they have to assume it’s their job to both make all vehicles competitive and market them correctly so their selling proposition is persuasive.
Detroit won’t bother making better cars until it can first admit that the cars really aren’t all that great and consumers have had good reasons to stay clear.
Their most recent products, at least for GM & Ford, plus what’s in the pipe, indicate they’ve passed the threshold of admitting deficiencies. Chrysler appears to be behind the curve in this respect.
The last thing I would want to do is to hand my money to a company that had a long history of shafting consumers, but has never conceded to there having been a problem.
Current behavior demonstrates they’ve conceded the first point.
Phil
I personally don’t value all the same things in automobiles.
That’s perfectly lovely, and your right as a consumer to feel that way, of course. But in light of your admission, your opinions don’t offer much useful guidance to the average American car buyer, given that your preferences are so out of sync with most of them.
I would submit that you are prone to insult and criticize the American consumer because you have lower standards than they do. You’re willing to tolerate flaws that they are not, while claiming that they are “bigoted” because their benchmarks are that much higher than are yours. Because the data also doesn’t support you, you also decry that, for that too does not support the conclusions that you have reached.
If Detroit could make money by serving consumers with your relatively forgiving standards, they would not be having the problems that they are today. But sadly for them, the competition has raised the bar and they just can’t keep up. Ideologues will accept less and berate others who won’t accept less, but the average person values his or her money too much to cut slack, particularly for the unrepentant.
…in light of your admission, your opinions don’t offer much useful guidance to the average American car buyer, given that your preferences are so out of sync with most of them…
That depends upon whom I am speaking with.
I would submit that you are prone to insult and criticize the American consumer because you have lower standards than they do. You’re willing to tolerate flaws that they are not, while claiming that they are “bigoted” because their benchmarks are that much higher than are yours. Because the data also doesn’t support you, you also decry that, for that too does not support the conclusions that you have reached.
No insult; I was merely descriptive. I had given you benefit of doubt, but the shoe’s fit seems awfully comfortable for you. Only you know for sure. When it comes to cars, most people freely admit their biases when they have them.
I haven’t had to tolerate any flaws that are at variance with the general market, in the domestic vehicles I’ve owned. I’ve had reliability that is allegedly only available from Toyota. Fit and finish that’s alleged only to come from Honda and Audi. Durability that is alleged to be the exclusive domain of Asian manufacturers. And I’m not alone. That’s the point. You can evaluate Detroit 3 cars on the criteria you hold dear and find models that will satisfy, if you can drop your accumulated biases gathered from past experience. I’ve proven it with my own money, and so have others. The benchmarks of import loyalists are not “higher,” they’re just different in the mix and weighting of factors, and a larger social context is generally left out by them.
If Detroit could make money by serving consumers with your relatively forgiving standards, they would not be having the problems that they are today. But sadly for them, the competition has raised the bar and they just can’t keep up. Ideologues will accept less and berate others who won’t accept less, but the average person values his or her money too much to cut slack, particularly for the unrepentant.
One’s standards don’t have to be forgiving if you’re selective about what you buy. You just have to lighten up on the penalty you’re imposing on Detroit 3 vehicles for past experience, if that’s polluting your perception. And for anyone else who is simply riding the wave of someone else’s lemon experience without having any such difficulty of their own, there really is no reason not to shop open-mindedly. Detroit needs more uniform competitiveness in their lines. They also need a market sans the drag of social aversion.
Of course your last point is the crux of the matter. As long as people insist on viewing their buying decisions in any market sector strictly on their perceptions of value for money, then they will fail to consider all the ways their purchasing power gives them leverage over shaping the world they live in. There are some vehicle categories where the Detroit 3 aren’t fully competitive, but in the mainstream vehicle categories, there are enough competitive models to satisfy the present selection criteria of the import bigot crowd, and some of the import-rational population, if those models are fully considered and evaluated.
Phil
Phil,
When you say, “.I haven’t had to tolerate any flaws that are at variance with the general market, in the domestic vehicles I’ve owned…”, I’m left wondering exactly what that means.
In an earlier post, you said you had purchased 14 domestics since 1980. In another post you gave counts by make and totalling that, cars purchased since 1980 comes to 17. I had the impression they were all new. That’s quite a lot of cars. Are you sure you were happy with them? Around our house, the one sure sign we’re happy with a car is that we keep it. For a long time. We kept one Volvo for 18 years.
You decide what you buy without approval from your wife. What does she drive? Does she get approval from you? Are her cars included in the 14? Or 17? How long have you been married? How many cars do you own simultaneously?
I hope you don’t mind the questions but all we’ve got to go on here with respect to Detroit being “competitive” and the alleged existence of “import bigots” are your own personal anectdotes, so we might as well get as much background as we can. I invited you, several times, to rectify that but, so far, you’ve declined.
Without more information, I can’t help but think your experience is greatly at variance from my own – and probably most other people’s.
In an earlier post, you said you had purchased 14 domestics since 1980. In another post you gave counts by make and totalling that, cars purchased since 1980 comes to 17. I had the impression they were all new. That’s quite a lot of cars.
Two were used – a low-miles Corvette, and a low-miles SVT Lightning F150.
Are you sure you were happy with them? Around our house, the one sure sign we’re happy with a car is that we keep it. For a long time. We kept one Volvo for 18 years.
Those lists include spouse purchases. For a variety of reasons, I accumulated annual mileage well above national averages and these cars were mostly driven into six figures. Even at that, they were in great shape when I sold them. Happy? Yes. There were some cars among those lists that were kept 8-10 years; in some instances requirements changed; and sometimes something beckoned. Since 1980, four of my cars were imports. I think I forgot to include something on my list of 17.
You decide what you buy without approval from your wife. What does she drive? Does she get approval from you? Are her cars included in the 14? Or 17? How long have you been married? How many cars do you own simultaneously?
My wife can buy whatever she wants. Her cars are included in the list. Most of the time since 1982 we’ve owned two cars simultaneously, but occasionally one or two more. She’s European but so far has preferred Detroit sedans with manual transmissions, which is getting harder to find. Her CTS-V fits the bill nicely.
…all we’ve got to go on here with respect to Detroit being “competitive” and the alleged existence of “import bigots” are your own personal anectdotes, so we might as well get as much background as we can. I invited you, several times, to rectify that but, so far, you’ve declined.
Previously addressed.
However, Robert starts another item today with this: “Does the average American consumer know or care that GM owns Saturn? Or Toyota Scion? Nope.” I am sure we all know enough people for whom this is true to put the lie to your and Pch101’s idea of the super-rationalist consumer comprising the sum total of the auto market. For whatever reason, you can’t imagine or admit that much of the market is lazy, unaware, or delegates their vetting to social currents, hearsay and myth.
Without more information, I can’t help but think your experience is greatly at variance from my own – and probably most other people’s.
There’s a good chance my experience is at variance with any specific individual’s, which isn’t the same as saying there’s anything about your circumstance that inhibits you from duplicating mine. I long ago lost count of the conversations I’ve had with import buyers in which I asked whether they had considered X domestic. “Well, my neighbor (or a friend; or a cousin of a friend; or the boyfriend of the daughter of my mother’s bridge club partner) had an Oldsmobile once that give him nothing but trouble….” Oh, have *you* ever had a bad experience with an American car? “Well no, my American cars have been fine, but after what I heard about his problems I’m never doing business with GM (et al) again.”
Do you truly believe that ~1/8th or more of import automotive buyers (~1/16th of the total market) isn’t comprised of that unthinking social-reference, hearsay-driven customer that is shutting domestics out of their consideration?
I am sure it’s considerably more, and consumer practices across product sectors support that. Even in houses, conformists buy what they feel wins them social acceptance, overlooking many alternatives that would better fit their requirements. How else would you end up with square miles of identical 5,000 s.f. houses within handshaking distance of your neighbors without leaving your house? The super-rationalist buyer is merely a subset of the market-at-large.
Phil
Dynamic88: The official introduction date of the new Malibu is November 1. The new Focus is at some dealers right now. The one dealer in town has a new sedan on the showroom floor, but the other dealer does not have any.
Phil wrote: “I long ago lost count of the conversations I’ve had with import buyers in which I asked whether they had considered X domestic. “Well, my neighbor (or a friend; or a cousin of a friend; or the boyfriend of the daughter of my mother’s bridge club partner) had an Oldsmobile once that give him nothing but trouble….” Oh, have *you* ever had a bad experience with an American car? “Well no, my American cars have been fine, but after what I heard about his problems I’m never doing business with GM (et al) again.””
Don’t they cover “word-of-mouth” at whatever marketing school you attended? And how powerful it is? These people have personal relationships to Detroit-inspired misery. They act accordingly.
And in many cases, there’s a clear contrast to examine. My colleague with the minivans… Honda covered him 30K miles beyond the stated warranty, without any argument whatever. Chrylser didn’t cover him a few thousand miles beyond the standard warranty. That makes an impression on people.
Phil also wrote: “Do you truly believe that ~1/8th or more of import automotive buyers (~1/16th of the total market) isn’t comprised of that unthinking social-reference, hearsay-driven customer that is shutting domestics out of their consideration?”
Yes, I believe that. Why not? Of course, my beliefs might be at odds with the real world but you haven’t *proven* that.
Now, do you suppose it’s just a coincidence that Detroit’s market share appears to be in free fall now that a huge chunk of the nation has routine access to the Internet?
Phil,
By the way, when I’m hearing thes tales of woe, there’s never six degrees of separation involved. It’s always first-person. Whomever is relating the story always took the hit in his or her own wallet.
Also, doing the math, you’re replacing a car something like every three years and only going off-warranty with particular vehicles. Nice. At that rate, even I might be satisfied with Detroit.
And, when I say the difference in treatment between the Honda and the Chrysler makes an impression on people, I include myself. I’m impressed with Honda and I can contrast it to my own Detroit transmission experience. As happy as I am with my Toyotas, yeah, I’d consider a Honda. No Honda TV ad will ever have that kind of impact.
And if it wasn’t my colleague himself but a “friend of his bridge partner’s boyfriend’s dog-sitter,” I’d discount it accordingly. Like to zero. Who wouldn’t?
What do you suppose I’d be thinking about Chrysler if they took care of my colleague and Honda hadn’t? Well, that’s a bad example, because their cars are too ugly… Suppose GM had taken care of my colleague and Honda hadn’t? That would sure make the Impala and the Malibu look a lot more attractive than they already are.
“… I also notice that reviewers evaluation criteria push into ever more trivial and superficial aspects of the object. And further, that reviewers are rewarding the most appliance-like aspects of a car. No, I no longer believe that reviewers are “on to something.”
A lot of us consider cars little more than rolling appliances. The ideal is to run it for 15 years w/o a service call, and w/o maintenance, then junk it and get a new one.
“And both Honda and Toyota are guilty of crushingly bland styling. Is it really necessary to trade aesthetic drama for nth-degree build quality in an affordable car? Apparently both these companies think so. Why does everything they make have to be either vanilla or, more apropos, tofu? There’s more to quality and design than the reliability factors.”
Checking out the new ‘BU on it’s website, I was struck by how similar, and bland, the new ‘Bu is compared to it’s rivals. If I didn’t know better, I’d strongly suspect they are going after Camcords by looking an awuful lot like Camcords. The site offers exterior shots of the Malibu, Accord, Camry and Altima from various angles. It’s really suprising how much alike all four are. Chevy does have a bolder grill than the others, though I’m not sure I like it much. I don’t find it offensive though. Mildly irritating perhaps. All four cars look like a hot pocket that just came out of the microwave. Maybe GM has finally realized that styling isn’t going to sell cars – at least not in the Camcord segment of the market.
From the interior pics, I’ve judged the ‘Bu to be the best looking – damned with faint praise. It remains though to actually see a real one and sit in it and feel the upholstery. From the pics, the two tone upholstery looks – WOW! In person, it’s possible it’s only – meh. We’ll see when they hit the showrooms.
“…You, PcH101 and one or two others here are the first to attempt to deny this type of buyer exists in 20 years of me talking about it. …”
I’ve never heard the term import bigot before, and don’t know anyone who’s like the man you met at the gas station. If anything, it’s the import buyers who face derrission over their purchase, but make their own decission anyway. At least that’s how it is around here. I flatly deny that import bigots, as you’ve defined them are more than 1% of the market, if even that much. Until you have hard data, my life experience is as valid as yours.
“That is to say, with the cash position of these companies, you can’t simultaneously care about giving them a chance to complete their reforms and withhold your support until every shred of doubt you hold is overcome. Either buyers who want these companies to survive will put some skin in the game or they are willing to let these companies die.”
Except some of us don’t judge the situation as all that dire. At least not for GM and Ford. Chrysler, maybe so. GM could be cut in half, in market share terms, and it would still be the size of Chrysler. GM/F are going to be smaller in 10 years than they are today. I think they might be starting to realize that. I think they have time to improve w/o me plunking down my hard earned cash in the next 3 years. (I really would like to buy from the D2, if only I could feel confident about doing so. I’m hoping that the new Malibu impresses the hell out of me. I’m hoping the same for the new Focus. Havn’t decided yet the size of vehicle I want)
As for Chrysler, well, I’ve never been much of a fan, and I can’t prop up every ailing American company. It will be difficult for GM or Ford to get me away from Honda. It would take a miracle for me to buy a Chrysler product rather than something from GM or Ford. But the market is large, and Chrysler has survived to this point w/o me, my dad, or grandpa ever buying a new Chrysler product. Out there somewhere are people who actually like Chrysler.
rollingwreck has it right.
Sorry but JD Power awards do not impress.
PU’s aside. no one in my family would even look at a 2.5 product. That may seem prejudiced. If it is, it is based on many vehicles and problems that have led to an urban survival lesson,” Buy Toyota, Mercedes or an old Saab.”
I recently rented a car that turned out to be a Dodge Neon that was brand new in Dallas. I returned it before I got to LBJ it was such a piece of junk and unsafe to drive IMO.
Last month I got a Mercury Marquis and drove from San Jose to Banff and back to Spokane. We put 1500 miles on it. Kept it just because it had a big trunk. No wonder some cops have a bad attitude having to work oiut of tbe Ford named version.
I could go on but the old joke about fool me once, fool me twice comes into play. The 2.5 apologists have to do some work, not cajole us with accusations of ignorance and foolishness.
I hope my next car out lasts its warranty. Wioth a 2.5 that can be a problem.
“And both Honda and Toyota are guilty of crushingly bland styling.”
Compared to what, the Chevrolet car lineup? the Ford car lineup? Neither Chevy nor Ford currently sells a four door sedan which exactly sets the heart a fluttering. Chrysler makes some interesting lookers (which looks don’t wear well over time), but after the looks it is all down hill with the pentastar gang.
The new 2008 Accord is about as good looking of a mid-priced family sedan as you will find on the market today. It isn’t going to cause the Maserati sylists to loose any sleep, but it is handsome enough against the competitors. A Fusion, by contrast, looks deathly dull. The new Malibu shows promise, but you can’t get one yet (late to the 2008 model year party).
I suspect Accord may even kick Camry out of the top seller spot, especially now that Consumer Reports has just slammed Toyota for recent product quality and has taken the V6 Camry off it’s recommended list:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/16/autos/cr_reliability/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote
One thing most can agree on is that the current Camry is pug-ugly. What were they thinking?
Don’t they cover “word-of-mouth” at whatever marketing school you attended? And how powerful it is? These people have personal relationships to Detroit-inspired misery. They act accordingly.
If I were giving marketing advice here, I’d be prescriptive about how to create positive word-of-mouth, or how to overcome negative-word-of-mouth and begin turning it around. But that’s not the topic here. At a customer level, word-of-mouth is an efficient dysfunction. It means the customer isn’t thinking for himself and is probably thinking too narrowly if he considers word-of-mouth actionable.
Now, do you suppose it’s just a coincidence that Detroit’s market share appears to be in free fall now that a huge chunk of the nation has routine access to the Internet?
Nope, I don’t suppose the two phenomena are mere coincidence.
..doing the math, you’re replacing a car something like every three years and only going off-warranty with particular vehicles. Nice. At that rate, even I might be satisfied with Detroit.
With 36,000 mile warranties, I’ve been into my own financial liability pretty quickly. Remember when warranties were 12 mos./12,000 miles? I do. After warranty expiration– and remember, most of my cars were driven into six-figures on the odo — my service costs were modest.
And if it wasn’t my colleague himself but a “friend of his bridge partner’s boyfriend’s dog-sitter,” I’d discount it accordingly. Like to zero. Who wouldn’t?
Apparently some people. You have to remember, it is unlikely the super-rational data-driven buyer is more than a significant minority of the total market.
A lot of us consider cars little more than rolling appliances. The ideal is to run it for 15 years w/o a service call, and w/o maintenance, then junk it and get a new one.
That’s certainly true for some people, but the fleet average age in the US and the incidence of lease-buying says you’re not in the meat of the new vehicle acquisition market.
Except some of us don’t judge the situation as all that dire. At least not for GM and Ford. Chrysler, maybe so. GM could be cut in half, in market share terms, and it would still be the size of Chrysler. GM/F are going to be smaller in 10 years than they are today.
If they make it that long.
Out there somewhere are people who actually like Chrysler.
Yes; it seems to actually be true that everyone is someone else’s little treasure…
Phil
At a customer level, word-of-mouth is an efficient dysfunction. It means the customer isn’t thinking for himself and is probably thinking too narrowly if he considers word-of-mouth actionable.
This editorial is nothing more than Mr. Ressler’s “word of mouth” as to why the American consumer should desire a 2.8 product, regardless of prior experience or other advice.
So if one were to follow the author’s advice to disregard word of mouth endorsements as a form of “dysfunction”, one would have to begin by ignoring this article. There’s no reason why Mr. Ressler’s positions should be any more actionable than those of a trusted friend, family member or colleague.
Phil,
Who said anything about “super-rational?” Sure, there’s probably a few of those; maybe even most buyers are super-rational. I don’t know and I don’t care.
What I do care about is your out-of-hand rejection of the notion that the buyers are “rational enough.” Import bigotry would be complete irrationality. You have yet to prove it. Look at the prices of many Detroiters; cheeep, cheeep, cheeep. Price is attractive in the market(what do you suppose drives Wal*Mart? From personal experience, I know it ain’t quality or customer service or clean, well-lit stores; it’s cheeep). Ignoring price isn’t just irrational, it’s crazy. And there’s no evidence of it, except that they buyers increasingl choose NOT Detroit. This is because at the $20K and financed for a few years level, people DO care more about how long the thing will last. SOME are willing to put more energy into shopping for something that’s that expensive.
I will probably look at Detroit again; although the probability that they will have, in 2009, a very high mpg car with a PROVEN track record is zilch (Ford could do it, maybe, if they put the Escape powertrain into the Fusion). But I have NO intention of rewarding Detroit for crap and it’s in my enlightened best interest to save money on cars and invest in the future other ways.
All the stakeholders will get thrown under the bus to save the stockholders (after the execs, of course).
If you want to do something constructive:
1. Identify competitive Detroit products. Good luck with that.
2. Lobby for changes in tax rules so that long-term investment is treated well, short term profiteering is punitively taxed and golden parachutes a thing of the past.
Wishing we would all buy uncompetitive crap – that’s not productive.
Who said anything about “super-rational?” Sure, there’s probably a few of those; maybe even most buyers are super-rational.
I think that’s how you’re positioning yourself, and you believe you are representative of the market at-large. I don’t doubt your personal process, but I don’t think the portion of the market you believe you represent is anything more than a subset of the whole.
What I do care about is your out-of-hand rejection of the notion that the buyers are “rational enough.”
The buyers you believe are rational, are rational against a limited scope of concerns. It’s not everyone. Maybe not even a simple majority.
Import bigotry would be complete irrationality. You have yet to prove it.
I don’t have to prove it. It’s a self-evident behavior. Bias that drives bigoted buying behavior exists in various ways in every consumer sector. Automobiles are no exception, but the consequences of it are larger, socially. I observe it every day and so do many others. Again, most people who have the bias, including here, freely admit it.
Ignoring price isn’t just irrational, it’s crazy. And there’s no evidence of it, except that they buyers increasingly choose NOT Detroit. This is because at the $20K and financed for a few years level, people DO care more about how long the thing will last. SOME are willing to put more energy into shopping for something that’s that expensive.
Well, believe it or not, price is ignored by many people every hour of every day in multiple market sectors. From houses and cars to restaurant meals to TVs — whatever. The operative word in that paragraph of yours above is “SOME.” I fully accept “some.” You can buy Detroit 3 products that offer the longevity you worry about.
But I have NO intention of rewarding Detroit for crap
Which I’ve specifically suggested you shouldn’t. I won’t, either.
it’s in my enlightened best interest to save money on cars and invest in the future other ways.
This could be true for you, but not exclusively so.
If you want to do something constructive:
1. Identify competitive Detroit products. Good luck with that.
Already addressed. Take some time; anyone can do it.
2. Lobby for changes in tax rules so that long-term investment is treated well, short term profiteering is punitively taxed and golden parachutes a thing of the past.
These policy changes might help but they’d be years away. That’s not the subject of my editorial. I’m addressing what’s immediately actionable, with immediate positive consequences. Consumers who are buying cars can alter the current situation today.
Wishing we would all buy uncompetitive crap – that’s not productive.
There’s no wishing involved. It’s a rational argument. You know quite well that I haven’t asked anyone to buy uncompetitive products. My text explicitly suggests otherwise.
Phil
This editorial is nothing more than Mr. Ressler’s “word of mouth” as to why the American consumer should desire a 2.8 product, regardless of prior experience or other advice.
It’s not word-of-mouth; it’s an argument for change in behavior among a subset of the automotive buying population. You’re free to disagree or ignore it.
So if one were to follow the author’s advice to disregard word of mouth endorsements as a form of “dysfunction”, one would have to begin by ignoring this article.
You don’t have to incorrectly classify the text or the advice as word-of-mouth to retain the right to ignore it. However, de-emphasis of w-o-m and thinking for yourself isn’t the same as disregarding it.
There’s no reason why Mr. Ressler’s positions should be any more actionable than those of a trusted friend, family member or colleague.
No, there isn’t; unless I’m that trusted friend or colleague. But then, the main thrust of my editorial doesn’t require any trust at all — merely a willingness to enlarge the social context of your selection criteria for buying a new vehicle, and to make your decision according to whether you see your purchasing power as an instrument for shaping your world, and how.
Phil
“I don’t have to prove it. It’s a self-evident behavior. Bias that drives bigoted buying behavior exists in various ways in every consumer sector. Automobiles are no exception, but the consequences of it are larger, socially. I observe it every day and so do many others. Again, most people who have the bias, including here, freely admit it.”
The problem is this – it isn’t all that evident to a lot of different selves. IOW, we all have our own life experiences, and in many cases we reach a markedly different conclusion. In my case, I’d guess the man you met at the gas station accounts for 1% of the market, if that. I’m sure you see it differently. We’ll have to agree to trust our own life experiences.
But I do agree there is “bigoted” buying behavior. (I’d have chosen another word).
I’m a Honda bigot. Or rather, I’d say I’m a Honda man, the way my Dad was an Olds man. I have my brand that I like, and I gravitate towards it because it has always satisfied me. It’s not really much different than having a favorite brand of beer, or cigarettes. I would characterize my bigotry as brand loyalty.
My mother always buys GM. That also is a form of bigotry – a common form where I live, given that mine is a GM town. (Yet one still sees a lot of Hondas and Toyotas). I’m sure we could come up with many types of buying bigotry, as it applies to car purchases.
I know what you mean about social concerns, so I’l look at D3 offerings before I buy.
Dynamic88:
I’d guess the man you met at the gas station accounts for 1% of the market
Keep in mind he was merely a useful opening anecdote for representing a few decades of observed sentiment by a far greater number across multiple geographic markets, multiple vehicle sectors, multiple price ranges. In normative, as opposed to statistical, social science, observation has validity, applicability and scale.
The rest of your comment suggests you understand perfectly.
Phil
Phil – I think you’ve made some very cogent arguments to keep looking at American cars, yet the choice frequently comes to a matter of taste. To the mainstream driver, my 335 is too hard-edged and far too expensive for a car that is about the size of a Honda Civic. I shopped the sector thoroughly and the BMW happens to appeal to my taste as a machine which drives well despite many other flaws (dislike for the bangled styling, not likely as reliable as some competitors, high maintenance costs once out of warranty, ridiculous and unpurchased nav system). But they do put together a car which fits my driving gestaldt; it performs exceptionally well, will carry 4 people in reasonable comfort, is highly maneuverable in city traffic and gets decent fuel mileage. Best of all, I can flog it at a track 2 – 3 times a year and it does not suffer much beyond brake and tire wear.
If anything, I was biased against BMW (a BMW-bigot) before I bought one because many of the people I know who owned them solely because they wanted a statement about their financial success, and BMW fit the bill (for me the wrong reason to own anything).
But I don’t think I’m so atypical in that I made a choice based upon personal taste, recognizing that I cannot meet every criteria.
It took a long time for Japanese cars to earn the reputation that they were incredibly reliable; there was a long time when they were making decent cars, but people felt they were still “Japanese junk”. And it took an equally long time for people to recognize that the boring and rather odd Toyota or Honda represented greater value than dad’s Olds/Chevy/Ford/Dodge.
I think the idea that there are “import bigots” is largely falacious. People are slow to change and it will take time and some great products from Detroit to turn the perception around. You correctly point out that there are some glimmerings of life in Detroit, but I am not encouraged that the only way that Ford was able to develop a good mid-sized car was to literally clone the Mazda6. Or that Ford has a near-excellent chassis (the Lincoln LS/Jaguar S-type) which needs only further refinement to be truly world class. The CTS *is* a shining light, but there are lots of dim ones around it. After Chrysler developed a segment with the mini-van did both Ford and GM totally fail in the market. There was nothing magic about the Chrysler product, except that they kept listening to buyers and were rewarded with the best selling vehicle in its class. People who bought mini-vans found the GM and Ford offerings to be inferior, not because they were anti-GM or anti-Ford, but because the products did not match Chrysler’s.
The gang in Detroit have a history of going only for the fat part of the market, hence the rise of SUV’s and light trucks. From an automotive standpoint, these are and were low hanging fruit; big profits, small investments, no need to really change, uniquely suited to big V8’s, four-speed automatics and acres of hard plastic. To compete in small cars, they needed to develop a smooth and competent four-cylinder engine. No engineer would favorably compare the GM Ecotec or Ford Duratec to an equivalent Toyota or Honda engine.
If the CTS and Corvette represent a signal that Detroit is committed to superior products, I think you’ll see a resurgence in their market share. If they remain anomalous, as they are today, GM and Ford will continue their slow slide into oblivion.
, and I don’t particularly like the idea that to many
A perfect example of how Detroit takes a shotgun to its own foot is the Solstice.
Here’s a potential halo car in a space with virtually no competition in this price range (and let’s be honest — your main rival, the Miata, is stereotyped on the street as a “chick” car, despite its terrific driving dynamics, because of its styling, which provides a marketing opportunity.) Some will disagree, but many find the Solstice’s aesthetics to be pretty close to a triple, if not quite a home run. And Mazda helped to resurrect itself on the strength of a roadster, so why not Pontiac?
But no. Solstice’s JD Power IQS scores (this is the 90-day test, so you’d think that they’d make an effort to be able to nail these) are generally something less than “average”, which puts it well below the Miata. We’ve just seen CR’s results from its more thorough survey, which are even worse and do not bode well for good long-term overall reliability.
You would think that a halo car branded with a marque that is obviously in serious trouble that is competing in a limited segment would have been lavished with attention to detail, yet it wasn’t. I believe that they ultimately think much like the author here — the customer is dumb, and better marketing will fix it — as no one with a true sense of urgency or commitment to the customer would have released a product like this without first making sure that it was almost perfect enough to walk on water.
It would be interested to know how much money was committed to the Solstice, a vehicle that will ultimately remind everyone of what is wrong with GM. That wasn’t money well spent.
PCH,
I agree about the solstice, but for different reasons. It is a car that is killed by GM’s ability to drop the ball at the 10 yard line. The car looks fantastic and would be purchased solely for that reason. However, the car has no trunk and the ergonomics aren’t very good. These are two areas that are key in this market. A good weekend car (which something like this is often used for) needs to at least hold golf clubs or a diffel bag with the top down. This car cannot. I know a few people who would have purchased this car, reliability or not if it worked for their intended use. Similarly, you ridicule the japanese competition for making boring,quiet cars and suggest that the domestic competition have character. However, the people that shop this segment have no interest in character and want an easy to live with appliance. Rather than throwing money into cupholders that cool your drink, perhaps introducing and marketing an extremely stain resistant comfortable seating fabric would be better. At least then parents with younger children will be brought to showrooms.
Phil,
Suppose you had an idea to market a new line of easy-care sheets to the Klan. Wouldn’t your customer ask you to prove that there’s a market? That there are Klansmen in sufficient numbers to justify the effort?
It’s not enough for you to say, “Well, I got invited to a meeting…” That tells us nothing about the Klan in society as a whole and whether or not there’s a market there.
That’s where you are with the “import bigot” assertion. I don’t care if you happen to know a few bigots or Klansmen, that tells us little about the wider world. And you may well be misinterpreting the few that you do know.
KixStart – incredible metaphor… but perhaps you did not attend the last TTAC assembly and Detroit-burning.
BTW, I suspect this thread ought to be published and given to Al Mulally and The Rickster for Christmas. It’s worth more than a seven-figure consulting fee on why folks aren’t buying what Detroit is manufacturing.
Edgett:
the choice frequently comes to a matter of taste. To the mainstream driver, my 335 is too hard-edged and far too expensive for a car that is about the size of a Honda Civic. I shopped the sector thoroughly and the BMW happens to appeal to my taste as a machine which drives well despite many other flaws (dislike for the bangled styling, not likely as reliable as some competitors, high maintenance costs once out of warranty, ridiculous and unpurchased nav system). But they do put together a car which fits my driving gestaldt; it performs exceptionally well, will carry 4 people in reasonable comfort, is highly maneuverable in city traffic and gets decent fuel mileage. Best of all, I can flog it at a track 2 – 3 times a year and it does not suffer much beyond brake and tire wear……I don’t think I’m so atypical in that I made a choice based upon personal taste, recognizing that I cannot meet every criteria.
Correct. Much of the market is personal-taste-driven, which is highly subjective. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. For the buyer making a decision about a new vehicle on a basis of personal taste, the rubric for how they either square that with my suggestion or reject it is to answer for themselves a simple question: Are these matters of taste worth the larger social cost to me and or the social sphere I care about, or not? How do you define your interests?
I am not encouraged that the only way that Ford was able to develop a good mid-sized car was to literally clone the Mazda6
As a global company, it was both efficient and effective to leverage a platform developed for another competitive car in their engineering galaxy, and in fact the Mazda 6 underpinnings are substantially amended for duty in Fusion (et al) form. The driving experiences are palpably different. A more cash-rich Ford (ala’ mid-1990s) run more responsibly (perhaps like Mullaly will prove able to) would be more likely to take on a discreet engineering project a North America specific platform. Under the circumstances, the Mazda 6 underpinnings for the Fusion family is far better than doing a cash-poor, half-assed job on a dedicated car.
The gang in Detroit have a history of going only for the fat part of the market, hence the rise of SUV’s and light trucks. From an automotive standpoint, these are and were low hanging fruit; big profits, small investments, no need to really change, uniquely suited to big V8’s, four-speed automatics and acres of hard plastic.
Correct.
To compete in small cars, they needed to develop a smooth and competent four-cylinder engine. No engineer would favorably compare the GM Ecotec or Ford Duratec to an equivalent Toyota or Honda engine.
Perhaps no engineer, but there are many who don’t really know the difference, but will buy on hearsay of an advantage they barely appreciate. On the other hand, the current Ecotech and Duratec are fine engines in their own right that can be warranty serviced in many more locations, so some people will make the trade on convenience. Honda engines are certainly well-engineered and they arguably set the standard for small engine development. Toyota 4s and V6s, not so much. Point is, unlike past periods of crisis, this time GM and Ford aren’t absent good small engine offerings, and the newest V6s are excellent in the family sedan segment. Below that, generally the smaller the car the more difficulty you’ll have in finding a competitive Detroit 3 offering, but that’s not the meat of the market in the US so far. It would be a place to win new customers if Detroit played harder in the sector. There’s progress; very good progress compared to prior market spikes in small cars when Detroit just didn’t get it at all.
Phil
I believe that they ultimately think much like the author here — the customer is dumb, and better marketing will fix it — as no one with a true sense of urgency or commitment to the customer would have released a product like this without first making sure that it was almost perfect enough to walk on water.
Well, first, I don’t think the customer is dumb, and while better marketing has a strong role in improving the Detroit 3 situation immediately, good product must be in the equation. We have to know more about what kind of problems prevail in the Solstice. As a limited production, first-year package, somewhat sped to market *because* it’s a halo car and consumers were adamant about wanting it quickly, it’s almost guaranteed to have teething problems. The first-year Miata was no picnic either. Let’s see how this goes, and how GM responds. I’m in roadster land here and know 7 people who own Solstice/Sky. So far their aggregate quality issues have been irritations, not disabling, and service has been prompt, with nothing having to be fixed twice. After the first 5000 miles, the cars have been reliable. Not perfect but not alarming. I’ll note that those owners still love their cars.
It would be interested to know how much money was committed to the Solstice, a vehicle that will ultimately remind everyone of what is wrong with GM. That wasn’t money well spent.
Buyers are generally more forgiving of imperfections in specialty cars, if problems are rectified promptly and cheerfully. This car still wears a halo in the mind of the likely buyer. GM can easily retrieve an early negative here. Let’s see if they will.
The car looks fantastic and would be purchased solely for that reason. However, the car has no trunk and the ergonomics aren’t very good. These are two areas that are key in this market. A good weekend car (which something like this is often used for) needs to at least hold golf clubs or a diffel bag with the top down. This car cannot. I know a few people who would have purchased this car, reliability or not if it worked for their intended use.
We agree. The Solstice would be making a bigger positive impact if it had been more holistically conceived and executed.
Similarly, you ridicule the japanese competition for making boring,quiet cars and suggest that the domestic competition have character. However, the people that shop this segment have no interest in character and want an easy to live with appliance.
Certainly there is the appliance subset of the market. That’s why Detroit has Fusion, Malibu, Taurus, etc. As for the Japanese, there is no good reason a company can’t create an appliance that has some style. But Toyondasan can’t seem to figure that out, for better or worse.
Rather than throwing money into cupholders that cool your drink, perhaps introducing and marketing an extremely stain resistant comfortable seating fabric would be better. At least then parents with younger children will be brought to showrooms.
Yup, or both.
Suppose you had an idea to market a new line of easy-care sheets to the Klan. Wouldn’t your customer ask you to prove that there’s a market? That there are Klansmen in sufficient numbers to justify the effort?
It’s not enough for you to say, “Well, I got invited to a meeting…” That tells us nothing about the Klan in society as a whole and whether or not there’s a market there.
That’s where you are with the “import bigot” assertion. I don’t care if you happen to know a few bigots or Klansmen, that tells us little about the wider world. And you may well be misinterpreting the few that you do know.
Really, truly, I can’t comment on the Klan in this context, as I only know what I’ve read. I have no personal experience with that organization nor its members.
However, your latter assertion doesn’t wash. Of course personal experience can tell you something about the wider world, if said experience is broad enough. In social sciences, particularly political science, in the 1970s, there was an intellectual civil war between the old school normative scholars and the emerging new school statistical researchers. The normative scientists relied on objective observation gathered from diverse vantage points, informed by extensive multi-disciplinary education. The statistical researchers relied on statistically significant sampling. The quants were winning as the normatives aged, retired, died off. However, it was always notable to me that the normative scientists consistently bettered their rivals in seeing the future in present phenomena, and having events verify their observations, extrapolations and prescience.
Import bigots exist in the car buying world. You know it, I know it, and most other people know it. It’s an apt description — less pejorative than you infer. My observation isn’t of “just a few,” nor either temporally and locally restricted in an unduly narrow way. And the people for whom the description fits generally have no problem acknowledging it. I have two or three points of resistance here, and that’s pretty much the sum total of deniers so far, in more than two decades of raising the issue through other means than TTAC. Still, you’re free and welcome to deny.
Phil
As a limited production, first-year package, somewhat sped to market *because* it’s a halo car and consumers were adamant about wanting it quickly, it’s almost guaranteed to have teething problems.
Except for the fact that GM products have “teething” problems well into adulthood. At this rate, Rick Wagoner must be gumming his food.
It’s funny how these discussions of GM products invariably degenerate into producing more alibis than the maximum security wing of a prison.
The American consumer has grown tired of excuses from GM, and just wants results. Provide excellent products on a consistent basis for an extended period of time and the customer will eventually return. If the only things coming out of Detroit are more excuses and efforts to smear the Miata, then don’t be surprised when the sales start to evaporate, as they already have.
Despite the earlier claims of the author, the Solstice example illustrates that the General has NOT learned its lesson, and will continue to beta test products on consumers until consumers simply abandon them entirely. The way to break the addiction to excuse making is to let this company hit bottom so that it is forced to see the light, and compelled against its will to improve because there is no longer any alternative. If you continue to give them your money, they will see it as a sign of vindication and see no reason at all to improve.
Memo to self: Phil apparently doesn’t understand hypotheticals, either.
Phil wrote: “Of course personal experience can tell you something about the wider world, if said experience is broad enough. In social sciences, particularly political science, in the 1970s, there was an intellectual civil war between the old school normative scholars and the emerging new school statistical researchers. The normative scientists relied on objective observation gathered from diverse vantage points, informed by extensive multi-disciplinary education.”
Even though I’m firmly in the statistical researchers camp (I have a QC background), let’s presume that the normatives actually have something going…
Let’s go back over this:
“…if said experience is broad enough.”
“…objective observation…”
“…diverse vantage points…”
NONE of which apply to your assertion that import bigots exist in sufficient numbers to be at all interesting (i.e., to the point where a million is the persuadable subset).
You’ve based this on personal anectdotes. You *might* have broad experience, but you haven’t demonstrated it.
You base this on social interaction. You have supplied no *evidence* of objective observation; no attempt to drill through the veneer of social convesation and understand what makes your supposed bigots tick. No one else has access to your data for further analysis.
And you’ve certainly shown no *evidence* of diverse vantage points.
Similarly, you could make the claim that a third of America belonged to the Aryan Brotherhood. You might have sampled all your acquaintances and found that fully 50% of them described themselves as members. You might even have a stack of returned questionnaires to “prove” your results. In the wider world, however, the rest of us see that this doesn’t appear to be the case and, when we study the situation more carefully, we find that you’ve been residing in Attica for the last 10 years. Ah-ha! The disadvantage of a single vantage point! The disadvantage of insufficiently broad experience! The disadvantage of reading too much into your social circle!
“Import bigots exist in the car buying world. You know it, I know it, and most other people know it.”
No, I don’t. You have presented evidence that is equally compelling for the existence of a million import bigots, the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. That is to say, none.
You have built your editorial on a foundation of sand.
See this is where we disagree. How can the fact that American manufacturers have less refined small engines (4 cyl and their small 6 cyl) not be pertinent to the conversation. These engines go in both small and midsize offerings and do make a difference. I believe that this is especially true for the 4cyl models that tend to be in the price range of more buyers. This is what I meant about the Aura. I really like the car, but XR with the 3.6 liter v-6 and the 6spd tranny is a nice car. But, the XE 4cyl with the 4 spd tranny isn’t particularly competitive. There are now 5 spd auto trannys in the compact class. I feel that way about the amenities as well. Like I said, It seems that GM is competitive and worth a look at the top, but the bread and butter isn’t as good. Ford needs a better v-6 as it is being trounced power-wise by the competition. As a side note, I do agree that the Aura and Fusion are better looking than the competition. I saw the new Accord sedan today and the rear end is ugly. I guess Honda really does want to be the everyman’s BMW. I also feel that these models are lost in a sea of mediocrity, the Aura especially. GM shouldn’t have pinned its hopes on Saturn and instead given those cars to Chevy. Ford might have done better to name the Fusion the Taurus originally.
I don’t recall if someone posted this already, but something to fan the flames a little:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/weekinreview/30uchitelle.html?ref=automobiles
If the only things coming out of Detroit are more excuses and efforts to smear the Miata
It’s not a smear. The first year Miata was a flawed charmer, with some teething problems of its own. Mazda was responsive and initial quality problems were addressed. The car went on to be a sustained hit.
If you continue to give them your money, they will see it as a sign of vindication and see no reason at all to improve.
That depends which products and practices one rewards. Be selective and you can send the right message.
Even though I’m firmly in the statistical researchers camp (I have a QC background), let’s presume that the normatives actually have something going…
Which means of course that you will attempt to discredit normative methods for statistical insufficiency. Duh.
“…if said experience is broad enough.”
“…objective observation…”
“…diverse vantage points…”
NONE of which apply to your assertion that import bigots exist in sufficient numbers to be at all interesting (i.e., to the point where a million is the persuadable subset).
A million probably seems large to you. But as a percentage of the market it is small, and a reasonable target. As I wrote before — I am sure it’s larger. A million is a subset of the subset.
You’ve based this on personal anecdotes. You *might* have broad experience, but you haven’t demonstrated it.
You base this on social interaction. You have supplied no *evidence* of objective observation; no attempt to drill through the veneer of social conversation and understand what makes your supposed bigots tick. No one else has access to your data for further analysis.
More than anecdotes, much less than a full count! I *used* an anecdote to introduce an idea. Correct; no one has access to my data for further analysis because that’s far beyond the scope of an 800 word editorial. The vast majority of people I’ve queried about this are not at all obfuscating about what makes them “tick” with respect to their blanket exclusion of Detroit automotive products. The idea of the import bigot automotive buyer is just not notably controversial.If what I consider real, is merely postulate to you, that’s OK. I still want you to fair-mindedly consider competitive Detroit 3 products when you next buy a new car.
Similarly, you could make the claim that a third of America belonged to the Aryan Brotherhood. You might have sampled all your acquaintances and found that fully 50% of them described themselves as members. You might even have a stack of returned questionnaires to “prove” your results. In the wider world, however, the rest of us see that this doesn’t appear to be the case and, when we study the situation more carefully, we find that you’ve been residing in Attica for the last 10 years.
Yeah, except that’s not me.
You have built your editorial on a foundation of sand.
If you deny the existence of import bigot buying behavior, you’ll believe this and there is probably nothing that will persuade you otherwise. It’s OK. Most people seem to understand this buyer exists. However, you appear to be among a tiny minority who don’t accept the proposition. Which is OK. Can’t get everyone. However, your sentiment is an impertinent objection to the central point that a meaningful share of US automotive consumers, if they adopt fair-minded behavior and factor in the larger social context of how to deploy their buying power, can immediately improve the turn-around prospects of the Detroit 3 while meeting their personal wants and needs for a car. They don’t have to. Nothing coerces them to. There’s no sacrifice of free will. But if they see their interests as aligned with the preservation of Detroit 3 manufacturing and they commit to a competitive product, they can.
Phil
How can the fact that American manufacturers have less refined small engines (4 cyl and their small 6 cyl) not be pertinent to the conversation.
I didn’t say this issue isn’t pertinent. I said that *some* people don’t even notice the difference. Most of us *here* can, but for the market at large, many have no knowledge of these engine characteristics except via hearsay.
I believe that this is especially true for the 4cyl models that tend to be in the price range of more buyers. This is what I meant about the Aura. I really like the car, but XR with the 3.6 liter v-6 and the 6spd tranny is a nice car. But, the XE 4cyl with the 4 spd tranny isn’t particularly competitive.
And if it’s a 4 cylinder version you want, that is less competitive relative to its market than the 6 cl/6sp version. Sure. But still, there are plenty of people who will simply not care or know about what is noticeable to you. We see this even in the import camp where Toyota’s distinctly less refined powertrain is in a car that outsells the in-all-ways-better Honda Accord. It’s still quite possible to sell good cars with good powertrains to some of the market, against good cars with more refined powertrains. No one “best” product captures the whole or even a majority of the market. Everyone has to sell what they have, while improving the next versions.
Ford needs a better v-6 as it is being trounced power-wise by the competition.
Their new 3.5L six/6spd addresses the previous power deficiency.
I don’t recall if someone posted this already, but something to fan the flames a little:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/weekinreview/30uchitelle.html?ref=automobiles
Well, no kidding. We’re going to get the economy that consumer behavior earns. We can be strictly product focused, obsessed with ever-smaller differences, picayune even, and let the chips fall where they may. Or we can decide we want to proactively shape the composition of our economy through fair-minded conscious direction of our purchasing power to competitive domestic production. Doing the latter doesn’t take anyone else off the hook for doing their job on the dealer or the manufacturer side, but it does recognize that we as individuals can lift our eyes above the sheetmetal for cash transaction.
Phil
“Import bigots exist in the car buying world. You know it, I know it, and most other people know it. It’s an apt description — less pejorative than you infer. My observation isn’t of “just a few,” nor either temporally and locally restricted in an unduly narrow way. And the people for whom the description fits generally have no problem acknowledging it. I have two or three points of resistance here, and that’s pretty much the sum total of deniers so far, in more than two decades of raising the issue through other means than TTAC. Still, you’re free and welcome to deny.”
Assuming my own normative, statistically unsupported, observations are as valid as anyone’s, I’d have to say import biggots are a small fraction of the market. I stand by my statement, so long as we’re thinking of import biggots being like the man at the gas station – afraid to buy domestic for fear of what his friends would say.
If we broaden the definition to say there are people with strong brand preferences, then yes, it’s undeniable there are import bigots, just as there are Chevy bigots, Ford bigots, and strange as it may seem, even some Chrysler bigots.
One statitstic that would be interesting to know would be how many Honda buyers look at Nissan before they buy, or how many Mazda buyers are also checking out Volkswagen. That would give us some insight as to bias – is it against the American companies, or is it merely strong brand preference?
“Despite the earlier claims of the author, the Solstice example illustrates that the General has NOT learned its lesson, and will continue to beta test products on consumers until consumers simply abandon them entirely. The way to break the addiction to excuse making is to let this company hit bottom so that it is forced to see the light, and compelled against its will to improve because there is no longer any alternative. If you continue to give them your money, they will see it as a sign of vindication and see no reason at all to improve.”
As sympathetic as I am to Phil’s main point (That we consider larger social ramifications of our purchase), I’d really hate to spend money on a Malibu just to watch GM use the profits to buy some barely surviving European brand and dump millions (billions) into it rather than improving domestic product. (Or something equally stupid) Ditto for Ford.
The D3 have been on the ropes before, and when they’ve made a come back, they have spent their earnings like a sailor on leave.
If we are to rescue them (again) they should give us some assurances; we want cars built in the US (what’s the point of rescuing Ford so they can build models in Mexico?) We want them to invest in domestic product (All that Jag/Saab money down the drain and they could have used it to make better domestic cars and trucks) We want them to think before acting (a weekend car with no trunk – brilliant)
IMO, the D3 don’t give a damn about the United States, and to judge by some of their actions, it’s doubtful they even care much about their own business.
I propose an escrow account or a trust, which would dole out the profits from sales only for legitimate purposes.
I think you’re right pch101, they have to hit bottom first.
Folks, I think that you need to accept that Mr. Ressler’s definition of a “bigot” is not quite the same as it is for the rest of us.
I have an older relative who is as “American” as they come (his opinions on matters political make Fox News look more liberal than a Haight Ashbury commune), yet he wouldn’t buy a Detroit product if you put a shotgun to his head.
That’s because he spent decades buying them and he has reached the point that he’s now thoroughly sick of them — he didn’t get fooled just once or twice, but several times, and he won’t get fooled again. He’d rather buy either a Mercedes for how it drives or a Honda for how it’s engineered. (He is an engineer by profession, so he likes good engineering and industrial design when he sees it.)
In Mr. Ressler’s mind, that’s a “bigot.” In my mind, that’s a valuable case study of what Detroit gets after spending decades frittering away the customer’s hard-earned money and trust.
Life’s too short to take dice rolls at the dealership, and he wants a sure thing. My relative has worked hard enough for his money that he deserves a sure thing, irrespective of what Mr. Ressler thinks, and Detroit needs to learn from people like my relative instead of accusing them of Kar Klux Klan membership.
It’s an easy cop out to call my relative a bigot, but I’d say that he’s just another example of why businesses need to treat their customers with care. I’d blame the cavalier attitude toward quality and service, the utter lack of interest in customer focus, and the belief that the dumb customer will eventually be persuaded by advertising, while forgetting that word of mouth is the best, cheapest way of convincing buyers to buy.
In any case, Mr. Ressler misses the key difference between Pontiac and Mazda in the prior example: Pontiac is much lower on the reputation ladder, and therefore can’t afford to make as many mistakes. While Mazda has by no means a perfect track record and can’t play the reliability card in the same way that Honda and Toyota can, it is still well above Pontiac in this space, has earned a reputation for building a reliable car (the Miata is an MG with “Japanese” reliability — what’s not to like?) and can therefore get away with a bit more. It has earned a greater degree of benefit of the doubt, and if one is to take a chance on a roadster sight unseen, the Mazda undoubtedly will have earned more trust than the Pontiac. Mr. Ressler obviously believes that reputation is irrelevant, but as even the most basic of marketing classes will tell you, reputation is almost everything.
One statistic that would be interesting to know would be how many Honda buyers look at Nissan before they buy, or how many Mazda buyers are also checking out Volkswagen. That would give us some insight as to bias – is it against the American companies, or is it merely strong brand preference?
It varies. Both are factors among that population. Strong brand preference is a substantial element in any brand-buying population.
In Mr. Ressler’s mind, that’s a “bigot.” In my mind, that’s a valuable case study of what Detroit gets after spending decades frittering away the customer’s hard-earned money and trust.
As with any matter with human element, there are gray areas. I don’t posit that the entire import buying market can or should be won over by the Detroit 3. Your relative’s rigid anti-Detroit stance is informed by what he considers to be serial unfavorable experiences. Still, his unwillingness to consider new, competitive cars that are unrelated to his prior difficulties represents a closed frame of mind on this issue. If he were open-minded about this, he’d keep his filter for good engineering and industrial design, and consider Detroit 3 products that fit.
Life’s too short to take dice rolls at the dealership, and he wants a sure thing. My relative has worked hard enough for his money that he deserves a sure thing.
Was it the dealership or the car? Or both? Dealerships vary widely in both the domestic and import markets. Find another. He does deserve a sure thing, but he doesn’t know he’ll get that when he buys a new car from anyone.
Pontiac is much lower on the reputation ladder, and therefore can’t afford to make as many mistakes.
When the Miata was introduced 16 or 17 years ago, Mazda’s reputation for quality and reliability wasn’t what it became later and now.
…(Mazda’s reputation)…is still well above Pontiac in this space, has earned a reputation for building a reliable car (the Miata is an MG with “Japanese” reliability — what’s not to like?) and can therefore get away with a bit more.
Now, but not so sterling then. I pointed out that bugs in first-year specialty cars are not uncommon. The “MG with Japanese reliability” reputation was earned fairly quickly. Pent-up demand for a classic small two-seat rear-drive roadster in the British style propelled initial demand no matter the rest of it.
Mr. Ressler obviously believes that reputation is irrelevant, but as even the most basic of marketing classes will tell you, reputation is almost everything.
Again, a misrepresentation. I don’t believe reputation is irrelevant; just that we have choice regarding its influence on our individual thinking. Reputation is of course highly relevant as a marketing objective, but this specific editorial is not marketing advice. Consumers can elect to downgrade reputation as a brand preference driver and buy on an expanded range of criteria that include larger social context co-existing with product quality concerns.
At some point enough has changed to discount or reduce the relevance of reputation informed by outdated perceptions and experiences. It’s our choice. Consumers are in control of how much weight reputation should carry in their decision.
Phil
Your relative’s rigid anti-Detroit stance is informed by what he considers to be serial unfavorable experiences. Still, his unwillingness to consider new, competitive cars that are unrelated to his prior difficulties represents a closed frame of mind on this issue. If he were open-minded about this, he’d keep his filter for good engineering and industrial design, and consider Detroit 3 products that fit.
My relative would much prefer to play with his grandkids, take another cruise, and dawdle at his lifestyle business than he would bother with a Chevy. Life is short, and he’s not going to commit what’s left of his on dealing with products that he already dislikes. I don’t know how much time he has left, but I’d also prefer that he not squander it when he has people like myself who can confirm for him that time spent at a Pontiac dealer would not be time well spent.
Despite your claims to the contrary, he and millions of other consumers don’t view the products as being competitive. They aren’t ignorant of the products, they just don’t like what they know and see, and know enough about them to avoid them. Instead of continually arguing that his perception of “competitiveness” is wrong, Detroit needs to accept that he has already considered their products to a degree that pleases him and that they come up short.
In any case, one can rationalize as the day as long, but Mazda has a better brand than does Pontiac, and that brand superiority was earned through hard work and superior products. Pontiac needs to work harder and more consistently if it wants to have or exceed that reputation. The Solstice story tells me that they aren’t truly interested, and just so long as the mediocrity enablers continue to defend them, they will continue to point fingers and fail to improve. If anyone believes that castigating the customer is going to win any converts, I’d first enroll in that marketing course and then think again.
My relative would much prefer to play with his grandkids, take another cruise, and dawdle at his lifestyle business than he would bother with a Chevy.
As he should. If he buys a Chevy, it should be one that won’t be a bother.
he and millions of other consumers don’t view the products as being competitive. They aren’t ignorant of the products, they just don’t like what they know and see, and know enough about them to avoid them
If, in fact, that sentiment is informed by actual evaluation of the products they claim to be uncompetitive, then they’ve done what I’ve asked. I strongly suspect many of the people you are referring to have not informed their sentiment by actual evaluation of newer products. Only they know.
The Solstice story tells me that they aren’t truly interested,
That tale will be told over the next year or two.
If anyone believes that castigating the customer is going to win any converts, I’d first enroll in that marketing course and then think again.
You continue to be confused about the audience. It’s not people in the Detroit 3.
Phil
If, in fact, that sentiment is informed by actual evaluation of the products they claim to be uncompetitive, then they’ve done what I’ve asked. I strongly suspect many of the people you are referring to have not informed their sentiment by actual evaluation of newer products.
You can suspect all you like. The point you miss is that the level of due diligence performed by consumers like him is sufficient to know that taking the car onto a skidpad and test track would be a waste of time.
You don’t find him testing used Yugos, either. And clearly, he doesn’t need to. He already knows enough about those products, so he rations his valuable time on things most likely to produce a payoff. He already knows that a Buick won’t give him the payoff he wants, so he shops elsewhere.
What Detroit needs isn’t more information. If anything, Detroit is cursed by the degree of knowledge that the American consumer has about their products — the information age has not been kind to the traditional companies that can’t keep up. Rather, Detroit needs better products and service about which it can spread the gospel, so that the information received by the public is positive and encourages another chance.
The product offerings are generally not competitive and need to improve for a sufficient period of time that word of mouth (outside of this editorial) is largely positive and consistent enough to feel that the risk has been minimized.
You continue to be confused about the audience.
I know who your intended audience is, I’m pointing out that your priorities are misplaced. Instead of berating the customer and calling him names, you should be demanding that Detroit do a better job.
No business has a right to expect anyone’s custom without earning it, but you think that Detroit is entitled to a free ride. As I said before, if business is supposed to be a charity, then go ahead and lobby to make GM a non-profit so that my purchases can be viewed as an act of kindness and sacrifice, and allow me to offset my lack of satisfaction with a tax deduction.
See, I bring up the fact the cars you are speaking about are not as well engineered as the compeition and you tell me so what. Cars that are not as refined are sold all the time. Fine, but I am the person you are trying to convince to take a look at these products. I, as a consumer, care about these issues. Furthermore, my dad is the average consumer who knows little about cars. Even he can tell you that 5 spd tranny is better than 4. More is better and the window sticker says it has less. You keep telling us to buy these competitive products, what are they? The products that sell do so for a reason. Mazda was able to make the mazda 3 a segment leader because it was (and likely still is) the best car in the class. This is probably why I will own my first Mazda in the year or so. What reason do I have to switch from the brands that have treated me well to the Detroit 3? They are just as good, but have done nothing special? Sorry, that doesn’t cut it.
You suggest that these new products have no connection to the cars in the past. That is where you are wrong. The people designing and building the cars are still the same and so is the corporate culture. Honda and Toyota have evidenced a culture of overbuilding products and taking care of their customers if mistakes are made. The detroit 3 have a culture of corner cutting and building to a price. This includes putting plastic washers that wear out relatively quickly causing transmission problems. You want me to assume that this corporate mentality has changed and that they now build a quality product and will take care of the customer if anything goes wrong. Much like my drug addict reference, which you maligned, I don’t believe that just because there is something new and shiny that the Detroit 3 are done cheating customers. In fact, the only cars that I even consider buying from them are ones that I know haven’t been developed by them and even the non-premium version of those have been cheapened. The new focus review by Mr. Farago isn’t exactly instilling confidence in this “New” detroit of yours.
The point you miss is that the level of due diligence performed by consumers like him is sufficient to know that taking the car onto a skidpad and test track would be a waste of time.
If he’s buying cars for which skidpad test results are germane to his criteria and that’s reflected in his choice, I might believe you.
I know who your intended audience is, I’m pointing out that your priorities are misplaced. Instead of berating the customer and calling him names, you should be demanding that Detroit do a better job.
Detroit’s share of the problem is another topic. I chose to start with this one, here, on this venue, at this time.
but you think that Detroit is entitled to a free ride.
Nothing whatsoever that I’ve written suggests that. You know this to be false.
Phil
“but you think that Detroit is entitled to a free ride.”…Nothing whatsoever that I’ve written suggests that. You know this to be false.
Er, I see it as being true, and I view your continued flagwaving as dishonest and disingenuous.
You are demanding that the consumer lower his expectations, and to ignore the data that would discourage the choices that you are promoting. You continue to pretend that the consumer isn’t knowledgeable based upon your questionable anecdotes, although the usage rates of sources such as Consumer Reports make it clear that consumers actually do their homework, at least enough to know that domestic products are not competitive and not worth further investigation.
Let’s take Mr. Farago’s review of the Focus. Having driven the car myself, I can tell you that I am inclined to concur with many, if not all, of his observations. In addition, I see quantitative data that tells me that the car is not as reliable and does not maintain the residuals of its rivals.
So if my money was on the line, it sounds like it’s worth avoiding. If my relative were to ask me my opinion, I would advise him to look elsewhere. He can find other sources to support that view, and probably would look elsewhere if he were in the market for a compact.
That’s enough due diligence. Since the research I respect tends to come back negative, not more time need be wasted on further evaluation. Since the market offers so many superior alternatives, time is better spent on selecting from one of those.
Your view of “competitiveness” clearly doesn’t match that of the marketplace, so as part of my due diligence, I would discount it immediately and refer to sources that are more trustworthy and in line with my priorities. Part of good research is knowing what sources merit attention and which ones are worth avoiding.
I bring up the fact the cars you are speaking about are not as well engineered as the compeition and you tell me so what.
Go back and read what I wrote. I didn’t say “so what?”. I said that the differences between the engines you mentioned are not meaningful to some people. Some people can’t even notice it. And people buy cars for all sorts of reasons apart from powertrain refinement. The smoothest, most refined engines are in cars with significant pluralities, but more people in the aggregate buy something else because they put other criteria ahead of this.
I, as a consumer, care about these issues. Furthermore, my dad is the average consumer who knows little about cars. Even he can tell you that 5 spd tranny is better than 4. More is better and the window sticker says it has less. You keep telling us to buy these competitive products, what are they?
Detroit has competitive cars in mainstream classes with 6 speed transmissions now. Still, if an engine’s powerband is broad, 4-speed autos satisfy many people. It just depends on what a particular person cares about. As dated as it seems, hundreds of thousands of 4spd auto equipped vehicles will be sold this year. But the cars you’d prefer won’t be among them.
The people designing and building the cars are still the same and so is the corporate culture.
Certainly not. Personnel turnover, redeployments and changes at the top have seriously changed output. These companies are not static entities any more than their competitors are.
Honda and Toyota have evidenced a culture of overbuilding products and taking care of their customers if mistakes are made.
They’ve evidenced a culture of quality. Of “overbuilding” products? Uh…no. Taking care of customers if mistakes are made? Highly variable. Their customers are pretty soft on them when they don’t.
The new focus review by Mr. Farago isn’t exactly instilling confidence in this “New” detroit of yours.
My guess is the new Focus as a whole is better than Robert says it is, even if everything he observes is accurately described. I assume it is. But in any case, I’ve already said that Detroit has continuing relative weakness (against a backdrop of progress) in small cars, which don’t have the numbers to be my first concern for consumers to exercise immediate leverage. If small cars are your target class for purchase, a TTAC auto maven will have trouble choosing a Detroit 3 entry over many imports, but some people who don’t share our criteria can be and are satisfied with cars like Focus and Cobalt. Or they may choose to buy domestically for social reasons and discount the material differences as not meaningful to them.
I don’t believe that just because there is something new and shiny that the Detroit 3 are done cheating customers.
In buying more than a dozen Detroit 3 vehicles, I haven’t been cheated by those companies or their dealers, ever. So I know it’s possible to have that experience.
Phil
Detroit has competitive cars in mainstream classes with 6 speed transmissions now. Still, if an engine’s powerband is broad, 4-speed autos satisfy many people. It just depends on what a particular person cares about. As dated as it seems, hundreds of thousands of 4spd auto equipped vehicles will be sold this year. But the cars you’d prefer won’t be among them.
However, the competitve 6spd trannies are only in the models costing around 30k. The bread and butter cars are left to languish. While one can make do without a 5 spd tranny, it allows the engine to better maximize power and fuel economy.
Certainly not. Personnel turnover, redeployments and changes at the top have seriously changed output. These companies are not static entities any more than their competitors are.
There have been changes. However, the culture and the really big players haven’t changed as much in the last ten years. The folks in Detroit are still counting pennies and willing to sacrifice long term satisfaction for short term profits. The fact that they have even less to invest in product development doesn’t signal a huge quality turn around to me.
They’ve evidenced a culture of quality. Of “overbuilding” products? Uh…no. Taking care of customers if mistakes are made? Highly variable. Their customers are pretty soft on them when they don’t.
Having been into the tuner seen when I was a bit younger I can tell you that both toyota and honda overbuild their engines like no one in Detroit. You show me detroit cars getting double their showroom horsepower numbers reliably on stock internals. Then look at a 2jze…toyota didn’t cheap out. That is part of their quality reputation.
My guess is the new Focus as a whole is better than Robert says it is, even if everything he observes is accurately described
However, why would I purchase this over a mazda 3 or Honda civic for a little more cash? If it can’t beat the competition when new, then what is the point? It is not irrelevant either. Anybody who sees this thing will likely not consider a Ford the next time they are shopping.
In buying more than a dozen Detroit 3 vehicles, I haven’t been cheated by those companies or their dealers, ever. So I know it’s possible to have that experience.
Possible sure, but likely? Not in my experience. Until that changes, many of those customers you want won’t com back. Why should I have to sift through piles of crap to find gold in Detroit when I can walk in a Honda showroom, point out anything I like, and be fairly sure that it will be reliable and have quality? I was in a junkyard last month looking for a mirror for my car after someone hit it. One yard said they had it, then wanted me to go look for it. When I couldn’t find it, they kept on telling me to look around. I told them I woul be buying it elsewhere. Would it have been cheaper, to find it there? yeah. But, I ‘ll pay a little more to assure that I don’t have to do the work. Many people would rather do so as well.
So, here is the question: If we aren’t the people you are targeting (since we know the difference between a refined and unrefined engine) and not those that want the best in the segment, or those that want a small car, or those who have bad experiences with a Detroit product, or those that wnat the besst gas mileage, then who is?
Do you really believe that there are that many people that give no consideration to their car purchase other than the fact that they are bigotted against domestics? And that these people are all in the larger or luxury car segment? You seem to assume that we will all be happy with detriot purchases. You say that you are happy if we consider the cars and dislike it, yet you don’t want to assume that a large share of the market has not already done so. That is aside from those who do no reaserch and don’t know these cars exist (and wouldn’t be reading this). The bottom line is that many do not feel that the larger social context is enough to justify moving out of our comfort zone and purchasing one of their vehicles. They must do something to wow us and they haven’t. Point out a mainstream Detroit vehicle that is clearly best in class and I will gladly shut up. Just one is enough.
Phil,
“If, in fact, that sentiment is informed by actual evaluation of the products they claim to be uncompetitive, then they’ve done what I’ve asked. I strongly suspect many of the people you are referring to have not informed their sentiment by actual evaluation of newer products. Only they know.”
That’s condescending and wrong. PCH101’s relative isn’t a bigot and he’s not closed-minded. He has LEARNED that he should not trust Detroit. Who taught him this? Detroit. Why should he go back to school? There is no reason at all.
And a wise man learns from his own mistakes and that of others. Word of mouth is powerful. Many of us (your good fortune notwithstanding) have learned these same lessons or seen our neighbors taught these same lessons and learned from them.
Your implication that there are “import bigots” is an intentional slur on those of us who buy import cars. Your suggestion that there are MANY of them suggests that the odds an import buyer is also an “import bigot” are good. That’s insulting and obnoxious.
And, further, whether or not I am convinced isn’t terribly important. The fact is, you’ve painted a broad swath of people as “bigots” and you have nothing to back it up. The fact that few continue to post doesn’t necessarily signal agreement. I think it’s just how people cope with your obstinacy.
You have also appealed to enlightened self-interest and you have actually attempted to make this case but failed. Detroit’s execs look out for Detroit’s execs first. You talk about the economy of the US but use NAFTA handwaving to explain away the increasing production of cars in Mexico.
In which direction is the money and investment flowing? Increasingly: OUT. Detroit’s priorities are: executive compensation and egos, stock price, avoiding prison, everything else. In that order. Stakeholders are an also-ran.
Finally, I address your snide remark in response to statistical vs normative research (which was a red herring, anyway) “Which means of course that you will attempt to discredit normative methods for statistical insufficiency. Duh.” In fact, I didn’t. However, your “work” does not measure up to normative standards, either, and that is what I pointed out.
However, the competitve 6spd trannies are only in the models costing around 30k. The bread and butter cars are left to languish. While one can make do without a 5 spd tranny, it allows the engine to better maximize power and fuel economy.
More gears are better, up to a point. Power output isn’t affected by the number of gear ratios, but accessibility of that power can be if the powerband is peaky and more gears are needed to keep the engine in its sweet spot. Fuel economy is typically at least as much or more affected by driving style. We’re talking automatic transmissions, not manual, since everyone has at least 5 cogs on a stick. Sure, a portion of the market will make 6 speeds vs. 4 a major decision factor. I would too. But a significant portion of the market cares much less. If *you* do, that’s ok.
There have been changes. However, the culture and the really big players haven’t changed as much in the last ten years. The folks in Detroit are still counting pennies and willing to sacrifice long term satisfaction for short term profits.
Here’s a news flash: Asian and European automakers count pennies and sacrifice satisfaction for profits every day, too. There are a number of differences in the mix of the choices they make, however, to achieve profitability.
However, why would I purchase this (Focus) over a mazda 3 or Honda civic for a little more cash?
You might not, but for many people in the segment, $2000 more is money they just don’t have or aren’t willing to spend.
So, here is the question: If we aren’t the people you are targeting (since we know the difference between a refined and unrefined engine) and not those that want the best in the segment, or those that want a small car, or those who have bad experiences with a Detroit product, or those that want the best gas mileage, then who is?
You’re active in the tuner market. By definition you’re part of a niche. A visible and potentially influential niche, granted. But your criteria and weighting of same for car selection are skewed. Even within the broad tuner crowd, there are distinct camps that value auto attributes somewhat differently.
Take the family sedan, luxury, truck, minivan, SUV, CUV segments where the volume numbers are. That mainstream market doesn’t value fuel economy above all else. It’s just one factor in the mix, though in that respect and outside very small cars, Detroit is competitive. That market has not had universally bad experiences with the Detroit 3. The meat of the market isn’t buying any one thing, and the numbers buying imports are too large for bad American car experiences to be the universal determining factor. I know it’s hard for car mavens like this TTAC audience to imagine, but a huge part of the market doesn’t buy cars on basis of the data factors and driving characteristics we do. That’s where enough swing lives to make a difference. If we aggressively shrink the middle class by undermining manufacturing, perhaps small cars will become the great middle of the market, but we’re not there yet in the US.
Phil
Take the family sedan, luxury, truck, minivan, SUV, CUV segments where the volume numbers are. That mainstream market doesn’t value fuel economy above all else. It’s just one factor in the mix, though in that respect and outside very small cars, Detroit is competitive. That market has not had universally bad experiences with the Detroit 3. The meat of the market isn’t buying any one thing, and the numbers buying imports are too large for bad American car experiences to be the universal determining factor. I know it’s hard for car mavens like this TTAC audience to imagine, but a huge part of the market doesn’t buy cars on basis of the data factors and driving characteristics we do. That’s where enough swing lives to make a difference.
So you want consumers to purchase Detroit products based on their immense emotional appeal? Well, I wish you the best of luck with that. Outside of a few halo cars, very few Detroit products have anything vaguely resembling emotion. What exactly am I suppose to feel while staring at a Sebring or a Monte Carlo?
If you want a “confidence builder”, check out Mr. Farago’s interview today with Ford’s manager of Quality Data Systems.
You’ll be more confident of your decision to buy a transplant after giving those clips a listen. My favorite bit is when Mr. Farago’s pushes him about the liberal use of duct tape under the hood of the Focus.
PCH101’s relative isn’t a bigot and he’s not closed-minded.
I didn’t say he is an import bigot. I don’t know enough about him and neither do you, unless you personally know him. But if he refuses to consider a Detroit 3 car ever, due to some prior experiences, then he’s closed-minded on this matter, specifically.
And a wise man learns from his own mistakes and that of others. Word of mouth is powerful. Many of us (your good fortune notwithstanding) have learned these same lessons or seen our neighbors taught these same lessons and learned from them.
A wise man can think about more than his transaction. While word of mouth *is* powerful, the person on the receiving end retains the option to weight it as he sees fit, including demoting w-o-m in his conceptual hierarchy.
Your implication that there are “import bigots” is an intentional slur on those of us who buy import cars.
It’s a description of a subset of import car buyers. Only you know whether the shoe fits.
Your suggestion that there are MANY of them suggests that the odds an import buyer is also an “import bigot” are good.
Really? Any number I’ve mentioned is a distinct minority of the import market, and a sliver of the total market.
The fact that few continue to post doesn’t necessarily signal agreement. I think it’s just how people cope with your obstinacy.
Do you expect me to just agree with you? I don’t.
You talk about the economy of the US but use NAFTA handwaving to explain away the increasing production of cars in Mexico.
NAFTA is a fact of life and production there benefits our social context more than production sent to Asia or elsewhere. The majority of what Detroit produces for sale here is made here.
In which direction is the money and investment flowing? Increasingly: OUT. Detroit’s priorities are: executive compensation and egos, stock price, avoiding prison, everything else. In that order. Stakeholders are an also-ran.
The best way to slow that is to buy a competitive alternative made in US plants.
However, your “work” does not measure up to normative standards, either, and that is what I pointed out.
You are beginning to sound like this is a dispute rather than just an argument. However, you didn’t. You might be in a position to judge that if what is an editorial were expanded into an academic monograph.
Phil
KBW: “Outside of a few halo cars, very few Detroit products have anything vaguely resembling emotion.”
That’s not entirely true. Anger is an emotion.
Phil, to Sanman111 on why tuners like Toyotas and Hondas: “You’re active in the tuner market. By definition you’re part of a niche. A visible and potentially influential niche, granted.”
Phil, that’s very adroit. You appear to address his point while ignoring it.
What the tuners notice when they work on the car, that the engines are very well-built, the consumer notices when he drives the car a very long, trouble-free time. And the tuners do have some influence. They will tell non-tuners that they like these engines and why. It adds to Honda’s and Toyota’s luster.
By the way, isn’t it a Corolla engine in the latest generation of Lotuses? Lotus must like those engines, too.
So you want consumers to purchase Detroit products based on their immense emotional appeal?
Not exactly what I was referring to. There’s a difference between vehicles with emotional appeal — e.g. Beetle in its day, Viper, original Neon, PT Cruiser, Mustang GT — and buyers who are emotionally driven. In the latter case, the emotional shopper buys what feels right, and it might be a bland appliance. They just aren’t data- or performance-driven.
very few Detroit products have anything vaguely resembling emotion. What exactly am I suppose to feel while staring at a Sebring or a Monte Carlo?
Now that you understand the difference, you can see that very few cars from *anyone* have emotional appeal in 2007, which is one of the unresolved problems of the modern automotive scene.
If you want a “confidence builder”, check out Mr. Farago’s interview today with Ford’s manager of Quality Data Systems.
You’ll be more confident of your decision to buy a transplant after giving those clips a listen. My favorite bit is when Mr. Farago’s pushes him about the liberal use of duct tape under the hood of the Focus.
Hard to know what “liberal” means when quantifying tape. Yeah; a media-inexperienced Quality Data Systems manager isn’t going to be at his best in an interview with an aggressive interviewer. Robert might draw electrical tape to himself like moths to a flame. His review of the XLR-V also mentions taped wiring, whereas mine is all plastic tubing. I’m not doubting he saw tape, but I have yet to see one equipped same. On the other hand, I’ve owned a few Fords with some taped wiring, and said tape was still intact 100,000 miles later. Go figure. Who was it here who said “life is too short?”
Phil
What the tuners notice when they work on the car, that the engines are very well-built, the consumer notices when he drives the car a very long, trouble-free time. And the tuners do have some influence. They will tell non-tuners that they like these engines and why. It adds to Honda’s and Toyota’s luster.
Yes, already agreed. Honda, sure. Toyota? Meh.
By the way, isn’t it a Corolla engine in the latest generation of Lotuses? Lotus must like those engines, too.
Yup, and it’s easily the least impressive part of the car.
Phil
I’ve owned a few Fords with some taped wiring, and said tape was still intact 100,000 miles later. Go figure. Who was it here who said “life is too short?”
Yes, life is too short for nasty packaging. To many a car buyer, unnecessary ugly factor is not deemed to be “competitive.”
“They’ve evidenced a culture of quality. Of “overbuilding” products? Uh…no. Taking care of customers if mistakes are made? Highly variable. Their customers are pretty soft on them when they don’t.”
I think you’re kidding yourself. I’m sure when Honda had some transmission problems they lost some customers – probably for life.
Since I tend to prefer data to anecdotes (funny how that is), let’s talk about some data.
Back in late 2006, the Detroit News engaged JD Power to conduct a survey on avoidance of vehicles by origin. The findings won’t surprise anybody who is cognizant of consumer demands, but what’s interesting is the irony of Mr. Ressler’s “bigotry” argument, when “bigotry” is clearly the domain of the pro-domestic crowd.
Respondents were asked whether they avoided vehicles by origin (US vs. Asian vs. European) and why. Based upon the survey, it is apparent that respondents were allowed to provide more than one reason, but were asked to either rank their reasons or else at least to explicitly their top reason among their choices. Here are the results:
-18% avoided domestics. Top ten reasons, and percentage who gave these as reasons:
-Reliability (70%)
-Quality/workmanship (70%)
-Excessive depreciation (63%)
-Maintenance costs (42%)
-Bland/boring (42%)
-Fuel economy too low (40%)
-Knows someone with bad ownership experience (36%)
-Exterior styling/ design (33%)
-Poor performance (33%)
-Personal bad ownership experience (32%)
Compare this to the Asian avoiders, who comprise 17% of the pool, the difference is striking:
-Don’t buy Asian (61%)
-Maintenance costs (39%)
-Price (27%)
-Exterior styling/ design (23%)
-Reliability (20%)
-Safety (20%)
-Performance (18%)
-Bland/boring (17%)
-Portrays bad image (16%)
–Knows someone with bad ownership experience (16%)
It’s quite a difference. Consider this:
-Contrary to Mr. Ressler’s argument, it’s the pro-domestic types who more closely resemble “bigots”, not the import buyers. To quote JD Power:
Reliability, Quality and Fuel Efficiency are the most influential reasons that respondents avoid American vehicles…Not wanting an Asian brand, for the sake of its origin, is the most influential reason that Asian vehicles are avoided.
I suppose if you’re going to drive off to the Kar Klux Klan meeting, you’ll probably be behind the wheel of a 2.8 Mobile, not a transplant or an import.
-Now, let’s look at word of mouth. Among domestic avoiders, 36% knew someone with a bad domestic experience, and 32% had negative experience first-hand. In contrast, only 16% of Asian avoiders knew someone with a negative experience, and only 11% had one first-hand.
It’s pretty clear that a lot of those who avoid the Big 2.8 are fairly pragmatic, while it’s the 2.8 flagwavers who are veering dangerously into racial/ ethnic territory. All of these results are much in line with many of us, aside from the author of this article, have been saying all along.
Finally, the top five features that domestic avoiders want to see from domestic products are: reliability/ durability, workmanship, residuals, fuel economy, and technology. It’s a shame that excuses, alibis and apologies don’t make it anywhere on that list.
JD Power survey results (worth a read): http://detnews.com/graphics/2007/0102jdpower.pdf
Me: “By the way, isn’t it a Corolla engine in the latest generation of Lotuses? Lotus must like those engines, too.”
Phil: “Yup, and it’s easily the least impressive part of the car.”
Phil, you miss the point. As often happens.
Why didn’t Lotus buy a GM motor? Or Ford? Lotus could go anywhere and buy any engine they liked. They picked Toyota. Must be the alternatives were even less impressive.
Thanks to PCH101 for finding the JDPower study. Since there’s going to be some overlap between “had a bad experience” and “knows someone with a bad experience,” I suppose we’re looking at something like 50% of domestic avoiders being driven away by that combo. Ouch.
Phil,
If the “import bigots” should bestir themselves to get “fully informed” about domestic cars, don’t you also think that import avoiders should be fully informed? So that they also make the best decisions possible?
If so, they should revisit their reasons for avoiding imports.
I see they cite “maintenance costs” as a reason to avoid imports. They’re not fully informed. Repairs to my Volvos, with the sole exception of an alternator – that part was notably expensive – were always very reasonable and sometimes surprisingly cheap. Scheduled maintenance on the Toyotas is the same price as similar work on any other car. When I go to Happy-Lube, they don’t charge me a different price because it’s a Toyota (although some do charge extra if they have to remove a skid plate and so forth).
My local mechanic, who charges the exact same rate for work on a Volvo, VW or Toyota as on a domestic car. I’ll bet some import avoiders labor under the misapprehension that labor rates differ.
Maybe these import avoiders should get the facts?
Back in late 2006, the Detroit News engaged JD Power to conduct a survey on avoidance of vehicles by origin.
There’s a serious question whether you can get a representative view of a given population through strictly online survey methods. Also notice that JDP sourced the panel from someone else — a common practice in online surveys. But let’s go with it for the sake of discussion.
-18% avoided domestics. Top ten reasons, and percentage who gave these as reasons:
-Reliability (70%)
-Quality/workmanship (70%)
-Excessive depreciation (63%)
-Maintenance costs (42%)
-Bland/boring (42%)
-Fuel economy too low (40%)
-Knows someone with bad ownership experience (36%)
-Exterior styling/ design (33%)
-Poor performance (33%)
-Personal bad ownership experience (32%)
Can’t help but notice that the lowest-ranked reason for avoidance was personal prior ownership experience. The rest of the factors can be highly influenced by hearsay, social pressure, etc., which aren’t analyzed here. Nothing about this list refutes the existence of import bigots.
it’s the pro-domestic types who more closely resemble “bigots”, not the import buyers. To quote JD Power:
Reliability, Quality and Fuel Efficiency are the most influential reasons that respondents avoid American vehicles…Not wanting an Asian brand, for the sake of its origin, is the most influential reason that Asian vehicles are avoided.
I may not have said it in any previous post because it hasn’t come up, but I am certain there are domestic bigots in the automotive buying community. Bigoted buying behavior is rampant in consumer goods. I’m just not concerned about them because the economic consequences of their bias are positive for the domestic economy. Import brands selling here might be concerned about domestic bias, but that’s their issue, not mine for the purposes of this article.
It’s pretty clear that a lot of those who avoid the Big 2.8 are fairly pragmatic, while it’s the 2.8 flagwavers who are veering dangerously into racial/ ethnic territory. All of these results are much in line with many of us, aside from the author of this article, have been saying all along.
While I am doubtful of the methodology here, nevertheless for the purposes of *this* topic I don’t care why people avoid Asian brands. My text never singled-out Asian brand buyers. European brand buyers who won’t consider domestics aren’t exempt. Most of what’s represented here are matters of perception rather than experience. While perception is reality as a marketing challenge, the reasons for perception include the specific behaviors that can add up to bigoted buying behavior.
Nothing is mentioned in the survey nor in my text about “flagwavers.” That’s your term. Also, fuel economy is highly ranked as a reason respondents don’t consider Detroit 3 vehicles, and yet in many classes, domestic vehicles have better fuel economy in the vehicle configurations people actually buy.
And this is interesting, from the survey conclusions (JDP writing, not me):
“Surveying owners of vehicle brands from the U.S., Asia and Europe, JDPA’ssyndicated 2006 Vehicle Dependability Study shows that similar vehicle-problem levels occur after three years of ownership for domestics and imports. But respondents to this study are more than three times more likely to avoid domestic brand vehicles due to reliability concerns than they are to avoid imports. This shows that consumer perception is not in line with experience.”
This was a central point of my original text.
Phil
Why didn’t Lotus buy a GM motor? Or Ford? Lotus could go anywhere and buy any engine they liked. They picked Toyota. Must be the alternatives were even less impressive.
The choice was covered in the automotive press at the time. They clearly didn’t buy an “impressive” engine, just a good one. Lotus builds light cars (good). They didn’t need a lot of power. The Corolla engine was cheap, small, light, and they got a deal. Given where the car ended up in price, imagine what it would be like with the 2.0L Ecotec Turbo or a Honda mill, for that matter.
If the “import bigots” should bestir themselves to get “fully informed” about domestic cars, don’t you also think that import avoiders should be fully informed? So that they also make the best decisions possible?
As individuals, sure. Breaking down bigoted buying behavior is generally good all around. But for this topic, import avoiders and domestic bigots aren’t my concern since the economic consequences of their behavior aren’t undermining the manufacturing footprint of our economy.
I see they cite “maintenance costs” as a reason to avoid imports. They’re not fully informed. Repairs to my Volvos, with the sole exception of an alternator – that part was notably expensive – were always very reasonable and sometimes surprisingly cheap. Scheduled maintenance on the Toyotas is the same price as similar work on any other car. When I go to Happy-Lube, they don’t charge me a different price because it’s a Toyota (although some do charge extra if they have to remove a skid plate and so forth).
My local mechanic, who charges the exact same rate for work on a Volvo, VW or Toyota as on a domestic car. I’ll bet some import avoiders labor under the misapprehension that labor rates differ.
Maybe these import avoiders should get the facts?
I think it’s hard to pin down the facts on this issue. I do think maintenance cost differences are probably magnified in people’s minds, on both sides of the import/domestic divide; and they vary by of repair services. I do know that in every area I’ve lived, import parts costs tend to stun import car owners I’ve known. Labor rates might be the same at a local mechanic, but different at dealerships. I know that a Corvette is much cheaper to maintain than a similar performance Porsche, but that’s not mainstream. Is a Nissan Altima going to be meaningfully more expensive to maintain than a Malibu or Fusion? Probably not. But the variables make being certain, difficult. Vehicle construction variables can affect the labor charge for a repair, but this is a problem across the board, as cars are built less for convenient disassembly.
Phil
It would seem that for the sake of its Big 2.8 customers (JD Power earns its revenues by selling data to the automakers), JD Power is attempting to claim equivalence when their own data contradicts that assertion:
But respondents to this study are more than three times more likely to avoid domestic brand vehicles due to reliability concerns than they are to avoid imports. This shows that consumer perception is not in line with experience.
As an example, here are the overall quality results of the 2007 IQS for compact cars:
5 stars (best):
Honda Civic
4 stars (above average):
Hyundai Elantra Sdn
Kia Spectra Sdn
Toyota Corolla
3 stars (average):
Chevrolet Cobalt
Ford Focus
Nissan Sentra
Saturn ION
Toyota Matrix
Toyota Prius
2 stars (below average):
Dodge Caliber
Mazda 3
Pontiac G5
Pontiac Vibe
Suzuki Forenza
Suzuki SX4
Volkswagen Jetta
Volkswagen Beetle
Volkswagen Rabbit
Here’s the rating for overall quality, mechanical:
5 stars (best):
Honda Civic
Toyota Corolla
Toyota Prius
4 stars (above average):
Kia Spectra Sdn
3 stars (average):
Ford Focus
Hyundai Elantra Sdn
Pontiac G5
Pontiac Vibe
Saturn ION
Toyota Matrix
2 stars (below average):
Chevrolet Cobalt
Dodge Caliber
Mazda 3
Nissan Sentra
Suzuki Forenza
Suzuki SX4
Volkswagen Jetta
Volkswagen Beetle
Volkswagen Rabbit
To dig a bit deeper, among the four mechanical reliability categories, the Caliber and Cobalt earned rankings of only 2 and 3 stars. The Focus earned only 2 and 3 stars in each of these mechanical reliability categories except for features and accessories, where it earned a five-star rating.
What seems to happen is that the reliability ratings of Buicks, Lincolns and Cadillacs, which are exceptions to the norm that skew up the average when referring to the 3-year VDS study at the brand level. But given the individual vehicles’ deficiencies in other areas, many buyers still tend to prefer the alternatives. Reliability isn’t the only factor that encourages domestic avoidance, as JD Power itself reports in its own findings.
Link: http://www.jdpower.com/util/ratings/results.aspx?study_id=210&vertical=Autos&order=1&orderDir=1&v1=Compact%20Car
Pch101, thanks for the survey data. I found it interesting.
Well I think that study proves what we all suspected. Hardcore domestic buyers are bigots who refuse to buy a car merely because its from an Asian company. I bet many of those same buyers will be all too happy to buy a car from European makers. I think its rather sad that this is still such a large factor in the 21st century.
Phil points out that JDP also wrote: “Surveying owners of vehicle brands from the U.S., Asia and Europe, JDPA’ssyndicated 2006 Vehicle Dependability Study shows that similar vehicle-problem levels occur after three years of ownership for domestics and imports. But respondents to this study are more than three times more likely to avoid domestic brand vehicles due to reliability concerns than they are to avoid imports. This shows that consumer perception is not in line with experience.”
And Phil followed that up with: This was a central point of my original text.”
Yeah, and your central point is still wrong because you are interpreting the message there entirely wrong.
“Similar vehicle problem levels?” Sure, they’re “similar,” if we look at the Germans AND the Japanese and everybody else. VW drags everything down and the Koreans and Mitsubishi aren’t stellar. JDP’s own “long term” (in quotes because it’s not long at all) reliability numbers show Toyota and Honda are easily ahead of Detroit.
And, as a consequence, the German brands do not get the brand loyalty that Honda and Toyota do. Mitsubishi doesn’t get that loyalty, either (although this could change). Mazda gets some of it. Consumer perceptions do not lump all the import brands together, they are more discriminating.
It’s not import bigotry, it’s experience.
It would seem that for the sake of its Big 2.8 customers (JD Power earns its revenues by selling data to the automakers), JD Power is attempting to claim equivalence when their own data contradicts that assertion:
This is a fairly binary issue. Either JDP is credible or they’re not. If your assertion is to be believed, they’re not.
Also, the JDP statement made a comment about parity in problems after 3 years of ownership, and you’re citing initial quality. That citation is obfuscation.
Reliability isn’t the only factor that encourages domestic avoidance, as JD Power itself reports in its own findings.
One of my points, exactly.
Phil
Well I think that study proves what we all suspected. Hardcore domestic buyers are bigots who refuse to buy a car merely because its from an Asian company. I bet many of those same buyers will be all too happy to buy a car from European makers. I think its rather sad that this is still such a large factor in the 21st century.
To the extent that people avoid Asian cars exclusively because they’re of Asian origin, I agree.
Yeah, and your central point is still wrong because you are interpreting the message there entirely wrong.
JDP said it, not me. It’s a simple, direct statement not at all confusing.
It’s not import bigotry, it’s experience.
Except when it isn’t. JDP’s own numbers demonstrate that only a minority of folks have any actual experience that’s persuasive to their choice. Pch101 says there’s more than reliability behind this, when the data on reliability becomes inconvenient. You say it *is* reliability as experienced by owners, but this data says that’s not true for very many people. You guys ought to get together on your story.
However, the real issue is that the only data that makes your case is data on *perception*, which is the root of my original text.
Phil
Except when it isn’t. JDP’s own numbers demonstrate that only a minority of folks have any actual experience that’s persuasive to their choice. Pch101 says there’s more than reliability behind this, when the data on reliability becomes inconvenient. You say it *is* reliability as experienced by owners, but this data says that’s not true for very many people. You guys ought to get together on your story.
Reliability is more than just about just personal experience. I don’t need to have cancer to know that smoking is bad for me. The fact that 33% of people have had a negative personal experience with a domestic is startling. Only 10% of smokers ever develop lung cancer.
Pch101 says there’s more than reliability behind this, when the data on reliability becomes inconvenient.
Now you’re being disingenuous.
The point has been made above on more than one occasion that (a) domestic products have lost their esteem for many reasons and that (b) the few products that are deemed reliable are lacking in other ways.
I previously referenced the Oshawa plant as a rare example of a GM plant that works well. The only problem is that it builds the Lacrosse, which is reliable but otherwise unspectacular. If the choice is between a Lacrosse and an Accord, Americans clearly prefer the Accord.
I would think that listing a Top Ten would have made it clear that there is more than one reason for the decline and fall of the Detroit empire. What is notable here is that the import avoiders are clearly a more visceral bunch, as they use emotional reasons (we don’t like furriners) as a basis for avoiding certain purchases, rather than stuff that matters to smart consumers: reliability, workmanship, fuel efficiency, etc.
In any case, it’s funny to see the author of this article squirm about JD Power research after claiming its eminence. My earlier qualifier merely pointed out that the summary comment that JD Power made about its own research was tempered by the actual hard data, which showed the domestic products to be subperformers in the compact category.
Reliability is more than just about just personal experience. I don’t need to have cancer to know that smoking is bad for me. The fact that 33% of people have had a negative personal experience with a domestic is startling. Only 10% of smokers ever develop lung cancer.
I don’t doubt that some people think this way.
I previously referenced the Oshawa plant as a rare example of a GM plant that works well. The only problem is that it builds the Lacrosse, which is reliable but otherwise unspectacular. If the choice is between a Lacrosse and an Accord, Americans clearly prefer the Accord.
GM has a few models that compete with Accord in purpose, size, price and configuration. The Buick is just one of them.
I would think that listing a Top Ten would have made it clear that there is more than one reason for the decline and fall of the Detroit empire. What is notable here is that the import avoiders are clearly a more visceral bunch, as they use emotional reasons (we don’t like furriners) as a basis for avoiding certain purchases, rather than stuff that matters to smart consumers: reliability, workmanship, fuel efficiency, etc.
Maybe, but this is irrelevant here. There are domestic bigots, but they are not germane to this issue. I don’t advocate bigot buying behavior for domestics either, but it happens that their bias is favorable to the US economic and social context. It would only be a topic if I were taking up the cause of increasing import penetration in our market. I’m not.
In any case, it’s funny to see the author of this article squirm about JD Power research after claiming its eminence. My earlier qualifier merely pointed out that the summary comment that JD Power made about its own research was tempered by the actual hard data, which showed the domestic products to be subperformers in the compact category.
I’m not squirming about it. I haven’t actually said anything so far about what I think of the *veracity* of JDP data. I only said that much of the market considers their initial quality data actionable. That’s quite separate from whether *I* think it’s actionable. I plainly pointed out a reservation about the survey methodology, but then said I’ll go with the data for sake of discussion. It was you who impugned JDP’s motives and rep for a conclusion they drew, not me. It was you who attempted to refute that conclusion regarding 3 year ownership data by citing initial quality data. But let’s even give you benefit of doubt. That’s all pointless distraction from the central revelation that the majority of avoiders of either class of vehicle are not avoiding them on benefit of direct personal experience. Just as I originally posited.
Phil
So here we have it, the correlation between a negative automotive experience and purchasing a Detroit product is greater than the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Is it any wonder some people will not consider buying one of their products?
The fact that 33% of people have had a negative personal experience with a domestic is startling.
Actually, that’s not what the data reports. It says instead that only 33% of the people who won’t consider an American car have had a negative experience. This figure says nothing about the population of vehicle owners at large, whereas the smoking/cancer correlation is for the smoking population as a whole.
Phil
I’m not squirming about it.
Coulda fooled me! At this point, it must getting difficult to see every vaguely quantitative argument you’ve made contradicted by the actual research.
It was you who impugned JDP’s motives and rep for a conclusion they drew, not me. It was you who attempted to refute that conclusion regarding 3 year ownership data by citing initial quality data.
I think that you need to read more carefully. What I did was show the contradiction between JD Power’s summary statement about its data, and what the data actually says when viewed on the micro level.
One of the problems with citing the 3-year data in this context is that what is reported to the public is based upon brands, not nameplates. (I would presume that only clients that pay a lot of money get the details of the 3-year data.) Accordingly, if I’m shopping for a Cobalt, looking to the relative reliability of the (frumpy, underpowered) Lacrosse is not a good indicator of what to expect from the Chevy. You can’t judge the reliability of the whole of GM’s stable of 70+ products based upon a few vehicles that are an exception, rather than a rule.
I pointed at the IQS data because it is nameplate-specific. (Ultimately, consumers put a nameplate in the driveway.) Now, JD Power claims that the IQS data matters because it is an indicator of long-term reliability, so if you believe that, then it’s pretty obvious that the IQS does not correlate to the assertion that domestics and transplants are equal, as can be seen above.
So that leaves a few possible options:
-The compact category is some glaring exception to the rule
-JD Power is wrong, and IQS results are not a good indicator of long-term reliability, as claimed
-Domestic compacts are inferior in reliability to imported and transplanted ones.
In any case, let’s not get distracted from the results of the Avoider’s Survey. It’s pretty clear that domestic avoiders want reliability, quality and fuel economy, among other virtues, and many have a first- or third-hand bad experience with domestics. Further, it’s clear that import avoiders are dominated by anti-Asian ideologues who for whatever reason don’t buy Asian because they’re Asian.
This outcome is a complete contradiction of Mr. Ressler’s still-unproven thesis. Domestic avoiders want good products (with “good” requiring several components in addition to reliability), and sure enough, the quantitative data shows the imports to generally be superior, although there are certainly exceptions. Dig further, and it becomes clear that retail sales figures for mainstream vehicles match pretty well with reliability and quality surveys from JD Power and Consumer Reports, which further validates the results of the Avoider Survey and invalidates the author’s thesis that the buyer is generally uninformed.
It’s time to face the facts. The more awareness there is of transplants and imports, the more that Americans want them. Information creates demand for Honda and Toyota, and market share erosion for the domestics. The author would like you to believe that it is ignorance that cripples the Big 2.8, but the data makes it obvious that the main thing carrying the Big 2.8 today is anti-foreign sentiment. If the author is concerned about “bigotry” in our culture, he needs to look to his buddies in the flagwaving camp because as JD Power has shown, that’s where most of them reside.
So here we have it, the correlation between a negative automotive experience and purchasing a Detroit product is greater than the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Is it any wonder some people will not consider buying one of their products?
IF the JDP figure were extrapolated to the whole vehicle-owning population (a dubious extrapolation but we’ll go with it since you seem to want to), the implication is that 32% of 18%, or just 5.76% of vehicle owners have had a negative experience with American cars. As long as you’re making (ridiculous) comparisons, they may as well be level.
Phil
IF the JDP figure were extrapolated to the whole vehicle-owning population (a dubious extrapolation but we’ll go with it since you seem to want to), the implication is that 32% of 18%, or just 5.76% of vehicle owners have had a negative experience with American cars.
Perhaps a discussion of statistics is in order.
The survey reported the “bad experience” data of the avoiders. It did not report the “bad experience” data of the non-avoiders.
As a review of the data indicates, there are non-avoiders who ultimately buy imported cars. An “avoider” is defined as one who eliminates a category from their shopping with some consideration for origins, not one who actually buys a domestic product.
In other words, the survey alludes to but does not measure a pool of buyers who ultimately chose imports/transplants, even though they considered domestic products. Obviously, they had their own reasons for rejecting domestic products, too.
Those reasons aren’t reported here, but the market share data makes clear that they still rejected them. What we do know is that the figure is going to be higher — perhaps substantially higher — than 5.7% because this survey doesn’t attempt to count all of those who have heard the bad news or experienced themselves, but just those who acted on it to the point that they reject domestic alternatives out of hand.
The declining market share of the domestics in favor of transplants and imports tells you that consumer tastes are moving in the direction of those “foreign” offerings. Looking at those who have gotten to the point that domestics are now out of the question should provide some inside as to why this probably is the case.
It is possible for buyers to have had a bad experience with a domestic or to have known someone who had a bad experience, yet still opted to either (a) buy a domestic, anyway or (b) buy an import/transplant after giving some consideration to a domestic.
However you slice it, the domestics are in trouble. (Surely the author would concur with that, otherwise he wouldn’t written the editorial.) The data make it clear that they are in trouble because their products are less able to address consumer needs than can rival products, which consumers are buying instead. In some cases, consumers make the move for positive reasons (they like the import); in others, because they are choosing the lesser of however many evils (they dislike the domestic; and in others still, it may be a combination of both. But whatever it is, the domestics have a lot of work to do, and complaining about consumers and showing a blatant misunderstanding of statistical analysis, as has Mr. Ressler here, isn’t going to do Detroit any good.
At this point, it must getting difficult to see every vaguely quantitative argument you’ve made contradicted by the actual research.
Your own data shows otherwise. It demonstrates conclusively that most Detroit 3 avoidance is not informed by actual experience.
I think that you need to read more carefully. What I did was show the contradiction between JD Power’s summary statement about its data, and what the data actually says when viewed on the micro level.
You impugned JDP’s credibility by saying outright that they wrote a mollifying conclusion for benefit of some customers in contradiction of their own data. And then you compared apples to oranges by citing initial quality data to contradict a 3-year ownership conclusion.
I pointed at the IQS data because it is nameplate-specific.
And still nevertheless orthogonal to JDP’s point.
The compact category is some glaring exception to the rule
Quite possible. I conceded particular weakness in compact cars from the Detroit 3 very early in this thread.
and many have a first- or third-hand bad experience with domestics.
Actually, the data says nothing about the overlap between the sub-set with direct negative domestic experience and the sub-set that heard about someone else’s bad experience. The two subsets could be one and the same. We don’t know whether they are or not.
Further, it’s clear that import avoiders are dominated by anti-Asian ideologues who for whatever reason don’t buy Asian because they’re Asian.
To the extent that you place confidence in surveys, this could be true but it’s irrelevant to the matter at hand.
This outcome is a complete contradiction of Mr. Ressler’s still-unproven thesis. Domestic avoiders want good products (with “good” requiring several components in addition to reliability), and sure enough, the quantitative data shows the imports to generally be superior, although there are certainly exceptions. Dig further, and it becomes clear that retail sales figures for mainstream vehicles match pretty well with reliability and quality surveys from JD Power and Consumer Reports, which further validates the results of the Avoider Survey and invalidates the author’s thesis that the buyer is generally uninformed.
Actually, this survey says nothing at all about whether there is a class of buyers who won’t consider Detroit 3 cars irrespective of new model introductions and improvements to same.
It’s time to face the facts. The more awareness there is of transplants and imports, the more that Americans want them.
Awareness and comprehension are two different things. This assertion of yours says nothing about buying that is driven by social momentum. You assume a market that is 100% data driven, which is a basic error.
Information creates demand for Honda and Toyota, and market share erosion for the domestics.
This is a postulate. It may or may not be true. If it is, it’s a further indicator that people are not viewing their self-interest holistically and are too narrowly focused on the increasingly small differences in the mainstream product market.
The author would like you to believe that it is ignorance that cripples the Big 2.8,
Not ignorance; willful unwillingness by a significant subset of the buying population to objectively consider and evaluate newer competitive domestic vehicles is *hampering* (not crippling) the Detroit 3’s turn-arounds.
but the data makes it obvious that the main thing carrying the Big 2.8 today is anti-foreign sentiment.
No, you are misrepresenting your own cited data: a specific commissioned survey’s data asserts that among the 17% of the market measured as Asian vehicle avoiders, 61% do so because they won’t buy Asian. That 61% of 17% is hardly “the main thing carrying the (Detroit 3) today.” Extrapolated and if true, that’s 10.3% of the whole.
If the author is concerned about “bigotry” in our culture, he needs to look to his buddies in the flagwaving camp because as JD Power has shown, that’s where most of them reside.
You’re fabricating again. Nothing in my texts suggest buying on patriotism or “flagwaving.” My editorial was about a specific buy-side bigotry that impedes the Detroit 3 turn-around, and the larger social context as reason to amend that behavior. Concern about bigotry in our culture, is a different column topic entirely, if I chose to write it; and it’s not one pertinent to TTAC.
Phil
Those reasons aren’t reported here, but the market share data makes clear that they still rejected them. What we do know is that the figure is going to be higher — perhaps substantially higher — than 5.7% because this survey doesn’t attempt to count all of those who have heard the bad news or experienced themselves, but just those who acted on it to the point that they reject domestic alternatives out of hand.
But in fact the data doesn’t address this at all. There was an earlier silly comparison between smoking/cancer incidence, and Detroit vehicles. If the two were (meaninglessly) compared on a level field, the basis as informed by the only data at hand is as I described.
The data make it clear that they are in trouble because their products are less able to address consumer needs than can rival products, which consumers are buying instead. In some cases, consumers make the move for positive reasons (they like the import); in others, because they are choosing the lesser of however many evils (they dislike the domestic; and in others still, it may be a combination of both. But whatever it is, the domestics have a lot of work to do, and complaining about consumers and showing a blatant misunderstanding of statistical analysis, as has Mr. Ressler here, isn’t going to do Detroit any good.
My reading of the stats is sound. You’re over-reaching. Again, I’m not giving Detroit advice here. THEY can’t “complain about consumers.” But I can, as a fellow consumer, point out that a more open-minded approach that also includes a larger social context is due. Perhaps you among the hard-core data-driven buyers are resistant to that, but you’re not the whole market.
Phil
IF the JDP figure were extrapolated to the whole vehicle-owning population (a dubious extrapolation but we’ll go with it since you seem to want to), the implication is that 32% of 18%, or just 5.76% of vehicle owners have had a negative experience with American cars. As long as you’re making (ridiculous) comparisons, they may as well be level.
That’s such a faulty calculation its absurd anyone could accept it. What you have calculated is the likelihood of any car buyer obtaining a faulty Detroit product and hating it so much that they would refuse to consider another domestic product. What you have assumed effectively is that all cars sold are Detroit products and that all negative experiences result in lost sales.
That’s such a faulty calculation its absurd anyone could accept it.
Exactly. As absurd as your prior comparison.
What you have calculated is the likelihood of any car buyer obtaining a faulty Detroit product and hating it so much that they would refuse to consider another domestic product. What you have assumed effectively is that all cars sold are Detroit products and that all negative experiences result in lost sales.
BUT…it shows that negative experience by your reasoning of this calculation is not a major driver of lost sales.
Phil
Phil – you are certainly correct that it takes a small minority of people to create the fear of problems in others. Today we are talking about the “threat” posed by Iran, yet their military spending is approximately one percent of that of the U.S. And their supposed “nuclear threat”? We seem to forget that one U.S. Trident submarine, of which we have 18, is capable of destroying every population center in the former Soviet Union and would have no difficulty turning virtually the entire country of Iran into a nuclear wasteland.
Yet based on ridiculous and statistically insignificant data, the U.S. taxpayer seems ready to spend even larger sums to neutralize this supposed threat.
Is it no wonder that a tiny percentage of poor quality cars from Detroit created the sense that American-built cars are far less reliable than their Asian-brand counterparts?
Armed with far less information on the “threat” posed by Iraq, the leaders of the U.S. voted to spend money we didn’t have and waste U.S. lives on a country whose entire military, had they magically all appeared on the east end of Long Island, could not have fought their way to Queens?
And while 3,000 9/11 deaths were most certainly needless and tragic, in the intervening years we have lost more than 70,000 to the flu and over a quarter of a million in automobile accidents. No one seems capable of putting even such significant events into perspective, so how would you expect them to do so on something as relatively benign as their choice of automobiles?
There are no end of stories in our culture about how the loss of one’s reputation, through criminal acts, or irresponsibility, takes many years to recoup. Is it no wonder that people keep judging Detroit on the relatively poor quality of their products from 20 years ago? Cadillac wants to be taken seriously with the CTS, yet seemed to have no problem foisting off a truly crap “J” car, or a totally mediocre Allante on the public when it seemed the foisting was good.
People change their minds very slowly and react to small pieces of information, frequently irrationally.
In response to: “It’s not import bigotry, it’s experience.”
Phil wrote: “Except when it isn’t. JDP’s own numbers demonstrate that only a minority of folks have any actual experience that’s persuasive to their choice. Pch101 says there’s more than reliability behind this, when the data on reliability becomes inconvenient. You say it *is* reliability as experienced by owners, but this data says that’s not true for very many people. You guys ought to get together on your story.”
The data says it’s true for quite a few people and that reliability and quality issue dog the domestics for quite a few more people.
But here’s the big thing… Of the domestic avoiders, every one of them could cite reaons of personal taste (they find American cars bland or boring, for example), or for some other quantifiable reason (fuel economy, resale value, etc).
The domestic avoiders have considered the domestics and have found them lacking and can clearly articulate WHY. And, aside from matters of personal taste, the quantifiable reasons for rejection are generally backed up by objective tests and measurements. And while some things, like “reliability” or “quality” might not differ by a great deal, the effect in the market is large IF PEOPLE ASSIGN A PREMIUM TO THIS CHARACTERISTIC. Evidently, they do assign premiums to certain characteristics.
And JDPower isn’t measuring everything. American vehicle repair costs are said, by JDP to be $49 where Asians are $41. Gee… that’s not such a big deal. Except this does not take into account the aggravation of having one’s plans screwed up by a car that didn’t perform as expected.
And, as I pointed out earlier, JDPower is lumping ALL the “Asians” together. They should split out Honda and Toyota from the rest and see what pops out of their graphs. But they don’t, to protect the tender feelings of Detroit.
Domestic avoidance doesn’t spring from “bigotry,” it comes from prodcut knowledge. Imperfect knowledge? Perhaps. BUT it’s Detroit’s responsibility to give the customer compelling reasons to seek additional information. They aren’t doing that. You can’t even name “competitive” Detroit cars.
There’s food for thought on page 31 of that report PCH101 found. I suggest you take a look and consider it.
But here’s the big thing… Of the domestic avoiders, every one of them could cite reasons of personal taste (they find American cars bland or boring, for example), or for some other quantifiable reason (fuel economy, resale value, etc).
The domestic avoiders have considered the domestics and have found them lacking and can clearly articulate WHY. And, aside from matters of personal taste, the quantifiable reasons for rejection are generally backed up by objective tests and measurements.
If avoidance isn’t informed by direct experience, it isn’t a quantifiable avoidance backed up by objective tests. It’s subjective reaction and asking people what influences them in a survey isn’t the same as knowing the actual behavior.
And while some things, like “reliability” or “quality” might not differ by a great deal, the effect in the market is large IF PEOPLE ASSIGN A PREMIUM TO THIS CHARACTERISTIC. Evidently, they do assign premiums to certain characteristics.
Sure, but if that premium is assigned to exaggerated perception, then it’s still avoidance on emotion rather than fact.
American vehicle repair costs are said, by JDP to be $49 where Asians are $41. Gee… that’s not such a big deal. Except this does not take into account the aggravation of having one’s plans screwed up by a car that didn’t perform as expected.
I see. That $41 Asian car repair somehow magically happens while you’re driving or sleeping with the car in the garage, but that $49 domestic repair inconveniences the owner in some unique way?
They should split out Honda and Toyota from the rest and see what pops out of their graphs. But they don’t, to protect the tender feelings of Detroit.
You’re surmising on the latter, and if that’s the case, then JDP is undermining their own credibility. But Honda and Toyota don’t comprise the majority of the market. Are they somehow the exclusive domain of the mythical super-rationalist buyer? Well, of course not. Nor are all their cars equally robust.
Domestic avoidance doesn’t spring from “bigotry,” it comes from product knowledge.
Apparently only for a small minority of the market. If I accept the commissioned JDP data, bigoted buyer avoidance of domestics appears to be an even bigger problem than I thought.
BUT it’s Detroit’s responsibility to give the customer compelling reasons to seek additional information. They aren’t doing that. You can’t even name “competitive” Detroit cars.
You’re still having trouble understanding that my text is not directed to Detroit. It’s not marketing advice to them. I’m focused here on a specific consumer component. I *can* list competitive Detroit 3 cars, but I won’t, here, beyond what I’ve sprinkled throughout this thread, for reasons already stated.
Phil
You’re still having trouble understanding that my text is not directed to Detroit.
Mr. Ressler, it’s pretty clear that everyone remaining on this thread understands you. What everyone is telling you is that lecturing consumers as you do is a poor use of your efforts, given that consumers are rational enough and are not the problem.
Detroit’s ultimate problem is not with revenue or expenses, but with its inability to create products that people want. We know that the public doesn’t want them because they are leaving Detroit for other products. We know that those leaving are generally logical because they make decisions based upon rational criteria, as well as their tastes. And the data supports their decision to leave.
The only person on the thread who doesn’t get these basics is you, Mr. Ressler. This topic has clearly been studied by some reputable organizations (as opposed to your favored non-institute “institute” that you prefer), and they observe the very same phenomenon that your opponents on this thread have seen.
What I find most amusing is that every time you are presented with data, you interpret it in the oddest of ways in order to miss the obvious. A smart business guy in a domestic shop would see some of the JD Power survey figures and think, “Damn, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with our products and services, on a number of levels. Maybe we had better fix it.”
On the other hand, you can see that Toyota takes it pretty seriously. If you’ve seen all those ads in which they tout their American credentials, you can look at the JD Power study as to why they are doing it — they are attempting to become “less Asian” because this is their main stumbling block in reaching the Asian avoiders! They have spent years building plants in the US in part for this reason. So they are well prepared and willing to learn not just from their customers, but also those who are not yet their customers so that they can one day sell something to them, too.
In any case, I hope that you realize that if Detroit is managed with your mentality (and I believe that GM is operated largely by folks with your mindset) that the company is toast. If their responses to the JD Power data is anywhere as near evasive and riddled with cognitive dissonance as what you have provided here, there is no reason to expect them to succeed or to take customer needs seriously.
We know that those leaving are generally logical because they make decisions based upon rational criteria, as well as their tastes. And the data supports their decision to leave.
Go to http://www.truedelta.com and compare pricing of a 2007 Ford Fusion to a 2007 Toyota Camry and a 2007 Honda Accord. The Fusion is $2-$3k cheaper. Now open your Consumer Reports and look at the reliability data of all three vehicles. All three are excellent and are recommended by CR. Now check the crash tests. Everything looks good there too.
The Fusion is just as reliable as the Camry and Accord, just as safe, and is cheaper. How does the data support a customer’s decision to buy the import here? It doesn’t, because the decision to buy the import is not a rational decision. It is a lemming decision, a subjective bias with only some basis in reason.
Now go drive all three and tell me the imports are superior. If you’ve done that, which is what Phil is suggesting you do when all of the rational data tells you to do it, then you can let your subjective experience determine if the imports are worth $2k-$3k more. The reality is that most Camry and Accord buyers won’t even consider the Fusion, let alone research it and drive it.
The Fusion is just as reliable as the Camry and Accord
Perhaps it is: both Consumer Reports and JD Power claim it to be well above average.
But it’s a new car, and the consumer doesn’t yet know whether it will go the distance. For someone who wants decent residuals and a sure thing, it is a dice roll.
Most people stick to Vegas if they want to bet a lot of money on an unsure thing. It is irrational to assume that 1-2 years of results will translate into a smart long-term play. Listening to Mr. Farago’s interview of the Ford quality analyst does not assure me that the gains are long-term or consistent for Ford products across the board.
Over the years, FoMoCo has burned a lot of people. Even if the company makes products that are highly reliable and desirable with good residuals, it will still take years to earn back the trust of the consumer. I don’t blame the consumer for hesitating and waiting for long-haul results, and neither should you.
Go to http://www.truedelta.com and compare pricing of a 2007 Ford Fusion to a 2007 Toyota Camry and a 2007 Honda Accord. The Fusion is $2-$3k cheaper. Now open your Consumer Reports and look at the reliability data of all three vehicles. All three are excellent and are recommended by CR. Now check the crash tests. Everything looks good there too.
And if the trend of reliability continues it would be a good purchase. I would definitely consider purchasing one if the reliability remains good and the residues went up. Unfortunately, only two years of data are available and the residues are poor. You may pay less up front, but at trade in time you will be taking a hit. A used 2006 fusion sells for less than a 2004 Accord.
As it stands, You get a car with slightly worse gas millage, a slightly less powerful engine for slightly less money.
Btw, according to cars.com the 07 accord is slightly cheaper than the 07 fusion as a result of end of model year incentives. Truedelta must not have updated their pricing to reflect this.
pdub, is that a long-term trend or a one-model fluke? How about long-term reliability? The jury is out on the Fusion. I *think* the Fusion is a sign Ford has turned a corner but I’m not ready to bet $23,000 on that, yet. If you’re convinced that the Fusion is a good, reliable car that will challenge the Japanese, you can get ahead of the curve by buying one now, especially a used one, before the market recognizes the change. To be sure, I’ve thought about that myself. But I’m not persuaded, yet.
In response to: “The domestic avoiders have considered the domestics and have found them lacking and can clearly articulate WHY. And, aside from matters of personal taste, the quantifiable reasons for rejection are generally backed up by objective tests and measurements.”
Phil wrote: “If avoidance isn’t informed by direct experience, it isn’t a quantifiable avoidance backed up by objective tests.”
Which is utter crap. The consumer does not owe any manufacturer “direct experience” as part of his purchase process. The consumer demands – and should get – value for his money. The consumer is free to get his information from any source he likes and short-list the products the way he sees fit. Period. What is and isn’t “competitive” is entirely up to the consumer. Import avoiders understand the situation well, and according to their priorities, Detroit has no “competitive” products.
The avoiders have identifiable reasons for avoiding Detroit. The reasons they cite are backed up by well-known metrics. They aren’t making arbitrary and capricious decisions, they’re making decisions that are well-aligned with their goals.
None of the reasons the import avoiders avoid Detroit should have been news to Detroit in December of 2006, when this survey was released, unless they were so badly managed as to be a complete laughingstock. If they so chose, Detroit could have done something about these reasons a decade and more ago.
Phil also wrote: “It’s subjective reaction and asking people what influences them in a survey isn’t the same as knowing the actual behavior.”
Are you suggesting they are not telling the truth? Why wouldn’t they? If one was going to lie on a survey, why say “I’m a bigot” by saying “I don’t buy Asian?”
Did you look at Page 31 of the JDP survey? American avoiders are better educated and make more money. Do you find that interesting?
And, finally, in response to: “American vehicle repair costs are said, by JDP to be $49 where Asians are $41. Gee… that’s not such a big deal. Except this does not take into account the aggravation of having one’s plans screwed up by a car that didn’t perform as expected.”
Phil wrote: “I see. That $41 Asian car repair somehow magically happens while you’re driving or sleeping with the car in the garage, but that $49 domestic repair inconveniences the owner in some unique way?”
No, you don’t see. And I had spelled it out for you. For people who put a premium on reliability, small differences in failure rates mean a great deal. Think of this as reliability “elasticity.”
“The Fusion is just as reliable as the Camry and Accord, just as safe, and is cheaper. How does the data support a customer’s decision to buy the import here? It doesn’t, because the decision to buy the import is not a rational decision. It is a lemming decision, a subjective bias with only some basis in reason.”
“Now go drive all three and tell me the imports are superior. If you’ve done that, which is what Phil is suggesting you do when all of the rational data tells you to do it, then you can let your subjective experience determine if the imports are worth $2k-$3k more. The reality is that most Camry and Accord buyers won’t even consider the Fusion, let alone research it and drive it.”
First I don’t know that most Camcord buyers won’t consider the Fusion, but even if it’s true, there are sensible, logical reasons for doing so – not just lemming reasons.
As others have said, the reliability of the Fusion is largely guesswork at this point. It hasn’t been out long enough to really compare to Camccord. Other’s have already also mentioned that reslae value is unlikely to be as good with the Ford.
There’s an additional sensible reason – namely the one I’ve always had. My first new car was a Honda, and I was delighted with it. Aside from social factors, what incentive did I have to shop around? What was the likelihood that the Escort was going to be better than another Civic? Did I really need to test drive the Cavalier? I havn’t really been intentionally avoiding domestics – it’s just that Honda made me a happy customer from day one, so I’ve been inclined to stay with them.
Back when I bought that first new car, if the General had something better to offer than the Chevette, then I might well have been with the Gerneral all these years. This is what Detroit is up against – they couldn’t cut the mustard 20+ years ago, and now that they can (maybe) they can’t get people to come check them out. While I’m sympathetic to Phil’s challenge to consider social consequences, I doubt most people will factor them into their buying decission. Fair or not, the D3 will continue to pay for their poor product of two decades ago.
But if we consider social factors, as Phil has encouraged, some of us may come to the conclusion that Camccord is better for America than the Fusion. Camccords are made here, by American labor. That does more for the American economy than Mexican jobs. Phil makes much of where the profit goes, but labor is a bigger component of price than profit, so more money stays here if I buy a Camccord than if I by the foreign built Ford. Additionally, I like to punish American companies that use NAFTA as a way to offshore good jobs – which of course was the whole intent of NAFTA. Toyota and Honda are building plants in this country, and creating American jobs. You can have a different opinion of NAFTA, but I have mine, and I’m not buying a made in Mexico car with an American brand/name plate. I’d prefere an American made car with a Japanese name. So if I do as Phil suggest, Fusion doesn’t even merit a look-see. Now Malibu, that would be a whole other story. (Made in the USA, by union labor – if this car is competitive, I’d be very interested in it, due to social considerations) It’s simply not the case that if social considerations are factored into the buying decission that the choice automatically defaults to the D3.
One additonal point – why should someone in say Alabama weigh the social factors and conclude that they should support Detroit? Wouldn’t social factors in AL encourage support of Hyundai? Wouldn’t social factors in Marysville, OH suggest supporting Honda? You can’t expect people to think USA first, local economy 2nd. Even less can you expect them to think Detroit first (when they don’t live there) and local economy second.
A bit more fun with statistics: To correct an earlier misstatement that I made, apparently JD Power does provide the most recent VDS (3-year reliability) data on its website for free, which means that the current data is for 2004 model vehicles. So let’s take a look at it.
Previously, we saw JD Power make a general statement that domestics and Asians have similar reliability at the 3-year mark. A closer look at the data shows that comment equating domestic and transplant reliability is not particularly accurate when applied to the decisions made in the real-world when buying a car.
Let’s consider some of the more common segments among American car buyers. We’ll start with the compact car category, one of the most popular segments in the US. Results:
5 stars (best):
Honda Civic
Toyota Corolla
Toyota Prius
4 stars (better than average):
None
3 stars (average):
Chevrolet Cavalier
Ford Focus
Hyundai Elantra
MINI Cooper
Pontiac Vibe
Toyota Matrix
Volkswagen Golf
2 stars (below average):
Dodge Neon
Kia Spectra
Mazda 3
Nissan Sentra
Pontiac Sunfire
Saturn ION
Suzuki Forenza
Volkswagen Beetle
Volkswagen Jetta
(continued below)
I’ll just add that all Detroit needs to do is build cars that delight the customer, and everything else will take care of itself.
Well, it seems that the point being argued here is whether those that purchase Asian cars are a distinctly different subset from those that purchase American cars. I don’t really have an amswer to that, but that certainly would provide a reason to discount these vehicles. It has been shown by many sources in the past that the Civic, though more expensive to purchase, was a better overall value in the long term. Is it possible that this is the premise that such buyers are going on? Also, the Fusion debate brings up another point. Why wouldn’t I just buy an ’06 Fusion for a steep discount? It is the smart thing to do and anyone willing to stop and take the larger social context of their purchasing power into condieraton is smart enough figure this out. Put another way….
If you are stupid enough to be an import bigot for no reason, you won’t be reading this editorial. If you are here, you probably already have strong reason behind your vehicle purchasing history. So, what has this accomplished?
(continued from above)
Next, here is the mid-size car segment, the other most popular segment in the US car market:
5 stars (best):
Buick Century
Buick Regal
Mercury Sable
4 stars (better than average):
Honda Accord
Subaru Outback
Toyota Camry
3 stars (average):
Chevrolet Malibu
Chrysler Sebring
Ford Taurus
Hyundai Sonata
Hyundai XG350
Kia Optima
Mitsubishi Galant
Oldsmobile Alero
Pontiac Grand Am
Saturn L Series
Subaru Legacy
Volkswagen Passat
2 stars (below average):
Dodge Intrepid
Dodge Stratus Sedan
Mazda 6
Nissan Altima
Suzuki Verona
And for fun, here is the “Compact Multi-Activity Vehicle” category:
5 stars (best):
Honda CR-V
Toyota RAV4
4 stars (better than average):
Chevrolet Tracker
Honda Element
Jeep Liberty
Subaru Forester
3 stars (average):
Chrysler PT Cruiser
Hyundai Santa Fe
Jeep Wrangler
Mitsubishi Outlander
Scion xB
2 stars (below average):
Ford Escape
Mazda Tribute
Nissan Xterra
Pontiac Aztek
Saturn VUE
Suzuki Vitara
Suzuki XL7
So let’s take a look at these results. Outcome:
-As has been noted throughout this thread, Honda and Toyota dominate the reliability ratings within given segments. Not every product is equally good, but the high volume sellers tend to be highly reliable vehicles that beat the norm. The pragmatic consumer wins again.
-Domestics tend to lag Honda and Toyota. (Again, no surprise to Dynamic88, KixStart, and others who have claimed this repeatedly through the thread.) The few that are highly reliable according to JD Power are frumpy cars burdened with old tech, geared toward the senior crowd (there is, after all, a reason why they don’t make the Buick Century any more). This confirms the findings of the Avoider Survey, which notes that while reliability is a critical issue, it is not the only issue that prevents the domestics from competing effectively.
-The “Asian” averages are dragged down by lesser brands such as Mitsubishi and Mazda. Nissan delivers mixed results, so not surprisingly, the one-time leader now lags behind the more reliable Honda and Toyota. As KixStart pointed out previously, not all “Asian” brands are created equal, and as the sales figures indicate, American car buyers have figured this out.
So there’s your data. Obviously, it shows Honda and Toyota reliability to generally be superior to that of equivalent Chevy’s and Fords. There are a few standout exceptions such as the Lacrosse, but it lacks the styling, road manners and other attributes that would likely appeal to your typical Civic, Corolla, Accord or Camry buyer. The few domestics that do lead the pack in reliability are just not very interesting cars, offering driving experiences that the enthusiast and not-so-enthusiast press would both generally consider to be inferior.
As would be consistent with the informed consumer driving much of the market, the sales volume leaders in each segment correlate fairly closely to the reliability data. But styling and/or fun factor does sometimes allow for some exceptions to the rule to prevail, as the Nissan Altima, Mazda 3 and Chrysler 300 all illustrate.
It’s no mistake that Honda and Toyota are market leaders. The sales figures make clear the buyers’ understanding that Honda and Toyota are uniquely better than the other automakers, and the issue is not as simple as the “Asian” versus “American” schism painted by the flagwavers.
And successful cars also have to be desirable cars, at least in some way. The old-line old-tech seniormobiles such as the Century just haven’t been up to snuff. Even if the domestics close the reliability gap, that alone will not be enough.
Wow this thread deserves its own website.
If I understand Phil correctly, your editorial is addressed rhetorically to the general buying public and in summation is that many Detroit products are as good as their imported counterparts and should be considered by buyers who currently will not even look at a Detroit vehicle. The reason they should do this is because the cars are as good and due to the social cost of the Detroit 3 going under.
There are in my opinion two fundamental problems in this appeal.
You preface your appeal on the assumption that many Detroit vehicles are just as good as their import equivalents. I agree with you however it should be obvious from the comments of many on this site that many do not.
We seem to have two sets of people viewing an object and the first set firmly believe they see a circle while the second set just as firmly insist the object is a square.
The fundamental problem is that many import buyers are not seeing what you are seeing. Using this analogy trying to convince someone who desires to purchase a circular object to purchase an object they view as a square will fail.
Dynamic88 addressed what I feel undermines your motivating reason, “the larger social cost issues” main argument. The former big three may support more jobs and it is important to have a manufacturing base in this country and the economy of Michigan is certainly in the gutter but the fact that the transplants have liberally spread their manufacturing base across the south and other areas is going to count more in many peoples minds.
Hypothetically lets say the California orange industry supports 5 jobs to every 1 job supported by the Florida orange industry and lets say the Brazilians own the bulk of the Florida industry. Do you really think people in Florida are going to say hey we need to buy California oranges instead of Florida oranges because ya know more jobs are supported by California oranges. Do you think that people in the states in the south around Florida would buy that argument.
I just returned from visiting my mom in her retirement home in Fremont California. I tried to schedule a tour of the NUMMI plant but unfortunately they are closed for tours now due to the model changeover. Yet every day I would pass the large plant which is right on interstate 880. Everyday thousands pass by. Do ya think those people will agree that its better to buy a domestic due to the social cost to Detroit versus the social cost to losing their factory?
The fact that John, Sally, Ben and Steve may lose their job in Detroit is not going to alleviate the suffering of Harry and Jill in Fremont if they lose their jobs. There may be more jobs in Detroit but the suffering would be just as real to Harry and Jill as would be for John, Sally, Ben and Steve.
In my opinion Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan, Kia, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Mercedes and BMW rather than GM, Ford or Chrysler are going to be seen as the home team, as the good guys and more importantly as their frienda and neighbors by many who live near or hear about a factory in their state.
In my opinion that’s why domestic sales are higher in the midwest. This is because those people do live near the affected Detroit industries. I believe 85 percent of people in Michigan still buy domestic.
Hypothetically lets say Ford is on the verge right now of going under and lets say GM and Chrysler have turned the corner. Shouldn’t all the potential GM and Chrysler buyers buy a Ford due to the social cost?
Should the Germans buy Volkswagens instead of Opels and Fords due to the social cost factors?
Bottom line in my opinion making the argument that the transplant factory job is less important than the domestic factory job because there are more domestic factory jobs at stake is a non starter because the high import penetration markets are not in the midwest. Those people want their local factories to thrive no matter whose name is on the factory gate.
As for the higher value headquarter jobs, those a–holes deserve to lose their jobs in my opinion for all the past sins that have been enumerated at length on this website. The majority of auto buyers in my opinion care more about having high paying factory jobs available than the company headquarters jobs and again most import buyers don’t live near Detroit
What everyone is telling you is that lecturing consumers as you do is a poor use of your efforts, given that consumers are rational enough and are not the problem.
I appreciate your concern for my time. It’s my call, not yours. As with all market dysfunction, there’s always a consumer element when you take a 360 degree view. In any case, obviously we don’t agree on this point.
We know that the public doesn’t want them because they are leaving Detroit for other products.
We don’t know anything of the sort about the people who are “leaving Detroit” without even evaluating their products.
A smart business guy in a domestic shop would see some of the JD Power survey figures and think, “Damn, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with our products and services, on a number of levels. Maybe we had better fix it.”
Yes, and this editorial is not advice for the hypothetical person sitting in that domestic shop. It’s a call for change of behavior among a specific subset of the automotive-buying public in the United States.
In any case, I hope that you realize that if Detroit is managed with your mentality (and I believe that GM is operated largely by folks with your mindset) that the company is toast. If their responses to the JD Power data is anywhere as near evasive and riddled with cognitive dissonance as what you have provided here, there is no reason to expect them to succeed or to take customer needs seriously.
The cognitive dissonance is all yours, since you seem unable to grasp that this specific thread is not directed at advising the Detroit 3 about how to manage their business. That’s a different subject entirely, and one about which you and I might find a fair overlap of agreement. However, for the buying public that sees personal interest in retaining American-owned domestic automotive manufacturing, satisfying those interests requires abandonment of bigoted import buying behavior, and at least fair-minded in-person/in-the-metal evaluation of new competitive vehicle models. Not hearsay; not years-off ownership data as an excuse for waiting; no excuses for social acceptance. Anyone going on record that they’d rather see the Detroit 3 collapse gets to continue to make their contribution to that outcome accordingly. There’s no rescinding of free will. No violation of free markets. Consumers get to decide whether to be slave to the hand-wringing of past slights, or to factor in a larger social context and use their purchasing power as an instrument for shaping the world they live in. They get to decide; not you or me. I merely retain the right of advocacy.
But it’s a new car, and the consumer doesn’t yet know whether it will go the distance. For someone who wants decent residuals and a sure thing, it is a dice roll.
I have to say, there isn’t a car-buying person in these United States that doesn’t make much bigger bets many times in life, or waste more money in their routine consumption than the differential amounts you’re wringing your hands over, here. This is a red herring.
I don’t blame the consumer for hesitating and waiting for long-haul results, and neither should you.
If that mentality represented the American spirit, we’d have 300 million people all pressed into a stripe no wider than 300 miles inland from the Atlantic coast.
The consumer does not owe any manufacturer “direct experience” as part of his purchase process.
Correct. But that wasn’t my point. I said, if it isn’t informed by direct experience it isn’t objective. The consumer owes no manufacturer. In my social rubric, the evaluation is owed to their fellow Americans who brought competing products to market.
The reasons they cite are backed up by well-known metrics.
IF the commissioned JDP survey is correct, the “well-known metrics” are secondary, hearsay, and most of their reasons are not informed by experience.
Are you suggesting they are not telling the truth? Why wouldn’t they? If one was going to lie on a survey, why say “I’m a bigot” by saying “I don’t buy Asian?”
Marketers face this all the time. It’s behavior easily visible in the big difference between the number of people who, when asked, say they watch PBS-TV versus the number who actually do when their viewing habits are recorded. This is also another reason marketers try to cut through the distortions of surveys by passively observing focus groups. Why say “I don’t buy Asian?” A lot of that crowd are proud of their stance. Right or wrong, that’s the sentiment. Surveys are highly suspect for finding out the real reasons people do things you’re interested in knowing.
Did you look at Page 31 of the JDP survey? American avoiders are better educated and make more money. Do you find that interesting?
Well, I’m “better educated and make more money too,” and you don’t see me agreeing. Seriously, though, this is consistent with observed behavior and the widening social divide in America. Sure it’s interesting, and not surprising. In general, educated people who are doing well in the US have lost or are losing their social and emotional connection to people unlike themselves, and they feel more in common with people who are psycho-graphically and econo-metrically similar 1000 miles away than they do with immediate neighbors in trades or manufacturing. Better educated and making more money often (but not always) translates to more social elitism. An unwillingness to see the link between their spending preferences and the world surrounding them. More to the point, educated and prosperous people tend to be intense joiners, prone to lemming behavior. Most people achieve by following, not leading. I’m not impressed by education and wealth as an excuse for bigoted buying behavior, any more than I would be by ignorance. I don’t see successful people in the aggregate as any more prone to independent thinking that the average — and often worse.
No, you don’t see. And I had spelled it out for you. For people who put a premium on reliability, small differences in failure rates mean a great deal. Think of this as reliability “elasticity.”
The difference you cited is small and barely stretching that elasticity. When I see recent vintage Toyotas or Hondas being driven with tires worn nearly to the cords (which is amazingly common) because “I can get a few more miles out of this set,” it puts the lie to this vaunted aversion to inconvenience and attention to safety and economy. No, you didn’t cite a difference worth paying attention to other than as a rationalization.
My first new car was a Honda, and I was delighted with it. Aside from social factors, what incentive did I have to shop around?
I’m positing the social factors are enough incentive. Or should be.
What was the likelihood that the Escort was going to be better than another Civic? Did I really need to test drive the Cavalier? I havn’t really been intentionally avoiding domestics – it’s just that Honda made me a happy customer from day one, so I’ve been inclined to stay with them.
Fine. I’ve been clear, this is an October 2007 issue, going forward for a few years. When you could have bought a Chevette, the Detroit 3 weren’t doing enough to improve their competitiveness to warrant this appeal.
Camccord is better for America than the Fusion. Camccords are made here, by American labor.
A Fusion purchase helps keep Ford in business. A Camcord purchase sends profit to Japan, and supports high-value jobs offshore that a transplant doesn’t place here.
Additionally, I like to punish American companies that use NAFTA as a way to offshore good jobs – which of course was the whole intent of NAFTA.
The point of NAFTA was to create an integrated trade zone that helps Americans sell to their immediate neighbors, and vice-versa, as well as to keep migration of certain jobs closer to home where such migration will benefit us by mitigating immigration pressures and improve the robustness of border economies.
Now Malibu, that would be a whole other story. (Made in the USA, by union labor – if this car is competitive, I’d be very interested in it, due to social considerations) It’s simply not the case that if social considerations are factored into the buying decision that the choice automatically defaults to the D3.
Have at the Chevy then. For the window of time I’m concerned about, social factors do default to the D3, if you want them to have the time and cash to complete their reform.
Wouldn’t social factors in AL encourage support of Hyundai? Wouldn’t social factors in Marysville, OH suggest supporting Honda? You can’t expect people to think USA first, local economy 2nd. Even less can you expect them to think Detroit first (when they don’t live there) and local economy second.
The Detroit 3 have plants dispersed around the country, and their supply chains permeate the country. Think USA first if your social horizon is focused on the world your children inherit.
If you are stupid enough to be an import bigot for no reason, you won’t be reading this editorial. If you are here, you probably already have strong reason behind your vehicle purchasing history. So, what has this accomplished?
Google, my friend — and its competing search engines — along with email forwarding and the general atomistic nature of the web. TTAC is just the launch point for finding an audience for an idea here. Bigoted buying behavior, by the way, isn’t linked to intelligence. It’s all attitude.
Phil
…many Detroit products are as good as their imported counterparts and should be considered by buyers who currently will not even look at a Detroit vehicle. The reason they should do this is because the cars are as good and due to the social cost of the Detroit 3 going under.
As good or so close that any qualitative difference you can identify is not worth incurring the social cost of buying the import.
Do ya think those people will agree that its better to buy a domestic due to the social cost to Detroit versus the social cost to losing their factory?
It’s not just the social cost to Detroit. That’s the least of it. It’s the social cost to the country. I expect it will take some campaigning and education for people who are directly linked to that NUMMI plant, for example, to see why they should lift their eyes. At least it’s half owned by GM. That plant is an anomaly. However, having lived in that area in the past, I know that most of the market there gives NUMMI no special consideration whatsoever. Proximity isn’t driving many decisions up there, and they’re making small cars that do not comprise the meat of the market.
Most of the buying public does not live close enough to transplant factories for this to be a personal interest decision factor. Toyota has under 20 plants of all types in the US. GM alone has more than 80.
The fact that John, Sally, Ben and Steve may lose their job in Detroit is not going to alleviate the suffering of Harry and Jill in Fremont if they lose their jobs. There may be more jobs in Detroit but the suffering would be just as real to Harry and Jill as would be for John, Sally, Ben and Steve.
Perhaps, but Detroit doesn’t have a monopoly on the threatened jobs, and the Bay area has a much more variegated and robust economy than the cities hosting the bulk of the Detroit 3’s manufacturing facilities and their supply chains.
In my opinion Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan, Kia, Mitsubishi, Suburu, Mercedes and BMW are going to be seen as the home team, as the good guys etc by many who live near or hear about a factory in their state.
Perhaps. But that’s the shortsighted view. However, no question there is more domestic leverage to buying a transplant car than a pure import. Still, ultimate advantage in economic leverage still goes to US HQ companies.
Hypothetically lets say Ford is on the verge right now of going under and lets say GM and Chrysler have turned the corner. Shouldn’t all the potential GM and Chrysler buyers buy a Ford due to the social cost?
First, your hypothetical isn’t the position we’re in. The cash positions of all three combined with the war chests of some of the import companies constitute an existential threat to Detroit companies simultaneously, for the first time. GM can turn a quarter and still run out of time. Second, if Ford were going under, GM and Chrysler would have a chance to expand to embrace Ford’s former market share by absorbing their former demand.
Should the Germans buy Volkswagens instead of Opels and Fords due to the social cost factors?
If Volkswagen’s problem get severe enough that they collapse, taking Audi, Porsche, Skoda, etc. with them, then Germans may well see buying competitive VWs in their direct social interest. That’s for Germans to decide. They don’t share our global responsibilities, but they do have a continuing immigration influx of unskilled and semi-skilled workers to accommodate. In general, other countries understand this argument better than Americans.
Bottom line in my opinion making the argument that the transplant factory job is less important than the domestic factory job because there are more domestic factory jobs at stake is a non starter because the high import penetration markets are not in the midwest. Those people want their local factories to thrive no matter whose name is on the factory gate.
Honda and Toyota are gaining momentum in the midwest/plains states, so there is some swing available there. But the swing that matters most has to come from both coasts, and the urban psychographic located in between that tends to mimic them.
As for the higher value headquarter jobs, those a–holes deserve to lose their jobs in my opinion for all the past sins that have been enumerated at length on this website. The majority of auto buyers in my opinion care more about having high paying factory jobs available than the company headquarters jobs and again most import buyers don’t live near Detroit
Those HQ jobs aren’t all executive. Mostly not, in fact. And losing them will show up in declining tax receipts and capital circulation. Sure, move the non-performers out and get competent replacements in. Surely a lot of people deserve to be fired. But it’s in everyone’s interests to keep those valuable jobs here, whether they’re at HQ or dispersed around the country.
Phil
In response to several lines culminating in: “The consumer does not owe any manufacturer “direct experience” as part of his purchase process.”
Phil: “Correct. But that wasn’t my point.”
Yes, it really is.
Phil: “I said, if it isn’t informed by direct experience it isn’t objective. The consumer owes no manufacturer. In my social rubric, the evaluation is owed to their fellow Americans who brought competing products to market.”
What is this “direct experience” BS? Objective information is available from many sources other than “direct experience.” Are you suggesting that one can’t compare horsepower unless one personally puts the car on an dyno? Are you suggesting one can’t compare reliability unless one buys a fleet of cars and analyzed the repair history over time? Are you suggesting that the only way to compare fuel economy is to fill each car in a certain class with a tank of gas and drive it until you run out, then record the mileage wherever you stopped?
Get real.
Cars get evaluated in many different ways by consumers. No one is going to do a complete empirical study of every car in a certain class. People will use published objective information and short-list the cars they think they want and then go try them out. To do otherwise is a waste of everybody’s time.
Go back and look at the JDPower avoiders’ study. Why do people avoid American cars? For easily quantifiable reasons, for which data is widely available. Fuel economy? Go look it up: Toyota and Honda are the masters. Reliability? Go look it up: Toyota and Honda are the masters. Resale? Go look it up.
If a consumer values these things, he doesn’t need to visit a showroom to know that Detroit is uncompetitive. “Direct experience” is a crock.
In re education and decision-making, Phil had this to say: “I’m not impressed by education and wealth as an excuse for bigoted buying behavior, any more than I would be by ignorance.
Better education and a higher income indicate a better capability for decision-making and, most likely, a history of making better decisions (especially the income part). This isn’t about bigotry, this is about the behavior of people who understand how to get information and use it to their advantage (i.e., higher incomes). They end up avoiding American cars.
Phil also had this to say: “I don’t see successful people in the aggregate as any more prone to independent thinking that the average — and often worse.”
Thanks for that bit of unsupported reverse snobbery.
In response to: “For people who put a premium on reliability, small differences in failure rates mean a great deal. Think of this as reliability “elasticity.””
Phil wrote: “The difference you cited is small and barely stretching that elasticity. When I see recent vintage Toyotas or Hondas being driven with tires worn nearly to the cords (which is amazingly common) because “I can get a few more miles out of this set,” it puts the lie to this vaunted aversion to inconvenience and attention to safety and economy. No, you didn’t cite a difference worth paying attention to other than as a rationalization.”
You don’t understand elasticity, although it’s possible I’m using it in a way that no one else has and there’s a better term for the concept I am describing in marketing or other disciplines.
If a consumer puts a PREMIUM on reliability, this will lead to a behavior that can be described as “inelastic.” That is to say, for small changes in reliability, the propensity of the consumer to respond to that change is very large. For a small increase in reliability, there will be a large increase in demand. For a small decrease in reliability, there will be a large decrease in demand.
In other words, for consumers who demand high reliability and put a premium on it (see the examples I gave), a 10% difference in reliability is extremely important.
In response to: “But it’s a new car, and the consumer doesn’t yet know whether it will go the distance. For someone who wants decent residuals and a sure thing, it is a dice roll.”
Phil wrote: “I have to say, there isn’t a car-buying person in these United States that doesn’t make much bigger bets many times in life, or waste more money in their routine consumption than the differential amounts you’re wringing your hands over, here. This is a red herring.”
No, your response is the red herring. If a consumer decides he wants to get a very good value on a $23,000 vehicle, this decision isn’t invalidated because he’s willing to go to Starbuck’s and pay $1.89 for a very good cup of coffee when an equally good product (I read that in CR, recently, I think) is available at McDonald’s for less.
And, in spite of your assertion, there are few bigger bets than buying a car. House purchase. Level of education achieved. Career and juob choice. Choice of spouse. Number and timing of children. The only other time the betting gets larger is when compulsive gamblers jump in over their heads.
I went to Starbucks this morning. It’s a more pleasant experience, more relaxed, and you get a choice of coffees. I like that. McDonald’s is less expensive but I feel I get at least an equal value at Starbucks.
Objective information is available from many sources other than “direct experience.”
If we take the commissioned JDP survey seriously, less than a third of domestic avoiders had a negative personal experience with a Detroit 3 vehicle. Everything else is hearsay or a compiled summary of other people’s experience about which you have no context.
Are you suggesting that one can’t compare horsepower unless one personally puts the car on an dyno?
No. Put a car on a dyno and you can have a complete record of the context for that hp result. However, for most people, knowing the hp figures by themselves tells them little about how the car actually drives.
Cars get evaluated in many different ways by consumers. No one is going to do a complete empirical study of every car in a certain class.
Precisely.
Fuel economy? Go look it up: Toyota and Honda are the masters. Reliability? Go look it up: Toyota and Honda are the masters. Resale? Go look it up.
For a given class of vehicle, the EPA mileage differences between domestic and import vehicles are so narrow as to be overwhelmed by individual driving style deltas and other real world variables. Reliability? The data says I should have had serious problems with over two decades worth of Detroit iron, yet I didn’t. Not with one fluke car but a dozen. Resale? Well, at least that’s empirically verifiable.
Better education and a higher income indicate a better capability for decision-making and, most likely, a history of making better decisions (especially the income part). This isn’t about bigotry, this is about the behavior of people who understand how to get information and use it to their advantage (i.e., higher incomes). They end up avoiding American cars.
If only this exalted view were true in the world we actually live in. If true, how do you explain your view that highly-educated and highly-paid people running the Detroit 3 have been making bad decisions for 40 years?
Thanks for that bit of unsupported reverse snobbery.
It’s not reverse snobbery, it’s just reality. Our companies, our governments, our schools are rife with groupthink, and we see lemming buying behavior throughout the consumer economy. Who fueled the SUV boom? Drive through any high-demo suburb or urban enclave and you have your answer. Education and wealth are not indicators of character nor creativity, unfortunately. Genuinely, I wish it were otherwise.
If a consumer puts a PREMIUM on reliability, this will lead to a behavior that can be described as “inelastic.” That is to say, for small changes in reliability, the propensity of the consumer to respond to that change is very large. For a small increase in reliability, there will be a large increase in demand. For a small decrease in reliability, there will be a large decrease in demand.
In other words, for consumers who demand high reliability and put a premium on it (see the examples I gave), a 10% difference in reliability is extremely important.
I understand elasticity and the idea behind the word isn’t a bad way to think about it. I’m saying the kind of difference you cite is just hand-wringing. Now I see enough hand-wringing every day to agree that many people live their lives this way, but the difference you cite isn’t meaningful to informing a consumer what kind of experience they will actually have going one way or another. What they believe may nevertheless be divorced from any actual risk.
If a consumer decides he wants to get a very good value on a $23,000 vehicle, this decision isn’t invalidated because he’s willing to go to Starbuck’s and pay $1.89 for a very good cup of coffee when an equally good product (I read that in CR, recently, I think) is available at McDonald’s for less.
Perhaps Starbucks isn’t a good example. You can get a very good value on a $23,000 vehicle (note, this is well below the US average or median new vehicle purchase) from a variety of makers and the actual end-game economic differences when paid price and depreciation are factored in, are small. This is a rationalization, not a rationale, and not consistent with the on-average spending choices of Americans who are awash in disposable goods.
there are few bigger bets than buying a car.
Cheeseburgers, Coke, ice cream 7 days a week, steak broiled in butter, inebriated driving, sedentary living are all bigger bets than the 5 year average economic difference between market-average cars.
I went to Starbucks this morning. It’s a more pleasant experience, more relaxed, and you get a choice of coffees. I like that. McDonald’s is less expensive but I feel I get at least an equal value at Starbucks.
No one can contest that. But it is a wholly subjective assessment of value, just like the decision process by which this market generally buys cars.
Phil
Perhaps I should rephrase — Mr. Ressler, when I tell you that your efforts are being misdirected, I say that in part because the American consumer is too smart to listen to you.
The American consumer who wants reliability and workmanship goes elsewhere. The consumer who wants good in-class fuel economy goes elsewhere. The consumer who wants good residuals goes elsewhere.
The data-driven pragmatists see the domestics and shop elsewhere. JD Power and Consumer Reports both ultimately lead the consumer to the same place. The data gives them every reason to avoid the domestics. Aside from the initial selling price, the domestics offer no advantage, and are generally accompanied by some distinct disadvantages. The better educated one is, the more likely that person is to buy a transplant or an import.
The only bigots I see among car shoppers are those who refuse to buy a car, regardless of how much better it is, because the company’s top executives reside in Asia. That’s racism in its purest form, and it dominates the mindset of those who refuse to buy “Asian” products.
So Mr Ressler, I’d look closely at your allies, if I were you. For it’s those bona fide bigots — the real kind — who are most likely to affiliate with you.
The American consumer who wants reliability and workmanship goes elsewhere. The consumer who wants good in-class fuel economy goes elsewhere. The consumer who wants good residuals goes elsewhere.
It’s a subset of the American consumer this is true for, and their behavior is driven more by dated perception than reality.
The data-driven pragmatists see the domestics and shop elsewhere.
At best, this data-driven pragmatist represents a minority subset of the overall market, and he/she is less purely data-driven than they perceive themselves to be.
The only bigots I see among car shoppers are those who refuse to buy a car, regardless of how much better it is, because the company’s top executives reside in Asia. That’s racism in its purest form, and it dominates the mindset of those who refuse to buy “Asian” products.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion. Moreover, racism isn’t the only reason an Asian avoider might have for refusing to buy Asian automobiles, though it may be among those reasons. I’ve already noted I don’t condone this.
..look closely at your allies, if I were you. For it’s those bona fide bigots — the real kind — who are most likely to affiliate with you.
More than half the market is not buying Asian. That’s beyond the percentage that could be tallied on racism. Nevertheless, this matter of Asian avoiders is irrelevant. It could be topic for a new thread. Ante up with an editorial if you like.
Phil
It’s a subset of the American consumer this is true for, and their behavior is driven more by dated perception than reality.
Obviously, that “subset” is enormous, given the decades-long notable slide in market share of the domestics. A lot of consumer needs and wants are clearly being better met by automakers outside of Detroit.
And the only way that one could conclude that the domestics are equally reliable within basic segments such as mid-sized sedans is to ignore the data. CR, JD Power, warranty claims data, the MIT studies of TQM and virtually empirical source you can name make it clear that Honda and Toyota lead the parade. It explains why Mr. Ressler relies so heavily on dubious anecdotes — the facts contradict his limited, biased experience.
Nevertheless, this matter of Asian avoiders is irrelevant.
It’s wholly relevant, given you dependency upon this “bigotry” argument.
Previously, you claimed that you were more concerned about the process than the outcome, yet you contradict yourself yet again. If your concern is on stamping on bigotry (vehicular racism, for want of a better phrase), then you could start with your redneck brethren who won’t buy a car because the top management is comprised of people whose skin color they dislike. You could stamp out a lot of genuine Klan-like behavior by doing that alone.
Clearly, you care about outcomes, not process. The process of the informed buyer leads him and her away from your position, so obviously, information isn’t key to your position. For the consumer to embrace your way of thinking, it requires an utter abandonment of fact-based criteria and a visceral fear of all things Asian in order for it to have any appeal.
Again, as a matter of statistical fact, the more educated one is, the less likely they are to agree with you. That alone should be a hint of the problem with this article.
And the only way that one could conclude that the domestics are equally reliable within basic segments such as mid-sized sedans is to ignore the data.
For most of the models relevant in this discussion, the ownership data is old. And for the ever-narrowing differences that are reported, yes, I am saying that ignoring the data that you raise is reasonable in light of the larger consequences of obsessing over dated and still-minor deltas.
Previously, you claimed that you were more concerned about the process than the outcome, yet you contradict yourself yet again. If your concern is on stamping on bigotry (vehicular racism, for want of a better phrase), then you could start with your redneck brethren who won’t buy a car because the top management is comprised of people whose skin color they dislike. You could stamp out a lot of genuine Klan-like behavior by doing that alone.
My immediate material concern is reducing bigoted buying behavior that undermines the recovery and reform efforts of the Detroit 3. Bigoted buying behavior outside of that sphere is not pertinent to *this* topic. I’ll accept for now the behaviors that provide fuel for the Detroit 3’s reform. But generally, I’ve already stated that I advocate buying behavior across the board that is less driven by hearsay, social momentum and other factors that are divorced from the actual evaluation of product. And btw, if you exclusively associate racism with “rednecks” you are being naive and biased yourself.
The process of the informed buyer leads him and her away from your position, so obviously, information isn’t key to your position.
If the scope of the customer’s information is limited to hearsay and secondary or tertiary reference, and uninformed by actual product evaluation, and excludes the larger socio-economic context, then that consumer is not genuinely information-driven. I am, but not exclusively.
For the consumer to embrace your way of thinking, it requires an utter abandonment of fact-based criteria and a visceral fear of all things Asian in order for it to have any appeal.
Asian has nothing to do with it. I am just as concerned about the buyer of a Mercedes E class who refuses to consider a Cadillac. You’re also surmising that no domestic product is bought on its own competitive appeal, which is silly.
Again, as a matter of statistical fact, the more educated one is, the less likely they are to agree with you. That alone should be a hint of the problem with this article.
Which, even if it were true, has no correlation whatsoever with whether they’d be right.
Phil
For most of the models relevant in this discussion, the ownership data is old.
I provided above 90-day IQS (initial quality) data and 3-year (VDS) reliability data from JD Power. By definition, one can’t evaluate a car at the three year mark until three years after it was built, hence the use of the 2004 models in the 2007 VDS study.
So I suppose that JD Power needs to survey cars built last Tuesday in order to satisfy your criteria (and even then, I doubt that they would quite make the grade.) You have to forgive me, but that seems to be fairly irrational and perhaps a bit, er, bigoted.
I provided above 90-day IQS (initial quality) data and 3-year (VDS) reliability data from JD Power. By definition, one can’t evaluate a car at the three year mark until three years after it was built, hence the use of the 2004 models in the 2007 VDS study.
Yes, of course.
So I suppose that JD Power needs to survey cars built last Tuesday in order to satisfy your criteria (and even then, I doubt that they would quite make the grade.) You have to forgive me, but that seems to be fairly irrational and perhaps a bit, er, bigoted.
No. Point is, the most recent and prior three year data shows a closing gap in the mainstream (not compact) vehicle classes. The IQS data will tell people who care about such data something more pertinent about what’s on the market today. The three year data available might be meaningful for, say, an F-150 purchase but that customer doesn’t need JDP to know that the F150 is a good truck. The model turnover in the car segments, and even the rate of improving quality in the models that have not turned over, makes the existing 3-year data limited in its utility. But if does show the differences projecting to today aren’t worth obsessing over if you’re reasonably judicious in your domestic model selection.
Phil
Point is, the most recent and prior three year data shows a closing gap in the mainstream (not compact) vehicle classes.
At last, a hint of reality intrudes into this discussion.
Previously, you denied a gap exists. Now, even you have to concede the existence of this gap.
I don’t think that anyone denied on the thread that the gap is not as cavernous as it once was, or that the absolute result is much better than it once was. The GM products of today are vastly better than they were twenty years ago, no doubt about it.
Point is, that’s just not enough. If given the choice between a Civic and a Cobalt, a Civic is empirically the safer choice. Dial into this other criteria such as driving intangibles, and the gap increases further still for most consumers. Because while the GM products have improved, so have those of the main rivals Toyota and Honda. GM began behind, and remains behind, even if it is further along in the race.
We’re back to the old reality — the only notable advantage that the Cobalt is the initial purchase price. Obviously, more consumers are willing to pay the premium, rather than settle for less. That’s not good news for Detroit.
This may help to explain why the less educated tend to be in your camp. There is a correlation between education levels and income, and some lower-income, less educated people simply don’t have enough money to be domestic avoiders.
And anyone with a knowledge of marketing knows that a brand that can only support itself based upon steep discounting is a weak, endangered brand. If you want to worry about the fate of Detroit, you should worry about that, instead.
I doubt there is much more to be said, but we need to push this to 500, so here goes.
For the past few years, I’ve been considering incorporatin social concerns, which Phil speaks of, into my automotive buying decission. To put it more concretely, I’ve been thinking it’s more important to have an Amercian auto industry than for me to have the nicest/best car I can afford. I’ve also been considering weighing these concerns heavily, so that Detroit doesn’t have to meet or exceed their competition – just come pretty darn close. For the most part, I’ve been sympathetic to Phils advocacy – though I think he picked a poor word -bigotry- and did much damage to his cause. I doubt most people will accept Phil’s challenge. I think most people do not and will not incorporate the social factors into their decission.
So, if I decide my next vehicle will be a midsized car, I’ll certainly be checking out the Malibu. (I won’t give the Fusion a look as long as it’s built in Mexico – too bad, because the AWD option would be a real selling point for me)
If I decide on a smaller car -something in the same catagory with Civic, it will be tough for the D2 to sell me something. In fact, it will be tough for anyone but Honda to sell me something.
Phil wrote: “If the scope of the customer’s information is limited to hearsay and secondary or tertiary reference, and uninformed by actual product evaluation, and excludes the larger socio-economic context, then that consumer is not genuinely information-driven. I am, but not exclusively.”
In fact, if your neighbor has trouble with his car and he tells you about it, this is not “hearsay” but “testimony.” And one can rule out “hearsay” in a real court but “hearsay” outside of court is permissible and reasonable and people deal with “hearsay” all the time. They evaluate the source and decide what to ignore.
I bought a Ford. The transmsission required replacement three times. I tell my buddy about it.
My brother buys a Ford. The transmission failed at low-ish (50K) mileage. I tell my buddy about it.
My buddy has perfectly good “context” for this “testimony.” In the case of my own car, he’s certainly going to accept the story at face value. He might even have seen me arriving home at the end of my vacation in a rental car. Now, in the case of my brother, my buddy still has a context for this information. I’ve talked to him many times about many different things, he understands my relationship to Ford’s latest victim and he’s in a pretty good position to judge whether or not this even really occurred and how much weight to assign to it. Probably he’s going to accept it. Or maybe not.
Back to elasticity… well, I’m glad you understand the way I intended the term but it appears you reject the concept. Look at it this way, if you want “the best” in a certain dimension, there will only be one choice. That one choice gets all the action. This is, bsically, what’s happening. I know people who have switched. They want a very reliable car and no bones about it. Nobody wants to go rescue his wife and kids from the side of the road during rush hour.
And the JDP avoider’s survey still reflects data that IS quantifiable. People might be using sources of information about fuel economy, resale value and reliability to rationalize an intended purchase but the rationalization aligns pretty well with the underlying facts of fuel economy, resale value and reliability. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then I figure it really IS a duck. You keep insisting it’s a goat.
Phil: “… the end-game economic difference…”
Does not cover all the bases. The projected lifecycle cost of the car does not include inconvenience, embarassment and aggravation, which are things people avoid. Do they set an unreasonably high premium on these things? No. These are legitimate matters of personal preference. Frankly, I’d rather not live next door to someone who knowingly buys an unreliable car and figures it will all be OK for him because he figures he can hit the neighbors up for a ride whenever he likes.
The end-game economic difference is buried under a matrix of other priorities. Part of the shift in the last 30 years is the idea that cars *can* be supremely reliable. Now that this idea has gained a foothold, it intrigues people and they think, “I could have that.” And, so, they get it.
Maybe on the hierarchy of needs, reliability has become more of a sanitizer, if I remember the use of these terms correctly.
It’s like cupholders. First, they were a novelty (gloveboxes used to open to provide a flat, level surface to hold drinks upright while the car was stationary; they didn’t get used while the vehicle was moving). Then, along came the first cupholder, I can’t remember exactly when but my ’78 and ’72 Chevvies didn’t have them and neither did my ’86 Volvo. Can you now find a car without cupholders?
With respect to education, socioeconomic status and a correlation to good/bad decision-making, Phil had this to say: “If only this exalted view were true in the world we actually live in. If true, how do you explain your view that highly-educated and highly-paid people running the Detroit 3 have been making bad decisions for 40 years?”
There’s a difference between indepentent consumers free to make decisions on their own and a self-selected and self-perpetuating Detroit organization hiring and promoting suckups.
—
With respect to racism, Phil, you spoke earlier of rationalization. In fact, your argument feeds the rationalizations of anti-Asian bigots.
—
PCH101’s notes on reliability of different models is important. Toyota and Honda screw up relatively rarely. They have the mindset and the processes that foster the development of cars that work reliably and well for long periods of time. They work WITH their suppliers to improve parts and processes instead of squeezing them to reduce costs. When I look at a manufacturer with a mixture of hits and misses, I know the quality mindset isn’t pervasive. When I look at a manufacturer with consistently good results, I know that it is.
Since we do anectdotes, a friend of mine had a 60K mile Buick and one of the windows stopped working. He had it repaired. About ten thousand miles later, another one stopped working. He had that repaired but when he picked the car up, he asked, “What gives?”
“Plastic gears in the motor mechanism. They don’t last.”
—
Detroit is all about the big guys’ bonus and egos. It’s important to support that?
Naah.
Previously, you denied a gap exists. Now, even you have to concede the existence of this gap.
At no point have I denied a gap in quality exists in some model segments. I’ve said it’s been possible to buy competitive models that either close or make that gap irrelevant. And I’ve said further that today, the variety of models that support the argument is greater than several years ago.
If given the choice between a Civic and a Cobalt, a Civic is empirically the safer choice.
Not everyone thinks so, or no Cobalts would be sold. But let’s move out of this segment since a) I’ve already noted meaningful domestic deficiency in the sector and b) it’s not where the volume is.
And anyone with a knowledge of marketing knows that a brand that can only support itself based upon steep discounting is a weak, endangered brand. If you want to worry about the fate of Detroit, you should worry about that, instead.
Yes, and if I had written advice for Detroit 3’s executive management I might have addressed this, but that wasn’t and isn’t my focus *here*.
I think most people do not and will not incorporate the social factors into their decision.
As a default, this is either true for most people or a plurality of buyers. But that’s no reason to not push for change.
but we need to push this to 500,
At this point, why not? There’s an objective most of us can probably get behind.
Phil
In fact, if your neighbor has trouble with his car and he tells you about it, this is not “hearsay” but “testimony.”
Yes, it is secondary information and there are many things that have to be known about such a tale in order for me to consider it relevant to any purchase I might make.
My buddy has perfectly good “context” for this “testimony.” In the case of my own car, he’s certainly going to accept the story at face value.
That’s his choice, but face value may not be actionable. I can talk about nine Fords between 1983 – 2005 that had no transmission problems whatsoever.
“the best” in a certain dimension, there will only be one choice. That one choice gets all the action.
Like single-issue voters, very few people buy cars on a single dimension evaluation. Those that do are too few to be a concern to me right now.
The projected lifecycle cost of the car does not include inconvenience, embarassment and aggravation, which are things people avoid. Do they set an unreasonably high premium on these things? No. These are legitimate matters of personal preference. Frankly, I’d rather not live next door to someone who knowingly buys an unreliable car and figures it will all be OK for him because he figures he can hit the neighbors up for a ride whenever he likes.
Which is completely outside the scope of what I’m suggesting.
Part of the shift in the last 30 years is the idea that cars *can* be supremely reliable. Now that this idea has gained a foothold, it intrigues people and they think, “I could have that.” And, so, they get it.
An idea I fully endorse and which I’ve enjoyed through decades of predominantly domestic product purchasing. Not only could I have that, I did. Many more can have the same if they choose from competitive products.
There’s a difference between independent consumers free to make decisions on their own and a self-selected and self-perpetuating Detroit organization hiring and promoting suckups.
Yup. But not so much different from the socially-driven, peer-sensitive appliance owner who knows little or nothing about the product he bought other than what social acceptance and some tertiary and secondary references told him. There’s sucking up in both domains.
Detroit is all about the big guys’ bonus and egos. It’s important to support that?
Nope. It’s important to support what’s changing.
Phil
Phil: Google, my friend — and its competing search engines — along with email forwarding and the general atomistic nature of the web. TTAC is just the launch point for finding an audience for an idea here. Bigoted buying behavior, by the way, isn’t linked to intelligence. It’s all attitude.
I’m not saying that it is intelligence, just that most people not researching this themselves are not likely to bother reading this and we (those taking part in this ongoing reparte) clearly have strong opinions.
Phil: It’s a subset of the American consumer this is true for, and their behavior is driven more by dated perception than reality.
Ah, but is this subset the same subset that purchases imports? This all relates back to whether import buyers are significantly different from domestic buyers. Also, perception is reality…as marketer you know this. While I agree domestic products are getting better, none of the statistics provided show this. There is no mention of whether the differences are statistically significant or so insignificant that it does not matter. Either way, all the average consumer sees is that Honda nd Toyota are ranked higher. My issue is that no media that looks are cars are recommending the domestics over the imports and these recommendations and rankings hold weight with the public. If you don’t believe me, look that the usually dramamtic increases in applications to specific colleges when they are new to the Top 10 in U.S. News or some other mainstream rag.
On the J.D. Power data, how is it that the sable is given 5 stars and the Taurus given three? Either these differences are tiny or slapping a ford badge on a vehicle gives it low self-esteem and causes it to break more often.
I do think that the social context should matter some. However, I think that the average consumer will not care.
Dynamic 88 – A Mazda 3 instead of a civic? Though it is an imported vehicle the social cost may even out.
I’m not saying that it is intelligence, just that most people not researching this themselves are not likely to bother reading this and we (those taking part in this ongoing reparte) clearly have strong opinions.
The thing to understand here is that individual posts are showing up as discrete search results in Google. People searching on a wide range of related subjects can find their way to many points of entry into the thread.
Ah, but is this subset the same subset that purchases imports? This all relates back to whether import buyers are significantly different from domestic buyers. Also, perception is reality…as marketer you know this. While I agree domestic products are getting better, none of the statistics provided show this.
Some data-driven individuals buy domestics. Some import buyers aren’t brand- or national origin-bigots. My interest here is in the behavior of a significant subset of import buyers who refuse to evaluate new competitive products from the Detroit 3 because of where they come from. Ford has a minor hit on its hands with the Fusion. Some people from the import camp are won over by the car. Some from other domestic makes. Some from within the Ford customer base. There are a lot of people who don’t need statistics to validate their basic knowledge that newer domestic cars are much better.
My issue is that no media that looks are cars are recommending the domestics over the imports and these recommendations and rankings hold weight with the public. If you don’t believe me, look that the usually dramatic increases in applications to specific colleges when they are new to the Top 10 in U.S. News or some other mainstream rag.
Many media sources have credibility, frequently unwarranted. Don’t get me started on US News and their college rankings….
Phil
Yup. But not so much different from the socially-driven, peer-sensitive appliance owner who knows little or nothing about the product he bought other than what social acceptance and some tertiary and secondary references told him. There’s sucking up in both domains.
I enjoy my driving appliance!
In essence, a car is no different from a TV or a computer. Yes there will always be a market for those who want that Dual turbo 500 hp motor or that quad core SLI setup but the majority of buyers don’t want or need those things. They simply want an appliance that works. Painting the middle of the market with such a wide derogatory brush is not the wisest marketing move.
//500!
I enjoy my driving appliance!
In essence, a car is no different from a TV or a computer. Yes there will always be a market for those who want that Dual turbo 500 hp motor or that quad core SLI setup but the majority of buyers don’t want or need those things. They simply want an appliance that works. Painting the middle of the market with such a wide derogatory brush is not the wisest marketing move.
You can honorably be an appliance driver if the socially-driven, peer-sensitive aspect isn’t thrown in. Absolutely, for the bulk of the market, a car is no different from a TV. You expect it to work and it should. However, you don’t have to want a force-fed mill to be knowledgeable about your choice. I haven’t painted the middle of the market with a “wide derogatory brush.” I’ve addressed a class of buyers that include some middle market buyers but that also encompasses much of the luxury portion too.
Phil
Phil wrote: “Asian has nothing to do with it. I am just as concerned about the buyer of a Mercedes E class who refuses to consider a Cadillac. You’re also surmising that no domestic product is bought on its own competitive appeal, which is silly.”
Oh, c’mon. Asian has EVERYTHING to do with it. What is Mercedes’ presence here? Close to zilch. BMW? The same. The ‘A’ in Audi stands for “Also-Ran.” VW could make deep inroads in mass-market vehicles, except they can’t. Why? Quality issues. I forget where I saw it but people who buy European cars are less likely to go back to European cars (and it’s probably VW that kills this stat – Geez, I had a VW, once – never again!) than American purchasers are likely to go back to American cars.
Only the Toyota and Honda (and, I hear, anectdotally, Hyundai) purchasers have the real loyalty that’s worth the concern. And whence cometh Toyota and Honda (and Hyundai)?
In fact, loyalty by nationality:
Asian
American
European
and quality rankings, by nationality:
Asian
American
European
And Hyundai might not have Toyota-Honda luster in the quality department but a 10-year/100,000 mile warranty buys a LOT of peace of mind. At an advantageous price. And that tells us they have a lot of faith in their product.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… Phil will still try to milk it to make pantysgawn.
“If given the choice between a Civic and a Cobalt, a Civic is empirically the safer choice”…Not everyone thinks so, or no Cobalts would be sold.
That’s hilarious. First, you claim that most of the market isn’t empirically driven; then, you assume that Cobalt buyers did an empirical analysis and reached a different conclusion.
It’s pretty clear based upon reliability data that the Cobalt is not even close to the Civic or Corolla. So obviously, Cobalt buyers must be (a) ignorant of the facts, (b) unconcerned about the facts (reliability is not a high priority for them), (c) too ideologically opposed to cross the line, and/or (d) drawn to some other feature of the Cobalt, such as styling or price.
But wait a minute. The retail sales figures tell you that these Cobalt buyers comprise just a small fraction of those who buy either the Civic or the Corolla.
What that tells you is that the market does generally care about whatever qualities are embodied by the market leaders. That leaves Chevy with a relatively small niche comprised of the financially challenged, the less educated and willfully uninformed.
Given these factors, it should be no surprise that the GM product is substantially cheaper, and that it sells in far fewer numbers to retail buyers despite a lower price. GM would be vastly better off it made a product that appealed to the better heeled and the informed buyer, as that market is far larger and is willing to pay a premium for a superior product.
Pch101:
Compare this to the Asian avoiders, who comprise 17% of the pool, the difference is striking:
-Don’t buy Asian (61%)
Interesting aside: my mother-in-law forbade the purchase of Japanese vehicles by her household for some 25+ years. Why? Because she spent her childhood on the run from the Japanese army trying not to get killed. After repeated episodes of getting burned by D2.801 products, the in-laws are die-hard Toyota folks.
I’ve heard similar stories from family & friends. Goes to show you that if you can get past the “Don’t Buy Asian (esp. Japanese)” it’s easy street for those manufacturers.
Asian has EVERYTHING to do with it. What is Mercedes’ presence here? Close to zilch. BMW? The same. The ‘A’ in Audi stands for “Also-Ran.” VW could make deep inroads in mass-market vehicles, except they can’t. Why? Quality issues. I forget where I saw it but people who buy European cars are less likely to go back to European cars (and it’s probably VW that kills this stat – Geez, I had a VW, once – never again!) than American purchasers are likely to go back to American cars.
On a monetary basis, I am as interested in Mercedes, Audi, BMW bigots opening up their consideration criteria as I am the mass market Asian import buyers. In fact there’s a lot of leverage there. If the market sees an increase in the incidence of successful people driving Detroit 3 products, that can accelerate the breakdown of outdated perceptions.
In fact, loyalty by nationality:
Asian
American
European
and quality rankings, by nationality:
Asian
American
European
Loyalty specific to BMW, Mercedes and Audi would be more enlightening here.
That’s hilarious. First, you claim that most of the market isn’t empirically driven; then, you assume that Cobalt buyers did an empirical analysis and reached a different conclusion.
There’s more to empirical analysis than what your approved list of third parties say. If someone empirically compares the cars to fit, configuration, price and then drives them and prefers Cobalt over Civic, that’s as empirical as buying on JDP or CR “data.” And of course subjective elements are part of the decision. It’s just that *your* empirical data might not include someone else’s.
It’s pretty clear based upon reliability data that the Cobalt is not even close to the Civic or Corolla. So obviously, Cobalt buyers must be (a) ignorant of the facts, (b) unconcerned about the facts (reliability is not a high priority for them), (c) too ideologically opposed to cross the line, and/or (d) drawn to some other feature of the Cobalt, such as styling or price.
Look, I’ve said before *I* think a Civic is a better car than a Cobalt, and yet I know people who don’t agree. They’re not ignorant, they aren’t ideological, and their Cobalt experience is trouble-free.
What that tells you is that the market does generally care about whatever qualities are embodied by the market leaders. That leaves Chevy with a relatively small niche comprised of the financially challenged, the less educated and willfully uninformed.
You know the size of the Cobalt buying community but you don’t know their composition. And where does your elitism come from? The financially-challenged, less educated buyer still is capable of making their own decision on a different mix of information than yours.
GM would be vastly better off it made a product that appealed to the better heeled and the informed buyer, as that market is far larger and is willing to pay a premium for a superior product.
Noted. By me. Way back. But, that better-heeled “informed” buyer is generally buying more upmarket cars.
Phil
Loyalty specific to BMW, Mercedes and Audi would be more enlightening here.
Brand loyalty for BMW and MB is surprisingly high while brand loyalty to Audi is quite low.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=2778
Phil wrote: “At no point have I denied a gap in quality exists in some model segments. I’ve said it’s been possible to buy competitive models that either close…”
You want to demonstrate that? I’m STILL waiting for you to identify “competitive” Detroit cars.
“… or make that gap irrelevant.”
Bzzt. The gap is, for many, what defines the difference between “competitive” and “uncompetitive,” so it’s still HIGHLY relevant.
Phil also wrote: “Like single-issue voters, very few people buy cars on a single dimension evaluation. Those that do are too few to be a concern to me right now.”
Duh. I was illustrating the importance of certain dimensions to certain buyers. Don’t argue with what I didn’t say, especially when you damn well know that’s not what I said.
Also, when you say, “Those that do are too few…” they are just like the “import bigots,” you haven’t the faintest idea how many of these people there are.
With respect to “hearsay” vs “testimony” from friends, Phil had this to say: “Yes, it is secondary information and there are many things that have to be known about such a tale in order for me to consider it relevant to any purchase I might make.”
Again, duh. You would be getting testimony from YOUR friends, not from me. I HAVE testified as to Ford’s reliability and earnest pursuit of excellent customer care, or the exact opposite, which is what I encountered, to MY friends. And this is not objective information but it IS influential, if for no other reason than if enough reasonably reliable stories reach you… where there’s smoke, there’s fire. And everyone can get an idea of the odds. If you have 10 friends with Fords and 5 of them have been left standing by the side of the road a few times, waiting for the tow truck, it doesn’t take a genius to think, “Hey, maybe this is statistically significant!” And it IS statistically significant, although with low confidence. But that’s OK. Remember, you’re comparing the experience of your 10 Ford victims with 10 peopld who have Chevvies or Hondas or…
People DO notice trends. They are not perfect observers of trends but they do notice them.
In response to: “The projected lifecycle cost of the car does not include inconvenience, embarassment and aggravation, which are things people avoid…”
Phil hammered out: “Which is completely outside the scope of what I’m suggesting.”
It can be outside YOUR scope all you like but it’s a fact of life and a consideration for everyone else.
And, you might consider that this sort of thing can be a real bitch if you live alone, have a long commute, kids in daycare and there’s a penalty for picking them up after a certain time, your boss is a pitiless a$$h0l3, the dealer’s in the opposite direction and you don’t happen to know anyone who finds it convenient to drive that way. All factors that will emphasize reliability as a consideration.
In response to PCH101’s: “If given the choice between a Civic and a Cobalt, a Civic is empirically the safer choice…”
Phil declared: “Not everyone thinks so, or no Cobalts would be sold.”
Bzzt. Even if everybody in the world agreed that the Civic was safer, some Cobalts would still be sold because some people would be tempted by cheeeeeeper and would decide the Cobalt was “safe enough.” Most of the time, in fact, it is. But for those who put a premium on safety and realize the Civic is only a little bit more…
Phil also wrote: “But let’s move out of this segment [small, inexpensive cars] since a) I’ve already noted meaningful domestic deficiency in the sector and b) it’s not where the volume is.”
Toyondissandai are selling Scions, Yarises, Corollas, Civics, Fits, Versas, Accents and several other entry-level models into a segment which must comprise at least 100K units/month.
Which means a) yes, there’s meaningful volume here and b) ignoring this segment is one of the things that got Detroit into trouble in the first place. People buy entry level import cars that satisfy and a) they’re now comfortable with that manufacturer, there’a a little brand loyalty developing and b) maybe the import entry levels are as nice as Detroit’s mid-sizers.
So they take a bigger chunk of change back to Toyondissandai, who starts making some real money.
And Phile wrote: “On a monetary basis, I am as interested in Mercedes, Audi, BMW bigots opening up their consideration criteria as I am the mass market Asian import buyers.”
They are opening up their consideration criteria, they’re looking at Lexus and Acura.
And I must say, the IS-250 and IS-350 are nice cars for the money.
I’m STILL waiting for you to identify “competitive” Detroit cars.
And I’ve already told you why I’m not taking *this* thread down that trail. Everyone has their own idea of competitive.
The gap is, for many, what defines the difference between “competitive” and “uncompetitive,” so it’s still HIGHLY relevant.
And I’m saying that if you choose carefully, what’s left of the gap is too small to justify incurring the social cost.
But you didn’t put it that way. You introduced the idea of a buyer purchasing on a single criterion.
You would be getting testimony from YOUR friends, not from me.
Yes, and irrespective of whether that testimony were positive or negative, I’d have to know a lot more about context to decide whether your testimony is actionable to me; friend or not.
If you have 10 friends with Fords and 5 of them have been left standing by the side of the road a few times, waiting for the tow truck, it doesn’t take a genius to think, “Hey, maybe this is statistically significant!”
And the operative word would still be “maybe,” especially if the wondering is about statistical significance.
People DO notice trends. They are not perfect observers of trends but they do notice them.
Sure. And they can freely choose whether to weight trends in their consideration or discount them as irrelevant.
In response to: “The projected lifecycle cost of the car does not include inconvenience, embarassment and aggravation, which are things people avoid…”
Phil hammered out: “Which is completely outside the scope of what I’m suggesting.”
You left out the part I was really responding to:
Frankly, I’d rather not live next door to someone who knowingly buys an unreliable car and figures it will all be OK for him because he figures he can hit the neighbors up for a ride whenever he likes.
To buy an unreliable car and bum rides from neighbors is outside the scope of what I’m suggesting. If you choose competitively, you won’t have an unreliable car.
Even if everybody in the world agreed that the Civic was safer, some Cobalts would still be sold because some people would be tempted by cheeeeeeper and would decide the Cobalt was “safe enough.” Most of the time, in fact, it is. But for those who put a premium on safety and realize the Civic is only a little bit more…
I did not read Pch101’s statement about the Civic being (the) safer (choice) over a Cobalt to be a reference to safe-TY, and I don’t think he meant it that way. I read him as saying “safe” as in the purchase that has the fewest liabilities associated with it.
Which means a) yes, there’s meaningful volume here
Much less meaningful to immediate action than the total numbers in the family segments.
ignoring this segment is one of the things that got Detroit into trouble in the first place.
Yes, but fixing this will take longer than my time horizon for action on the issue addressed *here*.
People buy entry level import cars that satisfy and a) they’re now comfortable with that manufacturer, there’s a little brand loyalty developing and b) maybe the import entry levels are as nice as Detroit’s mid-sizers.
Obviously. Prior neglect will only be overcome by a longer problem/solution cycle.
Phil
And I’m saying that if you choose carefully, what’s left of the gap is too small to justify incurring the social cost.
But you didn’t put it that way. You introduced the idea of a buyer purchasing on a single criterion.
What most people have concluded is that the gap is significant across multiple criterion. The average Domestic avoider cites 7 or more reasons for his or her avoidance of domestic brands. Is not just reliability, its a whole host of qualities in which the consumer has judged Domestics to be inferior. Quite frankly the social costs are negligible. After all, what’s competitive from so called “Domestics” is often Hecho en Mexico and designed in Japan. Where’s the jobs leverage in that?
And the operative word would still be “maybe,” especially if the wondering is about statistical significance.
A few cases of major systems failure on cars is extremely significant statistically. Major system failures on well maintained low mileage cars should be exceedingly rare, on the order of 1 in 1000 for a reliable car. To have two friends with the same problems with a particular make or model of car by pure chance is exceedingly low, on the order of 1 in a million. If it does occur, it suggests a problem with the design. One is certainly free to discount the value of this evidence, but with those odds, you might as well put your savings into lottery tickets.
“Which means a) yes, there’s meaningful volume here and b) ignoring this segment is one of the things that got Detroit into trouble in the first place. People buy entry level import cars that satisfy and a) they’re now comfortable with that manufacturer, there’a a little brand loyalty developing and b) maybe the import entry levels are as nice as Detroit’s mid-sizers.”
In 500+ posts, I don’t think a more important point has been made.
This is a perfect description of what happened to me. I bought a Honda and was delighted with it, so I kept buying them. My decission wasn’t “peer-sensitive”, nor “lemming” behavior. It was based on first-hand experience with the product.
Quite frankly the social costs are negligible. After all, what’s competitive from so called “Domestics” is often Hecho en Mexico and designed in Japan. Where’s the jobs leverage in that?
Both of these are true for only a small number of Detroit 3 models. Fusion and its stablemate are, for instance, built in border NAFTA facilities which benefit us, and while the car leverages a designed-in-Japan platform, it is far from a Japanese-designed car in toto.
However, a Fusion purchase still keeps US HQ’d Ford in business, including its array of high-value HQ level jobs.
People buy entry level import cars that satisfy and a) they’re now comfortable with that manufacturer, there’s a little brand loyalty developing and b) maybe the import entry levels are as nice as Detroit’s mid-sizers.”
In 500+ posts, I don’t think a more important point has been made.
This is a perfect description of what happened to me. I bought a Honda and was delighted with it, so I kept buying them. My decision wasn’t “peer-sensitive”, nor “lemming” behavior. It was based on first-hand experience with the product.
Once again, fixing this entry-level car problem is an issue for the next two vehicle cycles in that class of car. It’s something certainly worth doing, but that’s outside the time horizon I’m concerned with. It is not germane to what can be done right now and over the next 2-3 years to keep the reform of the Detroit 3 on track. Your Honda loyalty might have been earned by Honda, but that loyalty does not preclude you considering, evaluating and buying a different car if you see your decision holistically. Now, doing the latter doesn’t compel you to change, either. But you don’t have to be slave to your pattern. The compact car field is not where the swing is in the near term, for immediate leverage. The earliest you will have significant revision to the Detroit 3 small car offerings, rather than incremental improvement, against Civic is likely 2011.
Phil
Jeez, are we still banging on about this topic?! And I thought Mr May’s comments were controversial!
I think it’s established that American automakers (AA) have an image problem with the American customer base which needs to be rectified. But what people seem to be glossing over, is that, AA’s the image problem was all of their own doing.
Continually making sub standard cars to sub standard quality and reliability and screwing the customer over warranty repairs results in only one thing: loss of customers. There’s absolutely no point to this article if Detroit do not make steps to rectify this. Detroit could make an absolute Camcord killer, but if people don’t have faith in the car, no-one will touch it. They need to stand by their products to show they’ve changed. I continually use Hyundai as a case study to show how to turn your company’s brand perception around. If Hyundai had follwed Detroit’s example by making OK cars but made no commitment to quality and warranty, then Hyundai would have gone bust. We didn’t accept sub standard cars from Lada, Yugo and “old” Hyundai, so why should customer accept them from Detroit? Because Detroit SAY they’re the same as imports?
I’m sorry but that isn’t good enough. If you buy a bad brand of crisps, the worst you could lose is 50p. If you buy a bad car, you could lose considerable more money! People don’t have that kind of money to “gamble”, so therefore, they stick with brands which are safe (i.e Toyota, Honda etc).
Detroit SAYING their quality is as good as Japan is laughable. If Bernard Ebbers asked you to invest in his latest telecommunications company, who in their right mind would gladly hand over £20K without some underwriting from a bank?! Yet, because Detroit say they’re now as good Japan, we should accept it? Sorry, give me a 5 year bumper to bumper warranty with no welching and then we’ll talk, until then, I’m sticking with Toyota.
I’m sure their cars are decent and good to drive, but until Detroit accept that they burned many customers and they need to win them back, they will continue to fall. Making cars and crying that customers won’t buy them is frankly laughable. I’ve asked this question before and I have yet to receive an answer:
What has happened to the competitive spirit of Detroit………?
KatiePuckrick’s remarks stimulate the thought processes. One of Detroit’s problems is warranty coverage, in particular, warranty coverage rejection. It always amazes me that one can take a car down to the dealer and have the dealer tell you “it’s perfectly normal” and send you one your way, when everybody knows damned good and well that it’s a problem. I know at least one person who was stonewalled by the dealer until the car was off warranty and then, surprise!, he’s got a $2300 repair bill!
The part that amazes me is that the dealer should have no reason to stonewall the customer. If it’s warranty work, he gets paid by the manufacturer. Why not just fix the cars when they come in and do your level best?
Clearly, something is wrong.
But what I was thinking, in particular, is, what would it have cost Detroit to provide excellent warranty service? I’m sure it would have cost more. But how much? Some cars get through the warranty period with no trouble at all, so a small increase in the forecast warranty expense applied to each car would not make a huge difference in the price (I hope not, anyway) but could be applied to making sure the customer feels well treated and comes back.
What would that have cost? What would that have done for their rep? What would a more open internal acknowledgement of warranty cost have done for internal priorities? What would greater scrutiny of warranty costs have done for product planning and parts procurement?
And, continuing to think about warranty cost brings me back to the huge warranty cost advantage that Toyota and Honda have over Detroit. That speaks volumes about their relative operations.
And here’s another random thought, generated by a sighting of a Neon that had lost sheets of paint… What would it have cost Chrysler to repaint that car?
Everyone has seen Chryslers with acres of peeled paint. I probably see at least one peeling Neon per day. These things are rolling billboards that proudly proclaim “We Make Crappy Cars.” What would it have cost Chrysler to paint over that message? More or less than the lost revenue?
It seems to me that a manufacturer that lets their cars be rolling billboards that say, “We Make Crappy Cars” must be OK with that message.
Were these first or second generation Neons? Just curious because I’ve never seen a second generation Neon with the peeling paint issue, which leads me to believe they realized they had a problem with their paint process and resolved it by the time the second generation Neon was introduced.
I too, can’t believe this topic is still going. I just read the last page, and Katiepuckrik hit the nail on the head. A car is a major purchase, and I better have some assurances that it’s going to perform as advertised. From my own personal history, I’ve owned two used Nissans that performed stellarly for used cars, and in the case of the Sentra wagon stellarly compared to a new car-in seven years, a cracked distributor cap was the only repair outside of brake pads, oil changes, etc. That provides me some assurance that I can trust a Nissan to perform as expected. If Nissan had offered a car that I wanted three years ago when I bought my current car, I would be driving a Nissan now.
A second assurance is reliability data and warrantee costs. In these two areas, domestics still lag behind Japanese cars by a large margin from the recent data that I’ve seen. True there might be specific domestic cars that have good reliability, but in general Japanese built cars have fewer repairs and lower repair costs. Personally, many relatives and myself have been burned by Ford and GM products.
The only way the domestics have to assure me, and many others, that their products will perform as advertised would be to offer a killer warrantee, like Hyundai. Until they do that, what assurance do I have that I’m not throwing money down a rat hole? A big three executive telling me their products are as good? When have they ever said, “Hey, are products are garbage.” I need some assurance that my money will be well spent before I purchase a car, and right now the domestics can’t, or at at least don’t, offer me that assurance.
I don’t think there’s an American car that can compare with the quality of my Accord. It spends little time in repair, and it’s fun to drive. The engine is smooth even when I flog it. If there were a comparable American car, I’d consider it. (And the only new car I ever bought wa s a Saturn mfg’d in Spring Hill. That turned out to be a mistake.)
That said, the writer is certainly correct about VWs and some other European cars that make a lot more trips to the repair shop than some American cars, and the people that buy them. The average TTAC reader is undoubtedly far better informed than 90% of car buyers.
I think the premise that the American consumer has a duty to “holistically” reevaluate the car market every time they buy a car is ridiculous. Do you reevaluate the dentists in your area every time you get your teeth cleaned? When you get cereal at the grocery store, do you consider every brand and every flavor? Once in a while, people might go out on a limb and buy Kashi Go Lean Crunch, but by and large people stick to what they know. And, at that price point, why shouldn’t they? The fact is that most people care about cars the same amount as they care about cereal, they don’t care what they get as long as it works for them. In more blunt terms, most people have better things to do then shop, read reviews, and test drive 6-8 different cars (not to mention dealing with salespeople). And, domestics typically get cut out at the “read reviews” point because they typically score lower on paper (like Consumer Reports, or Car and Driver). Honda, Toyota, Nissan et al. have been giving consumers good cars (i.e. cars that work for them) for a long time, and it makes sense that people stick with them.
umterp:
I’ll wave to you sitting in your Grand Prix with its melted intake manifold and failed gasket, steam coming from under the hood as I ride by in my ’01 Accord EX (with a 4-cylinder which will likely outrun your V-6) with 170000 miles on the clock. And you won’t hear me, either, because it’s still silent. That’s all the argument I need, thank you.
I’m somewhat biased against Detroit and European vehicular products. Don’t understand how the term “bigot” has been stood on its head in the preceding 500 posts. A import bigot “likes” imports? Huh?
Anyway, it was a lovely day yesterday, and my Sube is 9 this month. Works great. Makes the Audi 100LS, Audi Coupe, Audi 5000 turbo, Audi 4000 Quattro and Audi 90 Quattro I owned in sequential order from 1975 on, seem to be the quality of a dollar store’s own brand of salsa. Not even a headlight bulb has had to be replaced on the Sube, even with DRLs. Let’s look at a Detroit alternative.
Mr. Ressler is incredible. No argument dislodges his mission to proselytize for Detroit City cars. Each opposing view is treated as water off a duck’s back, a mere gnat’s hum worth of annoyance. A metaphorical calm smile must play upon his lips, because he takes no umbrage at embittered attacks on his position, and calmly writes back.
So I give him a try. Go to the Ford store to look at an AWD Fusion, as I suppose it might be a competitor for a Sube at a reasonable price.
I have already found the Ford Canada website unnavigable, an unmitigated disaster. It will provide me with the price of a Fusion SE AWD, but not the SEL AWD. It sails off picking daisies in some other universe, and this after loading megs and megs of Flash crap to get to this point. 18 pages. I tried 4 full times. Ford failure!
Ford salesperson: has no idea about the AWD Fusion. Cannot tell me if it’s full time or one of those superficial things that engages the rear wheels after the fronts slide or spin, but is able to assure me with all the weight of his experience and Ford engineering behind him, that the Fusion AWD is superior to the Subarus, about which he knows less than nothing. The Ford system, he informs me, no doubt from the “in-depth” explanation given on the web site, works away at AWD 100 times per second. I point out that my Sube works away at AWD all the frickin time. I know, I’m a mechanical engineer, I made it my business to know.
Why are car manufacturers fronted by salespeople who are grossly stupid? Apparently, their lack of skill and knowledge is condoned by the manufacturer, and their explanations work for some customers. Not me. I see red. And step back for a moment.
I imagine talking to his compatriots in the next-door service department, whose horizons are no doubt similarly limited and tinged by old wives tales and utter lack of knowledge, their days full of Taurus transmissions, 3.8 litre V6 headgaskets and complaints about the price of Focus aircleaner elements (check that out). And I’d be the lonely guy in the service dept. asking questions about some foible in my AWD Fusion while F150s tower over my pride and joy belching forth quality, Ford style. Who needs a pickup truck the size of a school bus anyway?
I leave. Who knows? The Fusion AWD might be decent, but there is no way on god’s green earth that I’m purchasing one from those erks. I don’t even drive one to see whether that groany Ford V6 has been quieted down.
I considered the idea of going Detroit, Mr. Ressler, and ran away mentally screaming. Didn’t even get to the product, even if it is just a gussied-up Mazda. My brain was on all points panic alert at the thought of dropping 30 large at that place.
Arrrrrrrggggggh. No way, Jose.
Nice to see that this editorial has been reactivated, and that its still running strong.
From a different perspective, as the Canadian dollar has spiked in value over the past 45 days, there is a Canadian consumer/customer revolt towards Canadian retailers.
What does it have to do with Detroit Iron? The majority of Canadian consumers want to buy in Canada from Canadian retailers at a fair price. Its similar to consumers wanting to buy a reasonnable product from Detroit at a fair price.
Canadian retailers are verbalising a litany of half baked reasons, and lame excuses to justify prices that defy justification. Does it sound familiar when Detroit was coming up with various reasons that the product was going to improve.
Canadian retailers are doing exactly what Detroit was doing 30 years ago, they are turning customers against them, they are losing hearts and minds.
The word gets around very quickly, more and more people shop in the US or online to literally punish Canadian retailers.
Detroit at the time exhibited the same behavior as the Canadian retailers are doing, we would rather stick to our ideas, than give in to customers, who are voting with their wallets elsewhere.
Thirty years later has Detroit learned their lesson? One would hope so, is it worth taking a look at Detroit Iron, certain models are quite interesting and deserve a look.
Is it an upstream swim for Detroit Iron? Absolutely.
Hey, dynamic88!!!
Believe it or not, Honda made a 4-cycle line trimmer…don’t know if they still do, but it must be a hoot!!! I would love to look one up when I’m in the market next time!! Check around with your dealers.
Wow, this conversation is going in circles. Every time we say detroit needs to fix something first, Phil insists that there is not enough time and that the Detroit 2.81723 wil all go bankrupt. Every time someone asked him name specific detroit nameplates that are competitive, it has not occurred sans the Fusion. Well Phil, I leave it at this. You say that different people find different products competitive. Perhaps a minority of the market (that you have termed import bigots) has decided that American products aren’t competitive. You say that Detroit won’t have time to remedy the issues we speak of. How about Wagoner, Lutz, et al. apologizing on behalf of their companies for making decades of crap and telling us how their new stuff is better. All they need is a microphone. Frankly, I’d be alright with Wagoner et al losing their jobs, they make too much money already.
The bottom line here is that you are looking at these “import bigots” out of context of reality. Sure, they could openly consider American cars, but they won’t. They may prefer the brand they have now or have had a friend whose car had major problems, but the greater social context is nothing compared to the possibility of losing their own hard-earned money. You insist that there will not be a sacrifice. You can’t guarantee a reliable car as I can’t guarantee problems. It is all about perception. Is this vehicle a worthy gamble based on all of the information available to me? Your perception is different from many of those responding. Some people’s perceptions will change and some will not on either side. The point is that perceptions differe and social context will only make a difference if two products are percieved as equally good. Your argument falls apart for many at this assumption. Whether it is that they are equally good or close enough. Others say that there is a significant difference between these brands and that difference drives them. You are no more correct than I am, but that matters little to the other.
As much as you say that some are import bigots, you are a domestic bigot. You prefer these vehicles. Sure looking at other vehicles is fine, but given equal standings you prefer domestic and others prefer imports. Each will try and justify their choice. The truth is that objectivity about anything is rare and we all have a bias, whether from experience or hearsay. However, there is no reason to correct that bias as long as one can continuie to pass through life happily. Sure I can be objective and research every car to death, but it is not worth my time. My experiences have biased me towards imports and that is where I will go until my perceptions about the other products (and thus my bias) has changed.
Wow, this conversation is going in circles.
That’s being kind, in my estimation. It has become the internet equivalent of dodge ball, where facts are avoided, points are obfuscated, and the author is unable to support his assertions with anything remotely factual.
Mr. Ressler continually contradicts himself and doesn’t even seem to blush while doing it. In his original piece, he claims that “pretty much everything offered to American car buyers is mechanically reliable,” yet 500 posts later, he not only acknowledges the reliability gap, but claims that he never denied its existence…even though he denied it in the original article!
In the original article, Mr. Ressler describes buyer concerns about interior quality and depreciation as being “pointless.” Yet 500 posts later, when pushed yet again to provide a list of “competitive” vehicles, he refuses to on the basis that “Everyone has their own idea of competitive.” It’s hard to make those contradictory points mesh.
In my mind, it ultimately boils down to one question: Would you want to buy a car made by a company that is operated with the mindset of the author of this article? Because I believe that’s what you would be doing by following Mr. Ressler’s advice, and I don’t care for the implications of such a choice.
I personally would have no desire whatsoever to purchase a car built by a company that doesn’t acknowledge past mistakes, blames the customer for not liking/wanting the product or pretends that my concerns as a customer are “bigoted” and “pointless.” I doubt that most of you would, either.
My cars these days tend to be near-luxury sports sedans. I also have a bit of a thing for Holdens, having seen them in the flesh, so I would be a good candidate for a G8. Yet I am highly unlikely to buy one, because I would expect to get poor service from a Pontiac dealer, the residuals will likely be awful, and the ultimate build quality is a crap shoot. Buying the Asians is a safe if slightly sterile choice, while the Germans can offset their mixed reliability with service packages, strong residuals, cachet value and driving dynamics that help to soften the blow. (If worse comes to worst, you can dump a 2-year old BMW fairly easily without losing your shirt.)
As does Mr. Ressler, I would expect GM corporate to respond to these sorts of concerns by offering platitudes about their wonderful products, while patronizing me and hinting at my “bigotry” in the process. But that doesn’t do me much good if my vehicle purchase is bleeding equity and creating dissatisfaction, and if no one is willing to honor my warranty in good faith. If I am going to spend that kind of money on a product, the last things I want are insults and condescension. You need not be an enthusiast to expect that.
Wow, I read the first 38 pages of comments but feel the next twenty were more of the same.
It blows my mind how some people are totally missing a pretty simple point here, establishing strawman arguments themselves, and accusing Phil of this very thing (PCH101 this means you).
The way I read this article summarized as succinctly as possible.
-SOME people blindly by foreign without looking at domestic, ie import bigots.
-This term is not meant in the normal truly insulting way bigot normally would be probably.
-There are some very competitive domestic products these people should look at.
-Buying them benefits society as a whole
-The slight differences in few categories seen as shortcomings are offset by the overall societal benefit
-Not all domestics are worthy competitors, just be aware there are some, and opinions of what these are differ, hence not him listing them.
Here is my summary of the juvenile responses that have been formulated rather elequently to appear as more valid, but I see through that I guess.
-How dare you call me a bigot because I drive an import (how you came up with this I don’t understand, as it was very clearly stated only some people who don’t consider them despite the car being competitive?)
-If more people buy a car than it’s clearly better to everyone. (How would you know if you don’t drive them all, do studies, etc, and exclude domestics on premise?)
-The few “foreign” makes built here are better for us than “imported” domestics, and then refuting rudely any evidence to the contrary. (How can anyone really believe this I don’t know, as there are clearly many more white collar jobs here for the big 3, as opposed to very, very few foreign)
So to sum up my opinion; I agree with Phil, that there are good cars that are not being considered that should be by some, and they just might be surprised if they gave them a chance. This would most clearly benefit the good of all to have a strong domestic auto industry, in the way of jobs, a strong middle class, and the philanthopic nature of these companies. Not to mention that the stockholders most likely include you, your parents, and so on’s retirement in one way or another.
As for the people who have such a problem with the idea of “give American cars a chance,” what is your dog in this fight? What do you gain by arguing so vehemently against this simple request? Why do you care enough to persuade people against doing this? It blows my mind that you are routing against what are the original American big corporations in this way? If this was 20 some years ago I’d call you a commie for this un-American stance. If you don’t want to look at an American car don’t, but 53 pages of you guys trying to convince others not to, that’s disturbing.
Mr RLJ676,
I respectfully disagree with your stance. I feel that people like Mr PCH101 and myself believe that this article (well written, as it is) misses the point completely.
I don’t deny that Detroit make some good cars, they may even make them to standards that meet or even exceed import manufacturers standards. But the trouble is to say that people aren’t giving them a fair shot is basically (in my eyes) blaming the wrong people.
It is up to Detroit to win customers’ hearts back. If somebody got burned in the past (for whatever reason) it is Detroit RESPONSIBILITY (note the key word here) to woo that burned customer back and convince them that it won’t happen again. However, Detroit are not doing that. They are making cars (good, bad or mediocre, take your pick) and whining about how no-one will give them a fair shot anymore. That’s is their problem to fix. We know it not to be impossible because Hyundai’s reputation was 10 times worse that Detroit’s. But what did Hyundai do? Design and make durable long lasting cars, slap a 5 year bumper to bumper warranty on it (in the UK it’s fully transferable) and price it attractively. Customers gave them another shot and I seriously doubt Hyundai will want to burn them again.
Also, I disagree about the fact that this comments thread going on for so long is “disturbing”. It just shows how passionate people are about this topic. What would be disturbing is if no-one commented……..
Katie,
I’m not saying Detroit’s marketing hasn’t dropped the ball repeatedly, or that all should be forgiven. They are entirely responsible for turning their fortunes around.
However, in a business where it can commonly take 3-5 years to develop a product, it takes time and a ton of CASH. Many people say “I’d buy a Focus if we got the C1 based car,” etc. Phil’s point
was that you may not get that chance. I can absolutely promise you that there is a risk of these companies burning through the cash reserves trying to turn around the NA products.
Unfortunately, it takes time, and ignoring something competitive or better when buying it could greatly help Detroit, and the US, than it should at least be considered.
Also, it sounds like you are in the UK, so you truly have no dog in this fight from the prospective of the US impact? So why are you advocating for or against the general concept of consider American for your own self interest if this is the case?
Also, it sounds like you are in the UK, so you truly have no dog in this fight from the prospective of the US impact? So why are you advocating for or against the general concept of consider American for your own self interest if this is the case?
With respect, Mr RLJ676 (and I do mean that), are you suggesting that because I don’t live in the US, I, therefore, can’t have an opinion on this matter?
So by that logic, I’m not homosexual, so therefore, I can’t advocate equal for homosexual couples? Or I have no ties to Burma, so I can’t speak out against their oppressive regime?
RLJ676, if there are “import bigots,” then identify them. Or point out something that proves their existence as a class. All Phil has brought are anectdotes. That only takes you so far.
The problem I have with Phil’s label is that the evidence for “import bigotry” is equivocal, at best. The evidence at hand fits “brand loyalty” and “informed shopping” at least equally well and I believe it’s a better fit. Many others, I think, would agree with this.
Phil could have taken the excitement down a notch or two, if he had avoided using a loaded term. He didn’t. JDPowers, for example, uses “domestic avoiders” to describe the behavior Phil discusses.
If anectdotes are how we “prove” what’s going on here, then I can assure you there’s no such thing as an “import bigot.” Disappointment, expense and disgust drove me to Toyota. An iron-clad promise of satisfaction could win me back.
Everyone I know who’s driving an Asian car has been through this and has the same requirements for coming back to Detroit.
As it is, Detroit cars are “uncompetitive” because Detroit does not compete in the dimensions we value.
At just about the very top of the comments, one poster quickly wrote a prescription for making Detroit competitive: a solid 10-year/100K mile transferable warranty. GM hasn’t offered that and I know exactly why.
Katie
Well, it makes me wonder why you would chime in on this?
You are blaming the marketing, but you haven’t really experienced it, and you get totally different vehicles for the most part. I’d love your opinion on the C-max or Mondeo, but less so on why some Americans refuse to look at American products.
So yes, I don’t think someone not here who has neither experienced the same environment or has any stake in the “self serving” nature of what he suggests should be arguing for, or in your case against his point.
Kixstart
I’m not going to try and argue his point, as he has done an excellent job I think despite the most simplistic answers being twisted by some. Likewise, a very vocal group, possibly minority keeps saying “we,” “the readers,” etc dont buy this at all, which isn’t true. PCH101 can speak for himself.
My point is why are some of you so against the idea of asking people who won’t consider American cars to do so? What’s in it for you to “disprove” him?
I can very easily tell you what’s in it for me if 1 million people agreed and bought domestic as he suggests.
Mr RLJ676,
What do you mean “I haven’t experienced the marketing”? If Detroit don’t have a better warranty, they don’t have a better warranty! If loads of people have been burned by shoddy goods, then wouldn’t it stand to reason to do something about your reliability and quality in order to ensure that your customers don’t retaliate by leaving you?
It also, might surprise you to know that North America isn’t the only market where Detroit makes a hash of things (Hint: Look east from the United States)
Katie,
And that is our point exactly, the quality has improved, the reliability has improved.
There just simply isn’t a time frame to wait 10 years to prove it. He’s saying that an extra visit to a dealer over the life of the car (if that in reality though) is worth helping save the Big 3 in your own self interest (but not yours, as you dont live here).
Phil
“Both of these are true for only a small number of Detroit 3 models. Fusion and its stablemate are, for instance, built in border NAFTA facilities which benefit us, and while the car leverages a designed-in-Japan platform, it is far from a Japanese-designed car in toto.”
“However, a Fusion purchase still keeps US HQ’d Ford in business, including its array of high-value HQ level jobs.”
Actually the car made in “border NAFTA facilities” doesn’t benefit us as much as the car built in the US. I disagree with your Clinton-esque definition of NAFTA (from a previous post). What NAFTA is, straightforwardly, is a method by which manufacturers can get cheaper labor costs, and still sell in the US sans import duties. If middle class jobs are lost in the US it will be in large part to moving production to Mexico.
It’s time we started to define the Fusion for what it really is – a foreign made car, imported for Ford (w/o tariffs). I’d rather buy an American made car (e.g. one built here) even if it doesn’t have an American name.
While it’s true that buying a Fusion helps support HQ jobs, it’s even more true that buying something assembled here supports American labor -e.g. the middle class which Phil is, rightly, concerned with. It takes more assmebly jobs than HQ jobs to get a car to market.
I don’t beleive Ford will be going out of business – they’ll just be transfering high wage jobs to low wage Mexico. They’ll become an American sales/marketing company, with manufacturing done elsewhere. I’m not sure why I should support that.
I’m very willing to look at GM and Ford products before I buy, but I’ll do so on a model by model basis. If I really desire to look at the social ramifications of my purchase, then I don’t see how I could by a Fusion, or an Aveo. If the idea is to save American jobs, then these models are counterproductive to the cause. If the idea is only to save the corporate entities, and some high paid HQ jobs, well, then I’m just not interested.
Mr RLJ676,
It doesn’t matter whether there is or isn’t time to wait 10 years to prove it. It is still up to Detroit to woo the customers back. Customers should not HAVE to go visit a car marker they have no interest in (“Bigotry” or otherwise), it’s up to the car maker to prove themselves (Just like Hyundai did, just like Toyota did etc). If they don’t have the time frame to change that, then they ought to resort to stronger tactics or die and make way for new blood. That is the nature of capitalism, is it not?
Again, if the big 2.801 die, I’m willing to take a punt that it will have shockwaves around the world. Not just the United States.
To everyone that thinks all transplants will be building their full line here, think again. Look at what’s built here: full size cars, trucks, ute’s. Basically things that are only/mostly sold here. Everything cheap will continue to be imported.
It’s not possible to make money on small (cheap) cars here.
Therefore, some domestic cars have to be built out of country (non-UAW) to make them viable (thank globalization), the same way that Toyota imports them, or anyone else.
For example; Mazda 6-Flat Rock, Mi; Mazda 3 – Japan.
This trend will continue, both domestic or transplant can’t build their cheapest cars here competitively, so please quit bringing this up so much. The fact is that buying a “domestic” of any type supports the country more, it’s more of what class of car you buy that determines where it’s built.
RLJ676,
I think the issue that is being argued against this idea is that we value loyalty and goodwill above some economic benefit of unknown quantity. If Honda has provided me with a quality, reliable vehicle and the local dealership a great experience if anything does go wrong, why should I turn my back on them to help the Detroit 3. This especially true considering that the Detroit 3 makers that I and others close to me have owned even in the recent past has shown none of these characteristics. You want to call me a commie, fine. However, I am not the one advocating rewarding mediocrity. I will allow the free market to take its course and to reward those that come forth with the best products and services. Last I checked, those were all American ideals. Just because the Detroit 3 dug themselves into a hole does not mean that I need to sacrifice to dig them out. Additionally, helping them does not guarantee that they will ship jobs to other countries anyway to compete in a global market.
As for the focus, I would consider it if it were on the c-1 platform. Instead I will likely consider a Mazda 3, which is on that platform. The Detroit 3 are like bad amateur poker players. Instead of betting on a few quality hands, they continue to throw chips away on many mediocre hands only to fold when a better hand challenges them (see the new focus).
Sanman,
Well, how do those V6 Camry buyers feel now about their blind choice of a Camry if they’ve now had major problems. Are these the characteristics you are looking for? Or the Tundra issues? This is the point, these cars aren’t necessarily better because of historical performance of their predecessors. On the same hand, new domestics could be better despite the past performances.
No one is saying they shouldn’t ever consider Toyota again, but that they should look at all of the competitors, not just except Toyota=quality and everything else=junk.
RLJ676
“There just simply isn’t a time frame to wait 10 years to prove it. ..”
I, for one, doubt the time element is as critical as Phil (and yourself apparently) think it is.
Time might be running out for Chrysler, but GM could be cut in half – which would take more than 10 years- and it would still be the size of Chrysler today. So GM at least, has time. I think Ford does as well, though obviously less time than GM.
I don’t think I have to buy an American car in the next 3-5 years in order to save the domestic industry. I think it will still be alive and sickly. The D3 aren’t done shrinking yet, but they’ll get the message, and they’ll turn around. But it won’t come easy, and it won’t come quick.
RJL,
They can feel any way they want about Toyota. It will likely cause Toyota to lose customers. Though, it is partly how Toyota deals with those customers. If they are treateed well, a mistake can likely be forgiven by some. I never suggested that Toyota = quality; I said the I leave the free market to deal with companies and purchase the best product. The free market will likely cause Toyota to lose some sales due to these issues. I didn’t say that new detroit products couldn’t be better, simply that all the evidence I have points to the contrary. Similarly, I am having a bad experience with my Nissan and won’t be going back to them. A poster above loves his and will be. I am not criticizing anyone for buying a Detroit product, so why criticize me for my purchase?
“To everyone that thinks all transplants will be building their full line here, think again. Look at what’s built here: full size cars, trucks, ute’s. Basically things that are only/mostly sold here. Everything cheap will continue to be imported.”
This simply isn’t the case. Two examples are Civic and Corolla which are built in the US and Canada.
“It’s not possible to make money on small (cheap) cars here.”
Bad news for the transplants then. They must be loosing money hand over fist.
“Therefore, some domestic cars have to be built out of country (non-UAW) to make them viable (thank globalization), the same way that Toyota imports them, or anyone else.”
“For example; Mazda 6-Flat Rock, Mi; Mazda 3 – Japan.”
Except that Japanese labor isn’t all that much cheaper than American labor. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/15/bloomberg/sxpay.php A bit under $19/hour. Around $10/hour less than UAW wages. What I thought was interesting was the statement that labor is only about 10% of costs – I’d have guessed it to be much higher.
I would also note that the Focus, built here, stickers for $14K, while the Mazda 3, built in Japan, stickers for $14, 500. Not really a significant difference, but the Japanese built car is just ever so slightly higher in price.
To be sure, Mazda probably makes more profit per unit, but if labor is only 10% of costs, as the bloomburg article says, then their somewhat lower labor rate doesn’t give them an enormous cost advantage. The fact that Focus is sold just slightly lower, yet presumably at a profit, suggests that it simply isn’t true that small cheap cars can’t be built in the US.
As an aside, my brother has a Focus and it’s given him several years of trouble free operation. Based on that second hand experience, I’ll definitely give Focus a look should I decide to buy a small car. If I just considered product, and nothing else, I’d buy a Civic. If I consider social factors, I might (might) let that tip the scales to a Focus. Certainly the car is worth a look and a test drive.
If I go up a notch to midsize, GM stands a reasonable chance to sell me.
“This trend will continue, both domestic or transplant can’t build their cheapest cars here competitively, so please quit bringing this up so much. The fact is that buying a “domestic” of any type supports the country more, it’s more of what class of car you buy that determines where it’s built.”
Simply not true.
I’m somewhat biased against Detroit and European vehicular products. Don’t understand how the term “bigot” has been stood on its head in the preceding 500 posts. A import bigot “likes” imports? Huh?
In the politics of the 1960s, when bigotry in the popular vernacular was almost exclusively aligned with racism, “white bigots” were caucasians who directed their closed-mindedness and hostility to those of other races. Similarly, as a modifier to the term for this text, “import” + “bigot” communicates bias, unmitigated by fairness or new developments, directed against domestic-sourced iron and in favor of continued purchasing from the import pool without willingness to re-evaluate domestics in an evolving products market.
No argument dislodges his mission to proselytize for Detroit City cars.
It’s really the companies I want to see able to complete their reforms, both by earning sales on basis of improved wares and with the help of shoppers openly re-engaging the Michigan companies’ products irrespective of dated prior experience, hearsay, social acceptance and peer-review of buying decisions or anything else that is inhibiting some customers’ willingness to try what’s new and competitive.
Go to the Ford store to look at an AWD Fusion, as I suppose it might be a competitor for a Sube at a reasonable price.
I have already found the Ford Canada website unnavigable, an unmitigated disaster. It will provide me with the price of a Fusion SE AWD, but not the SEL AWD. It sails off picking daisies in some other universe, and this after loading megs and megs of Flash crap to get to this point. 18 pages. I tried 4 full times. Ford failure!
First, a preface: As a Canadian, you have an interest in the health of the Detroit 3 given jobs and production located in your country. However, you don’t have the same interest I do as a US citizen in whether or not these domestically-headquartered companies survive and prosper. You might have a more neutral stance on whether your manufacturing jobs in the automotive sector are Asian, European or American transplants. So, I fully expect you to be less willing to overcome the kinds of friction impeding your intent to evaluate than an American would who is convinced he has a role to play in shaping his domestic market.
That said, what you describe is a Ford Canada marketing failure that Ford Corporate HQ has to take responsibility for. You shouldn’t have to overcome this kind of buying friction. Clearly, the dealers are too often rife with land mines that discourage consumer interest. Even some of the imports have this problem here in the U.S. There’s no excuse for Ford Canada to have a web site that is less convenient and forthcoming with information than the HQ site at Ford.com — and it is well short of what it should be. I didn’t thoroughly retrace your experience on the Canadian site, but a cursory exploration of the two sites side-by-side pretty quickly illustrates the shortfall.
I leave. Who knows? The Fusion AWD might be decent, but there is no way on god’s green earth that I’m purchasing one from those erks. I don’t even drive one to see whether that groany Ford V6 has been quieted down.
Here in the US, Ford and GM have enough dealers in populated areas that it is quite often, even usually, possible to shop for the right dealer in addition to the right car. There are cars available to me that I like but I won’t buy them because either a good dealer is too inconvenient or the local one is baldly inept. When I bought my Cadillac, I had four dealers within reasonable distance. The closest shop was staffed by hacks. The dealer closest to my job is sterling. The latter got the sale.
By the way, that groany Ford V6 has been to finishing school put some muscle on its bones.
Why are car manufacturers fronted by salespeople who are grossly stupid? Apparently, their lack of skill and knowledge is condoned by the manufacturer, and their explanations work for some customers. Not me. I see red. And step back for a moment.
This is a modern plague. Companies don’t pay for quality representation with enough dedication, and training is woefully scant. Cars? It’s almost the least of it. This is an endemic problem throughout the high-cost/high-considered purchase product categories. From high definition TVs to automobiles to high-end watches to cameras to houses and $7,000 refrigerators. In an earlier post I said the Detroit 3 should hire and place 2 full-time ombudsmen in each of their dealers to provide full opening-hours coverage for improving and monitoring dealer conduct, as well as to resolve warranty disputes on the spot. They can easily afford this and it’s something that can be done immediately to cope with the dealer networks they are saddled with and can’t willy-nilly dismantle in the US.
I considered the idea of going Detroit, Mr. Ressler, and ran away mentally screaming. Didn’t even get to the product, even if it is just a gussied-up Mazda. My brain was on all points panic alert at the thought of dropping 30 large at that place.
Arrrrrrrggggggh. No way, Jose.
In this case, you’ve done what I ask. You went to a dealer, attempted to evaluate a competitive Detroit 3 product and you were unfortunately thwarted by the local dealer experience. Given the state of distribution, that’s going to happen sometimes. I know people here who won’t buy a Toyota because of the negative dealer experience (generally arrogance) available in proximity to them. However, if you had the same community/national interest as me, I’d push you a little harder to find an alternate dealer.
Phil
Phil insists that there is not enough time and that the Detroit 2.81723 wil all go bankrupt.
No; I said that this is the first time that all of the domestic automakers face an existential threat simultaneously. It’s not yet in the cards that they *will* go bankrupt. That’s what I want to see staved off.
Every time someone asked him name specific detroit nameplates that are competitive, it has not occurred sans the Fusion. Well Phil, I leave it at this. You say that different people find different products competitive. Perhaps a minority of the market (that you have termed import bigots) has decided that American products aren’t competitive. You say that Detroit won’t have time to remedy the issues we speak of. How about Wagoner, Lutz, et al. apologizing on behalf of their companies for making decades of crap and telling us how their new stuff is better. All they need is a microphone. Frankly, I’d be alright with Wagoner et al losing their jobs, they make too much money already.
I said that some of the action some of you have demanded from Detroit is outside of the time scope I’m concerned about. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do these things. But what Detroit should do is a different matter entirely. *Here*, in October 2007, I’m interested in what *we* as consumers can do — if any of us care about these companies completing their reform — to improve the circumstances of domestic automotive manufacturing this year, next and the year after that. This is a direct case for a class of consumers to drop their willful resistance to domestic automobiles and at least consider, evaluate and if convinced, buy, accordingly.
There’s a lot of marketing advice I and others can give Lutz, Wagoner, Mullaly, et al. As a consumer and citizen interested in the reform and competitiveness of American manufacturing, especially in this sector, personal mea culpas are a distraction and just feel-good gestures. Responsible parties can be dealt with later. Some of these guys have been drivers for change that has brought improved product to market.
The bottom line here is that you are looking at these “import bigots” out of context of reality. Sure, they could openly consider American cars, but they won’t.
When an advocate pushes for a change in behavior, he is not inhibited by “reality.” The whole point is to change reality among enough people to make a difference. Resistance from a few people on TTAC is not an indicator of “reality.” It’s the nature of a highly-specialized audience.
…but the greater social context is nothing compared to the possibility of losing their own hard-earned money.
Isn’t this among the central problems undermining social function in American society?
It is all about perception. Is this vehicle a worthy gamble based on all of the information available to me? Your perception is different from many of those responding. Some people’s perceptions will change and some will not on either side. The point is that perceptions differ and social context will only make a difference if two products are percieved as equally good. Your argument falls apart for many at this assumption. Whether it is that they are equally good or close enough. Others say that there is a significant difference between these brands and that difference drives them. You are no more correct than I am, but that matters little to the other.
I don’t expect to convince everyone, but understand that perceptions are to varying degrees malleable and the very nature of an editorial is to change or bend perceptions.
As much as you say that some are import bigots, you are a domestic bigot.
If I were, my behavior would support the objective I seek — more time for the Detroit 3. But I’m not a domestic bigot. I’ve owned imports. I haven’t ruled out doing business with any one manufacturer (though I’m probably a long stretch for Toyota to motivate me). I thoroughly shop imports that qualify when I decide it’s time for a change, and I make my decisions on a wide variety of factors above and beyond the product itself. In other words, I’m not asking you to do anything I don’t do myself.
However, there is no reason to correct that bias as long as one can continuie to pass through life happily.
I believe you’ve identified another foundational element in our social dysfunction.
My experiences have biased me towards imports and that is where I will go until my perceptions about the other products (and thus my bias) has changed.
No doubt. I am suggesting some good reasons to accelerate your change in perceptions.
Mr. Ressler continually contradicts himself
I know you believe this, but you’d be wrong to continue to believe it. I’ve been consistent about my position, reasons, advocacy.
In his original piece, he claims that pretty much everything offered to American car buyers is mechanically reliable,”
Yes, this is true.
yet 500 posts later, he not only acknowledges the reliability gap,
I acknowledged a measured reliability gap (that, by the way is backward-looking and dated) which I also do not think is enough of a gap for anything surveyed to be considered unreliable. Differences of degrees will always exist and not be contradictory of generally uniform real-world reliability across the board.
but claims that he never denied its existence…even though he denied it in the original article!
And in fact I didn’t.
In the original article, Mr. Ressler describes buyer concerns about interior quality and depreciation as being “pointless.” Yet 500 posts later, when pushed yet again to provide a list of “competitive” vehicles, he refuses to on the basis that “Everyone has their own idea of competitive.” It’s hard to make those contradictory points mesh.
Nothing is contradictory about those two sentences, and more to the point they aren’t even related. I can acknowledge the subjectivity of criteria for competitiveness and still regard some of those criteria as pointless to satisfying selection of a car. You don’t have to be insightful to put 2+2 together to understand that I think import bigots sometimes focus on picayune differences as a rationalization for their bigotry, rather than as a rationale.
Would you want to buy a car made by a company that is operated with the mindset of the author of this article? Because I believe that’s what you would be doing by following Mr. Ressler’s advice, and I don’t care for the implications of such a choice.
You have no idea what my operating mindset would be if I were CEO of any of these companies. So you also have no idea whether the existing management has my operating mindset. Nothing I’ve written here except for one or two isolated references, has been operating advice for the Detroit 3. That’s a different and separate subject entirely.
As does Mr. Ressler, I would expect GM corporate to respond to these sorts of concerns by offering platitudes about their wonderful products, while patronizing me and hinting at my “bigotry” in the process.
Well, speak for yourself. I don’t have that expectation nor have I heard GM take this approach.
…creating dissatisfaction, and if no one is willing to honor my warranty in good faith.
Gosh, I’ve haven’t had a single warranty fight in over 20 years of American cars. But I know many import owners who have had such skirmishes with Toyota, Honda, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, VW. Face it, these disputes happen across the market, import and domestic. However, you couldn’t prove the domestic part by me!
If I am going to spend that kind of money on a product, the last things I want are insults and condescension.
No one from an automaker has insulted you. If you’re insulted, it was by me. Them’s the breaks in the advocacy business.
The way I read this article summarized as succinctly as possible.
-SOME people blindly buy foreign without looking at domestic, i.e. import bigots.
-This term is not meant in the normal truly insulting way bigot normally would be probably.
-There are some very competitive domestic products these people should look at.
-Buying them benefits society as a whole
-The slight differences in few categories seen as shortcomings are offset by the overall societal benefit
-Not all domestics are worthy competitors, just be aware there are some, and opinions of what these are differ, hence not him listing them.
RLJ676 understands me perfectly.
I don’t deny that Detroit make some good cars, they may even make them to standards that meet or even exceed import manufacturers standards. But the trouble is to say that people aren’t giving them a fair shot is basically (in my eyes) blaming the wrong people.
This is a recurring objection, but it is wholly misplaced as an objection to my editorial. Let’s put aside for the moment that Katie has no dog in this fight, since it makes no difference to her whether US auto manufacturing is wholly owned by Toyota, MB, Honda, BMW, et al, or by Detroit 3 or a mix. She has an educated opinion.
The error in this objection as rebuttal is that nothing I’ve written is in conflict with Katie’s point, and vice-versa. Yes, of course if you’re sitting in Michigan wondering what you have to do to put your carmaking business back together again, you must take responsibility for fixing your own mistakes and fighting your way back into the hearts and minds of customers. NOTHING in my editorial contradicts that business reality.
However, that doesn’t preclude existence of a consumer component to the problem. If Detroit were still making product to 1979 design and manufacturing standards, there’d be no consumer component and they would be dead. That’s not the case. The Detroit 3 have dramatically improved products across the board — even the much abused Cobalt is a sensational small car compared with what prevailed on the market 10 years ago — and in some mainstream areas have eliminated any gap in import vs. domestic quality that is significant to a reasonable person. In heavy vehicles, they set the standard. In luxury vehicles, Cadillac is mounting a strong resurgence.
The proposition is simple: I am clear that retaining the Detroit 3 as vital, competitive American owned and headquartered manufacturing companies is better for the United States and everyone who lives in it, than is losing them. That social context should be among your decision criteria and reason enough to drop perceptual, emotional, conceptual, attitudinal, hormonal, what-have-you inhibitors to considering and evaluating Detroit’s products. If you don’t agree with that, end of story. Why even bother with this thread? If you’re an import bigot, domestic avoider or import brand loyalist who doesn’t accept this proposition, you’ll be spending your time tapping out variations on PcH101’s posts misrepresenting me, citing impertinent data, and architecting elaborate obfuscations to make the case that you’re rational and prototypical of the rest of the market, or elitist and super-rational and should be prototypical of the rest of the market, and either way therefore exempt from my appeal.
Argue all you want that the Detroit 3 must win you back and you owe them nothing. It’s a non-sequitur to what I’m advocating. For the first time, there is an existential threat to all of our significant domestic automotive manufacturing companies. All are in reform. All have sharply improved products to varying degrees. If you’re with me on the value of seeing them gain the capital and time to complete their reforms, you’ll consider, shop and maybe buy (only if you’re convinced) a competitive Detroit 3 vehicle next time you need a new car. If you’re not with me, you won’t. All the rest is obfuscation of that fundamental choice.
Phil
kixstart, you made me pee my pants. (“I’ll send you a brochure”?)
…if there are “import bigots,” then identify them. Or point out something that proves their existence as a class. All Phil has brought are anectdotes. That only takes you so far.
This is a diversion. Bigoted buying behavior exists in every consumer market. Consumers know it, marketers know it. Retailers know it. Only you seem not to. I didn’t just bring anecdotes, I brought 30 years of observation. You’ll just have to take that seriously — or not. If not, we know your stance. Noted.
The problem I have with Phil’s label is that the evidence for “import bigotry” is equivocal, at best. The evidence at hand fits “brand loyalty” and “informed shopping” at least equally well and I believe it’s a better fit. Many others, I think, would agree with this.
While I’d like the “brand loyal” and “informed” to consider the larger social context of their buying decision, let me be clear: I’m specifically interested in dislodging import bigots from their buying behavior as a starting point.
Phil could have taken the excitement down a notch or two, if he had avoided using a loaded term. He didn’t. JDPowers, for example, uses “domestic avoiders” to describe the behavior Phil discusses.
I didn’t, for reasons already noted.
What NAFTA is, straightforwardly, is a method by which manufacturers can get cheaper labor costs, and still sell in the US sans import duties. If middle class jobs are lost in the US it will be in large part to moving production to Mexico.
You have turned NAFTA upside down. By integrating the three contiguous economies in a trade zone, friction is removed in both directions. We have Mexican-owned industries here as well. As a consequence of this changed economic environment, US manufacturers are able to move some production to a cheaper labor pool and some of those will be middle class American jobs. However, those jobs landed in Mexico instead of in Asia. They were likely lost anyway, but by leveraging NAFTA, those Mexican production facilities of US companies, reduce immigration pressure, raise US content of good manufactured compared with same production moving to another continent, and the purchase of those cars supports an American company. It’s better than shipping jobs to Asia or South America.
It’s time we started to define the Fusion for what it really is – a foreign made car, imported for Ford (w/o tariffs). I’d rather buy an American made car (e.g. one built here) even if it doesn’t have an American name.
While the choice in economic leverage in US NAFTA production vs. transplant is murkier than domestic vs. import, for the purpose of the economic leverage that matters on this issue, advantage goes to Fusion. It is a car designed by the global resources of Ford Motor, built in a free-trade zone economy where the economic activity associated with its production reduces pressure on one of our most pressing social problems, has 50% US produced content, and it return revenue and profit to Ford Motor Company.
I don’t beleive Ford will be going out of business – they’ll just be transfering high wage jobs to low wage Mexico. They’ll become an American sales/marketing company, with manufacturing done elsewhere. I’m not sure why I should support that.
Not sure why you believe this when they continue to invest in the plants they are keeping open here.
I’m very willing to look at GM and Ford products before I buy, but I’ll do so on a model by model basis.
Precisely what I’m asking.
If I really desire to look at the social ramifications of my purchase, then I don’t see how I could by a Fusion, or an Aveo. If the idea is to save American jobs, then these models are counterproductive to the cause. If the idea is only to save the corporate entities, and some high paid HQ jobs, well, then I’m just not interested.
If it’s Ford vs. Toyota, Fusion is the leverage now. If it’s Malibu or another GM item produced here, then…hey…your heart and head are in the right place so go for it.
However, I am not the one advocating rewarding mediocrity.
No one here is advocating mediocrity.
Phil
No one here is advocating mediocrity.
It would be true to say that you haven’t limited yourself to mediocrity. You seem quite happy if American consumers opt to buy sub-par products as well.
So true regarding perception of and bias towards Americn cars.
I think that there is a tendency to disregard the actual meaning of the term “bias.” Webster defines it as ” an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.” Unfortunately, some people in this discussion define “bias” as “the opinions of someone who disagrees with me, and facts that I find to be inconvenient,” which is quite different from what you’ll find in the dictionary.
Looking back at the Avoider’s Survey, I’m seeing a fair bit of reasonable judgment at work: car buyers in this class want reliability, workmanship, relative fuel economy, and other practical virtues, as well as some degree of performance and style. That’s quite a different series of facts than what Mr. Ressler would like you to believe (and which he restates incessantly, even though he can’t prove it.)
The research and survey data on this subject clearly show that Honda and Toyota products almost always have superior reliability in comparison to domestic products, with very few exceptions. Not every product is equally good or bad, and there are buyers in each camp who are relatively lucky or unlucky compared to the norm. But the typical results bear out the norm.
Anecdotes from family picnics are no substitute for data. The lone survivor of a plane crash should not be considered to serve as a validation of wrecking planes, but as a guy who got very lucky.
If you happen to own a car that typically has below-average reliability but yours is an exception, then count your blessings. And do be careful, as you may not be so lucky next time. Many buyers of mainstream products realize that their odds run with the averages, and don’t take unnecessary risks unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so. Mr. Ressler might blame them, but I don’t.
Phil,
Just a quick note in support of your style and willingness to return and rebut. I am the type of person who appreciates a well-reasoned argument as opposed to taking the easy route of throwing out an emotional, and many times factually misleading or simply inaccurate, statement. It’s probably frustrating to continually respond to arguments that are irrelevant to your initial points, but I admire the restraint you’ve shown. I would respect your comments even if I disagreed with them, but I don’t. I also appreciate RLJ676’s attempts to clarify the original argument, though I believe the voice got lost in the crowd.
Everybody on this board, I am sure without exception, can talk about a negative quality experience that they (or someone they know) has had with a domestic product. The truth of the matter is that in the last 50 years, considerably more domestic product has been purchased in the US than import product, allowing for more bad experiences. Furthermore, there was a long period of time, probably 25 years or so, when the quality gap between the domestics and Asian imports was huge.
Therefore most people could probably anecdotally relate that they knew 8 people with domestic vehicles and 4 (or 5 or 6, pick your number) of them had problems, but the two people they knew with imports reported a trouble-free experience. The combination of the quality gap among cars of the same model year and a prevalence of older domestic vehicles therefore fueled the prevailing perception that imports (Asian) are better.
Today, for some car buyers, that perception is the primary driver of their decision to not consider a domestic.
For the rest of this argument, forget the dealer experience. It’s my belief that ignorant and arrogant salespeople can be found at dealers for all manufacturers. Maybe it’s not true, but I’m trying to avoid getting too anecdotal here, and just want to focus on quality, which is one of the foundations of Phil’s argument.
If you were just beamed here from outer space, didn’t know the history of the market, and just wanted to know “Who makes the best cars TODAY (or very recent past)?” you would have trouble gathering enough evidence in favor of domestic or import. The best measure is probably warranty claim data, which isn’t shared (for good reason, because if it WAS shared, dealers would be pressured not to submit claims).
Perhaps we could use recalls as a measure. I recommend reviewing NHTSA’s site or even Google-ing a manufacturer and the word “recall,” and comparing what you find – certainly the imports are not clean. Nor are the domestics. In defense of the imports, I have seen previous statements posted, to the tune of “They just do a better job of finding problems and are more pro-active about fixing them.” If you truly believe that, follow the link, and pay particular attention to the last sentence:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/casesett/toyota.htm
If we can’t use warranty data, and recall data is inconclusive, and the difference in JDPower on recent models is inconclusive (and subjective anyway), and Consumer Reports makes many of their judgments based on past experience and a manufacturer as a whole can fall into or out of favor, what is the evidence that can prove “Who makes the best car today?”
The bottom line: You won’t find anything objective. And in this case it’s the absence of data that is telling. Because, to Phil’s point, ON AVERAGE the quality gap among major manufacturers (Asian vs Domestic) has narrowed enough to be considered insignificant when taken as a whole.
Which supports the point. Consider domestics on a model by model basis. You don’t have to go buy one, just don’t dismiss them out of hand. Include it in your consideration list because the societal benefits are no longer outweighed by a huge quality gap.
You seem quite happy if American consumers opt to buy sub-par products as well.
My advocacy here is strictly limited to competitive Detroit 3 vehicles.
Looking back at the Avoider’s Survey, I’m seeing a fair bit of reasonable judgment at work: car buyers in this class want reliability, workmanship, relative fuel economy, and other practical virtues, as well as some degree of performance and style.
All of these attributes are available from the Detroit 3 in their most competitive models.
The research and survey data on this subject clearly show that Honda and Toyota products almost always have superior reliability in comparison to domestic products, with very few exceptions.
A reported advantage that is fading to the point of insignificance to the overall decision.
Moreover, the data compiled is limited to the data received. I’ve been fascinated to see that every Detroit 3 vehicle I bought was forecasted by “the data” to be trouble, and yet each was well-built, durable and reliable as can be. Further, reviews of each of those vehicles included critical comments that I found to be in many cases picayune or worse, inaccurate and some imports got a pass on the same transgressions. Could I have been lucky with one car? Sure. With over a dozen? And the ever-widening circle of relatives, friends, acquaintances who wonder about this alleged Detroit reliability deficit, since they don’t experience it on their own cars. In fact, sometimes a picnic is the better indicator of what your experience will be. You can get context. How was the car driven, maintained? Early service or incident history? What are the JDP data submitters missing or doing wrong? Sometimes you learn that the rest of the army really is out of step.
Phil
Okay… enough of the ‘holier than thou’ assumptions.
How is this for starters…
We judge each vehicle by it’s merits. No more. No less. If the other 99.99999% of the world doesn’t do this to our liking, that’s their problem… not ours.
Well, now that we all agree on this foundation, let me tell you all of you what YOU should think.
I think you should buy whatever I believe is a good deal.
That’s right. You’re too dumb and ‘biased’ to figure it out for yourself. You need help.
Please let me do it for you. If you pay me enough money, I may actually give you a qualified opinion ;)
People are biased. The wind blows. It’s the media and big brother that pass the Kool-Aid, and no one is accountable.
Have we heard all this before???
My advocacy here is strictly limited to competitive Detroit 3 vehicles.
It’s a shame that you can’t name these “competitive” vehicles or, perhaps more importantly, provide your definition of what makes a vehicle “competitive” or otherwise.
As I suggested previously, I suspect that your definition of “competitiveness” is more forgiving and less stringent than that of the norm. In your original op-ed, you dismissed concerns about interior quality and depreciation rates as “pointless”, so it’s already quite clear that you’re behind the curve when it comes to consumer expectations.
In other words, it’s clear to me that you are not in a position to judge competitiveness as an American consumer would consider it. Obviously, you have your own definition of it, and you’re entitled to it. But applying that low bar to others would require them to lower their expectations. Just because your expectations are low doesn’t mean that theirs should be, too.
The best measure is probably warranty claim data, which isn’t shared (for good reason, because if it WAS shared, dealers would be pressured not to submit claims).
I guess that you didn’t read the thread. Posters already provided this data, and it indicates that the domestics do, in fact, have higher warranty expenses than do Toyota and Honda.
Because, to Phil’s point, ON AVERAGE the quality gap among major manufacturers (Asian vs Domestic) has narrowed enough to be considered insignificant when taken as a whole.
Apparently, you didn’t read the other content here, either. Survey data makes it clear that the domestics generally underperform the market leaders.
Once again, there is no way to use the objective data available to conclude that the domestics consistently deliver reliability equal to that of Honda and Toyota. The domestics typically underperform, and the few that don’t are typically built on antiquated platforms with outdated low tech that buyers don’t like.
The cars need to be reliable and desirable to make Americans happy. Those who disrespect the American consumer will eventually pay the price — they always do.
Quasimondo, I do believe it was a first generation Neon. I don’t know that I’ve seen this on newer Chryslers. I know I’ve seen it on older ones (as an example, a friend’s older Caravan). That paint issue spanned a generation.
The bigger question is, why not just paint the damn cars? Even if you konw the car’s a few years old, you don’t see Hondas and Toyotas – or even Fords and GMs, I think – losing paint like that. Arrange a volume discount and take care of it. Well, too late now – but when the problem first hit, they could have done something about it back then.
I can only assume that Chrysler’s OK with their cars looking like crap.
RLJ676: “My point is why are some of you so against the idea of asking people who won’t consider American cars to do so?”
I don’t recall that I ever wrote people should NOT look at American cars. If they want to do so, fine. If they buy one and end up happy with it, more power to them. I’ve done it myself. I expect to buy my next car in 2009 and I’ll probably want a high-mpg hybrid. Even if, by some miracle, GM builds the Volt by 2009 who’s going to want a first-model-year Volt over a proven solution?
The fact is, Phil has not proven the existence of “import bigots.” I challenged you and you responded that Phil had done so. That’s not correct. If you’re convinced of their existence take your swing at it. Provide evidence. Provide evidence that clearly identifies bigoted behavior. Evidence that isn’t explained by “good reasons to buy an import.” Reliability, resale, fuel economy, these are the top reasons JDP’s “domestic avoiders” pick imports. Those are solid, contemporary reasons, not bigotry.
You could also take up the cudgels on Phil’s behalf and identify some “competitive” Detroit cars. Phil has refused, because he refuses to take this thread down that rathole or some equivalent evasion. News flash: It’s already in a rathole. Go for it.
Phil, in response to something I wrote: “You’ll just have to take that seriously — or not. If not, we know your stance. Noted.”
Gosh… does that mean it goes down in my Permanent Record?
The fact is, you have:
1. Used a loaded term. If you’re getting a lot of flak about this article, it’s exactly what you deserve.
2. Imputed the existence of millions of “import bigots” acting against their own best interests from thin air. You’ve brought NO evidence of their existence. You’ve got anectdotes but we can’t question the people involved, so we have no idea whether or not you accurately interpret their behavior. And a few anectdotes do not a million make. It’s hardly a random sample to consider the behavior of Friends Of Phil. All the statistical evidence and all the buying behavior I’m aware of points to “people found good reasons to buy an import.” At worse, we find brand loyalty, a convenient way of saving time when car shopping.
In fact, if you really are process-oriented and not outcome-oriented, you are still asking consumers for something: their time. That’s all that telemarketers want, too. Do you *like* getting telemarketing calls?
MichaelJ: “Because, to Phil’s point, ON AVERAGE the quality gap among major manufacturers (Asian vs Domestic) has narrowed enough to be considered insignificant when taken as a whole.”
Insignificant to who? To people that value reliability above style? To people who value reliability above V-6 power?
A gap is a gap. If I want to cross a 15 foot crevasse and my best long jump is 14 feet, I have a problem.
“My brother decided to buy it as his 2003 Type S with 68,000 miles was in the shop receiving it’s 2nd transmission!”
An excellent example of how good customer service can overcome manufacturing and/or engineering problems. Honda/Acura made a bunch of automatic transmissions over a period of several years which have had high failures rates, so the company unilaterally extended the warranty on them to 100,000 miles. Very few of the affected customers are rip-snorting mad because in general their problem is getting fixed.
Contrast that to the horrible failure rates on Chrysler minivan automatics for many years and on the first several generations of the Taurus automatic transmissions. People who had failures after the 24,000 mile original warranty where generally stuck. How about the paint jobs which burned themselves off many Ford, GM and Chrysler products in the late 80s and early 90s. In some cases the clear coat peals away from the color coat and in other cases the color coat peals away from the primer. You know, those vehicles which look like a bad camoflage job. Here in California they are still on the road and every one of them is a big don’t-buy-this-again reminder. In every case the US makers fought like mad to duck financial responsibility for their shoddy paint work and blamed government regulations. Handy excuse that blame to government thing is.
My well cared for four year old 1986 Taurus suffered from early failure of the clear coat, just like all the rest of them did when sold into sunny climates. Ford’s response … out of warranty, up yours.
Customers typically don’t hold a grudge when a company owns up to and handles it’s problems. After getting burned by Ford automatic transmissions and paint jobs in the 80s I moved on to GM in the 90s, and got stuck with just after warranty intake manifold gasket failure on both. After that, I bought a 2003 Accord. Five years and 72k miles later it hasn’t cost me a dime for anything other than normal maintenance and wear items (oil, filters, brakes, tires and a battery). By the same point in the life of our Taurus needed a paint job, a brake master cylinder (plastic! original failed), an A/C evaporator along with the usual maint. items. The two Oldsmobiles both had expensive intake manifold gasket failure before 70k miles and the second one also needed all new shocks/struts, a new rear window wiper motor, an A/C evaporator and new headlight units. The headlights developed internal water leaks within weeks of the warranty period ending. In all cases GM and Ford told me tough luck.
Contrast that with Honda, where my car had a strange electrical problem at 55k miles. They looked, said it was a known problem and fixed it for free as a goodwill adjustment even though it was out of warranty. It seems that when Honda discovers that a component has a high failure rate post warranty but before the end of it’s expected normal life they are inclined to fix the problem on their dime. Integrity works that way. If you cause a problem then it is your responsibility to try and fix it. Pretty simple, but almost no companies operate that way. My experience with Honda is that they do indeed generally act with integrity. That makes Honda my first choice in new vehicles. Yes I will continue to shop around when the time comes because I have always done so, but at this point a competitor needs an amazing product to pull me away from the supplier who has treated me right.
I refuse to accept the argument that buying a Mexican Fusion would be better for the US economy than is buying an Ohio manufactured and largely US designed Accord. There are no profits to send to Dearborn, and the last time I put money into Ford’s hand they stuck a stick in my eye in return. I let the Detroit gang fool me three times in a row. I must be a slow learner.
Yes, it is true that Honda and Toyota’s US operations get their jobs done well with fewer people than it takes GM, Ford or Chrysler. That is called productivity and it is a good thing. The reason capitalism trounces socialism over time is productivity. Rewarding the less productive supplier with one’s business is always bad in the macroeconomic sense.
I am new here to posting on The Truth About Cars. I just want to make one point that supports this editorial’s argument. Based on many of the stories about the quality and past problems of cars, from various manufacturers from all countries, it would seem that finding a quality car that won’t keep you stranded can often be a crap shoot. Just because a particular car company does or doesn’t have a reputation for reliability or quality, doesn’t automatically make it reliable or not. It often varies car by car. Granted, there is a greater percentage chance that buying a Honda or Toyota will land you a better quality vehicle, but that is not certain. So it certainly wouldn’t hurt someone to look at domestic or import cars and give them equal consideration based on what’s important to them. For all they know, they may be very pleased with, let’s say, a Chevy Cobalt, and have many years of dependable service. But, if they automatically don’t consider any Big 3(Big 2.whatever) vehicle without a chance, they may miss out on a car that they may enjoy.
“While the choice in economic leverage in US NAFTA production vs. transplant is murkier than domestic vs. import, for the purpose of the economic leverage that matters on this issue, advantage goes to Fusion. It is a car designed by the global resources of Ford Motor, built in a free-trade zone economy where the economic activity associated with its production reduces pressure on one of our most pressing social problems, has 50% US produced content, and it return revenue and profit to Ford Motor Company.”
I don’t beleive advantage goes to Fusion. First, if it’s designed by the “global resources of FM”, I take that to mean designed at least in part elsewhere. Second, Accord, for example, is also manufactured in a free trade zone economy, and thrid, the Accord has higher American content than Fusion. IMO, the only valid point you’ve made is that the profit goes back to Ford. Whether or not that actually helps the American economy is another matter. (When they move production to Mexico, no. When they buy ailing British sports car makers, no. If they use the profits to invest in new plants and jobs in the US, yes)
American brand names are not the default choice when social factors are considered. It has to be done on a model by model basis.
Time for another anectdote, which in the end, proves absolutely nothing.
One of my wife’s co-workers has a Honda which had transmission problems. It was fixed, at Honda’s cost, still w/in the warranty period.
While the problem was in a sense “taken care of”, this customer simply won’t have the same brand loyalty that I have. She acknowledges that Honda stood by their vehicle, and honored the warranty w/o hassel. But the fact remains, her car had a tranny go out. She says she probably won’t buy a Honda next time.
Even though this woman’s transmission problem is now a few years in the past, that doesn’t mean she’ll be giving Honda a chance next time she buys. She doesn’t hate Honda – because they honored the warranty w/o an argument, but she doesn’t love Honda either. No brand loyalty has been built, and most likely, no repeat business. There is no free pass for Toyohondisan, as some seem to believe.
It’s a shame that you can’t name these “competitive” vehicles
Won’t is different from “can’t.” Perhaps in a different thread. Why not write an editorial of your own; stick your neck out positing a definitive point-of-view regarding what’s competitive and what’s not, and perhaps I’ll respond with my list.
As I suggested previously, I suspect that your definition of “competitiveness” is more forgiving and less stringent than that of the norm. In your original op-ed, you dismissed concerns about interior quality and depreciation rates as “pointless”, so it’s already quite clear that you’re behind the curve when it comes to consumer expectations.
I’m current with consumer expectations but I am not endorsing of picayune alleged qualitative differences that are rationalizations for excluding certain cars on the basis cited. I’ve also plainly said that some remaining differences, where they exist, are too small to be worth incurring the social cost that comes with the import purchase. And in enough cases there is no material difference or the advantage is on the domestic side.
Once again, there is no way to use the objective data available to conclude that the domestics consistently deliver reliability equal to that of Honda and Toyota.
The data you cite is selective, not strictly objective. There’s a difference. And I don’t see any correlation between it and actual experience, if you choose carefully.
In other words, it’s clear to me that you are not in a position to judge competitiveness as an American consumer would consider it. Obviously, you have your own definition of it, and you’re entitled to it. But applying that low bar to others would require them to lower their expectations. Just because your expectations are low doesn’t mean that theirs should be, too.
You’re presuming. Wrongly.
Posters already provided this data, and it indicates that the domestics do, in fact, have higher warranty expenses than do Toyota and Honda.
Warranty data cited by someone way back in this thread was not market representative. I don’t know what it was representative of.
Apparently, you didn’t read the other content here, either. Survey data makes it clear that the domestics generally underperform the market leaders.
Data from a dated, backward-looking survey, showing continuing reduction of these finer differences. It’s too small to be material to a decision.
The bigger question is, why not just paint the damn cars?
Yup, they should have. GM paid a serious price for this in the 1980s when the EPA forced adoption of water-based paints before mass production application was perfected. Premature psoriasis of Celebritys, Poncho 6000s and even Corvettes eroded faith in the General. Chrysler should have learned the lesson.
The fact is, Phil has not proven the existence of “import bigots.”
I don’t have to prove their existence to your satisfaction. Again, most people who understand the term and see how it applies to them openly admit it. It seems controversial with so few people here it’s barely worth worrying about that opposition. Moreover, you haven’t proven the absence of import bigots and while you can retort that you don’t have to do that either, you are trying to cast doubt on something (bigoted buying behavior) that is widely known to be environmental to nearly every consumer category.
Reliability, resale, fuel economy, these are the top reasons JDP’s “domestic avoiders” pick imports. Those are solid, contemporary reasons, not bigotry.
You’re making the mistake of assuming virtue where it is less ubiquitous than you hope. The bigoted buyer will readily cite all of the attributes that show up in the JDP survey, while in fact refusing to consider that any domestic-sourced product can measure up. JDP wouldn’t know the difference. I’ve been on the receiving end of JDP’s surveys many times. Nothing in their research methodology separates the import bigot from the domestic avoider who is (allegedly) acting on substantive terms.
The fact is, you have:
1. Used a loaded term. If you’re getting a lot of flak about this article, it’s exactly what you deserve.
Flak is no concern to me, and it is coming from so few people (albeit repetitively) as to be meaningless.
2. Imputed the existence of millions of “import bigots” acting against their own best interests from thin air. You’ve brought NO evidence of their existence. You’ve got anecdotes but we can’t question the people involved, so we have no idea whether or not you accurately interpret their behavior. And a few anecdotes do not a million make. It’s hardly a random sample to consider the behavior of Friends Of Phil. All the statistical evidence and all the buying behavior I’m aware of points to “people found good reasons to buy an import.” At worse, we find brand loyalty, a convenient way of saving time when car shopping.
It’s not a postulate pulled from thin air, though you may choose to believe it is. If that’s what you choose to believe, noted. For good reasons, I’m not budging and it is immaterial to me whether you do or not. Nor is the observed sample limited to FoP. That population is barely represented. A million? I am sure it’s more. In seeking a million converts to objectivity and heightened social awareness of self-interest, I am assuming I can’t get everyone in the import bigot camp, so the million has to come from a larger subset of the overall market.
In fact, if you really are process-oriented and not outcome-oriented, you are still asking consumers for something: their time. That’s all that telemarketers want, too. Do you *like* getting telemarketing calls?
If the process is open and sound, I accept the outcome. Taking the time to consciously use your substantial purchasing power to shape the social environment you live in is well worth the time I’m asking people to commit to this. If you equate it with telemarketing, you are either missing the point entirely or just not serious about this discussion.
A gap is a gap. If I want to cross a 15 foot crevasse and my best long jump is 14 feet, I have a problem.
It’s not 1979 or 1987. It’s a gap you don’t have to leap. You can put your big toe on both sides of it simultaneously in 2007, just by standing in one place.
Phil
In response to: “It’s a shame that you can’t name these “competitive” vehicles…”
Phil wrote: “Won’t is different from can’t.
They look the same from here.
In response to: “Show me the million…”
Phil had this to say: “It’s not a postulate pulled from thin air, though you may choose to believe it is. If that’s what you choose to believe, noted. For good reasons, I’m not budging and it is immaterial to me whether you do or not. Nor is the observed sample limited to FoP. That population is barely represented. A million? I am sure it’s more. In seeking a million converts to objectivity and heightened social awareness of self-interest, I am assuming I can’t get everyone in the import bigot camp, so the million has to come from a larger subset of the overall market.”
My, my… What a lot of words… And, yet, for all that effort, nothing of substance? No declaration of “we know import bigots exist because X happens in the market place and survey data says Y and we can distinguish this from informed preference by Z?” So, what you’ve written is just more unsupported twaddle.
With respect to a quality gap, Phil wrote this: “It’s not 1979 or 1987. It’s a gap you don’t have to leap. You can put your big toe on both sides of it simultaneously in 2007, just by standing in one place.”
So you say. Except JDP, CR and gross warranty data all point to one thing; there’s a gap and it’s real. Is it smaller? Sure. Well, maybe. Is it gone? No. How important is it to people? I’d say it depends on the person.
You claim the gap is a “rationalization.” You’ve got no proof of that, either.
Consider this quetion, “Why do people buy CR?” Off-hand, I don’t know for sure but most of the automobile information in CR can be determined by a test drive and a look at the window sticker and a trip to Edmunds. All free. Yet, CR sells. What’s the one thing it has that the other sources don’t? Trusted reliability information. What does that tell us about reliabilty information? That it’s important. Could I be misinterpreting this? Sure. But I’ve got an argument that aligns with real-world information.
PCH101, I think, called your arguments “circular.” That was dead on. If we start from a premise of rationalization or from a premise that import bigots exist, each flows from the other. But neither stands alone.
I just want to make a few points here, but know it is not worth the effort really, as there are 3 or 4 people who will continually not get this premise.
“show me an import bigot”
Ok, did you consider AT ALL a domestic when evaluating what to purchase last, or your next purchase? If not, YOU are an import bigot. You guys know they exist and its absurd to argue otherwise. Now as to what their justification is and is it valid could be argued to the ends of the earth, but that’s not the point here.
Second, all of the data being posted showing the imports as higher quality is dated, and from older models. This is obvious as that is what is available. However, evidence supports the newer products are far beyond these prior, and possibly better in some cases, ie Buick, the Fusion, and others. So that is what is being asked to consider, or take a chance on. Everyone knows that in 2000 the Focus was less reliable than Corolla most likely, you aren’t making a point by re-establishing this.
“I don’t think they’ll go bankrupt anytime soon”
Wrong. I can’t speak for all of the big 3, but I can for a FACT state I know more of what the risk is of at least one of these companies than you do. Trust me, things have to go right for survival. The only saving factor is the rest of the world performance is generally improving faster than at home for the domestics.
This leads to my last point, I haven’t seen anyone give a valid reason why they are arguing for 57 pages now of why not to consider a domestic? That is the simple point here, please consider a domestic, if it’s better, or close, it’d benefit society to buy it (and probably you as well). That’s all the writer asked. Why would this cause people to argue like this. I think you can clearly see why I want you to do this, why DON’T you guys? If you say I work at Toyota, than I guess I see it, otherwise I don’t.
My list of competitive since you have glaringly ignored Phil’s suggestions.
-GM Lamda’s (Outlook, Enclave, Acadia)
-08 Malibu
-Vette (obviously)
-Fusion/Milan/MKZ
-Taurus/Sable
-Edge/MKX
-do I need to mention domestic trucks even?
-Aura
-Astra
-Mustang
-Explorer
-Expedition
-Tahoes
-Navigator/Escalade
I’m sure I’ve missed a few, but all of these cars exceed the competition in some ways and are certainly competitive in something as subjective as a car purchase. This list won’t be the same for everyone, but I’m sure a few of you that can’t grasp this ideawill tell me why this is “so wrong.”
Moving over a page to the current nominees for the 2007 TWAT awards cannot do much for the image of vehicles produced by the big 2.8… Asian and European cars are decidedly underrepresented.
Chevrolet TrailBlazer / GMC Envoy / Isuzu Ascender / Saab 9-7X (2006 Winner – 9-7X)
Chevy Aveo (2006 Winner)
Chevrolet Cobalt (2006 Nominee)
Chevrolet Monte Carlo (2006 Winner)
Chevrolet Uplander (2006 Winner)
Chrysler Aspen (2006 Winner)
Chrysler Sebring
Dodge Caliber
Dodge Nitro
Ford Focus
Hummer H2 (2006 Nominee)
Hummer H3
Jaguar X-type (2006 Nominee)
Jeep Commander (2006 Nominee)
Jeep Compass (2006 Winner)
Lincoln Mark LT (2006 Winner)
Nissan Armada
Pontiac Grand Prix
Saturn ION
Subaru Tribeca (2006 Winner)
RLJ676, I think you miss the point. What I was really driving at is that it is the marketplace that defines competitiveness, not you, me, or any one other individual.
Your list strikes me as somewhat arbitrary. It includes cars that haven’t even been released yet, so I’m not sure how you can give your blessing to the Malibu, for example, when they aren’t even on our roads yet.
But in any case, here are some problems with your specifics: In virtually every case, there is a transplant or import alternative that the market prefers. For example, there isn’t much reason to buy an Aura when the Accord has a better track record. The Aura is a dice roll; the Accord is not. Since car buying ain’t a casino, most folks buying mid-sized sedans aren’t inclined to take their chances.
Here’s a challenge: I’d like you to enroll in Pch101’s new contest (insert radio voice here), “Adopt an Import Bi-got Day”. We will pronounce “bigot” with a faux French accent for the purposes of my contest. This is how it will work:
-We will find one TTAC poster who would not be inclined to buy a domestic to go ahead and buy one. No Ferraris allowed here, we’ll stick with mainstream classes of vehicles dominated by Toyota and Honda, such as a mid-sized sedans or small CUV’s. For the sake of argument, we’ll call the adoptee Kixstart.
-Now, here’s the catch — you, RLJ, will deposit $5,000 of your own money into a bank account, managed by an escrow agent. The purpose of this account will be to compensate KixStart for whatever losses and inconveniences he may suffer as a result of his choice.
>> If he has a breakdown, you will pay for the rental, as well as the value of his lost time, based upon his hourly salary at time-and-a-half. Any family members or friends who this inconvenienced will also be paid for their losses.
>> Three years following his purchase, you will pay for any differential between the resale value of the car, and the resale of the car that KixStart would have otherwise purchased.
>> And in the spirit of every other car sale, we’ll hit you with another cost that you may not have counted on. In this case, you will pay KixStart (based upon some formula that we’ll figure out later) for any other differential between the reliability survey results obtained from JD Power and Consumer Reports, and the car that KixStart would have otherwise chosen. We’ll call it a Peace of Mind Penalty to compensate KixStart for any peripheral losses that don’t show up in Kelley Blue Book (lost sleep, complaints from Mrs. Kix/ She Who Must Be Obeyed, excess squeaks and rattles, etc.) suffered as a result of the purchase.
In other words, come on down from the lectern and back up your advice with your money. Since competitiveness means equal value, then if the vehicles are, in fact, competitive, you will have lost nothing and will receive your money back, while KixStart will have been protected for his risk. Seems fair enough…right?
PCH101
No, I guess you miss the point, no car is risk free. If he happens to buy a V6 Camry it seems there’s a high risk of issues to come up now isn’t there? They are ALL a roll of the dice.
Also, there is a reason to buy the Aura, it helps ensure the survival of GM which benefits the country, which you clearly care nothing about, or you’d understand that is the point of this article. Further, it has styling, features and a price point that may be subjectively superior for anyone. You wouldn’t know this if you refused to even look at it.
Further, I love how insulted you are by your inference that by not considering American you are less intelligent, or whatever has you so upset. But in the very veign of your argument of “old camry was reliable, so buying, no make that even considering, anything else is worthless” is insulting to half the market which didn’t buy an import, or bought one that they PREFER despite reliability issues (BMW, Mercedes comes to mind).
Again, what do YOU lose by other people checking out a domestic in their consideration set? I, you (assuming you are American and are actually impacted at all), and the country gains when they do. If you want to remain a import bigot as you clearly do, go for it. You don’t have to justify it to anyone, but why do you want to try and convince everyone to be a bigot?
Edgett,
I’m not surprised by that list at all givin the rather blatant import loving that goes on here. Those cars have sold to people, so there’s an ass for every seat I guess.
No, I guess you miss the point, no car is risk free
Yes, but some are more risk-free than others. The reliability data makes this very clear, as do the warranty claims and resale values.
In any case, why not back up your position with a check deposited into my contest? It’s very easy to anonymously make pronouncements about competitiveness, but it’s quite another to stand behind them with your money. If you aren’t willing to support your beliefs with your cash, I have to question how committed you are to the cause. Since it’s for the sake of the country, I would think that you’d eagerly volunteer!
PCH
I guess you don’t know what competitive truly means. It’s more than reliability for many people. Styling, driving, features, price, all impact a purchase decision. Resale will follow, but is not instantaneous.
You clearly are not a real car person, but more of a “reliable is the only measure of a car” person, so you will always base decisions on historical repair performance, and nothing else. As I’ve already noted trying to convince you otherwise is futile. What I also don’t understand is what you are doing on a car site at all when reliability is all you care about. I’m sure CR has a forum you’d like better.
I actually think that you may be a professional marketer for Toyota or Honda. The web is the next/current biggest marketing playground, and “real person” input is huge. Perhaps their savvy enough to have purchased “a real person” to blog for them? You have put more effort into backing something which you theoretically have no claim in than I could imagine. I already stated I have a very strong stake in the survival of the big 3.
RLJ676 wrote: “Ok, did you consider AT ALL a domestic when evaluating what to purchase last, or your next purchase?”
Yes. The Toyota won on the merits. I’d never bought a Toyota before. I also considered domestics again a couple years ago and Toyota won again. Today or in the future? Show me a domestic car that’s like the Prius and I’ll consider it.
RLJ676 also had this to say: “Second, all of the data being posted showing the imports as higher quality is dated, and from older models.”
Yes. Data from years of experience is required for “proven reliability,” a quality that many of us seek.
RLJ676 goes on: “However, evidence supports the newer products are far beyond these prior, and possibly better in some cases, ie Buick, the Fusion, and others.”
What evidence? Yes, I’ve seen that the Fusion is showing good marks. But is a 5 to 10 year old Fusion going to be any better than a 5 to 10 year old Taurus was? The jury is still out.
You don’t win people over on long-term reliability until you have long-term reliability experience. There are no shortcuts.
I would happily place a $1 bet that, in 2011, CR will rank the Fusion as “above average” in most repair history categories, say 9 out of 10 of them. However, I’m not going to bet $23,000 on that.
RLJ676: “This leads to my last point, I haven’t seen anyone give a valid reason why they are arguing for 57 pages now of why not to consider a domestic?”
That’s because noboby is arguing that no one should consider a domestic. If you want to consider a domestic, feel free.
What people are arguing is whether or not there’s some social obligation or some social good to be served by going the extra mile to consider a domestic.
And some of us are arguing that the existence of legions of “import bigots” is an unproven assertion. I’m perfectly willing to accept that there probably are a few. Ten? Thirty? I don’t happen to know any.
Phil provides anectdotal evidence of the existence of some. However, Phil does not necessarily have the full picture on these people. Look at the anectdote at the top… Is that an import bigot? Who knows? Phil has to admit, hundreds of posts later, that this was a chance encounter, that he doesn’t really know the guy’s situation, that he knows nothing about this person that would permit any extrapolation at all.
But Phil won’t stop with “a few,” Phil believes there’s enough that he wants a million of them to change their minds. So, how many are there? No one knows. You don’t provide any evidence for their existence.
People buy imports. People serially buy imports. Are they “import bigots?” Or did they have reasons for their choices? Serially buying imports can be explained by both “import bigotry” and “finding that the cars that best meet one’s needs happened to be imports.” Also, brand loyalty probably does come into play. Detroit worked that angle for years, are we to take it off the table, now?
In Phil’s universe, the customer must be an idiot, blind to his own best interests and interested in promoting the fortunes of other countries over his own.
On the survival prospects of the domestics, RLJ676: “I can’t speak for all of the big 3, but I can for a FACT state I know more of what the risk is of at least one of these companies than you do. Trust me, things have to go right for survival.”
Really? And this justifies what? What are the domestics going to do for me when my survival is threatened? What did they do for me when my domestic purchase turned out to be a steaming pile of automotive excretia? Are they shipping jobs overseas? Are they all playing footsie with the Chinese? Are they building plants in Mexico?
As for your list, which of those “competitive” vehicles has that quality which makes them “competitive” for me? That quality would be a proven track record for reliability. There is nothing inherently wrong with demanding this as a criterion for purchase and the evidence supports the idea that many people care, very much, about it. See my earlier remarks on CR.
Feel free to mention domestic trucks. One of the things holding Toyota back a bit, here, is that they really don’t have a proven record for service with trucks. They’re selling quite a few, probably based on their general automotive reputation, but will a Toyota truck last and last? Who wants to bet $30,000 on that? Even domestic buyers want a proven record.
And, of course, since just about 90% of trucks sold are Detroiters, Phil’s not talking to truck buyers, at least not yet.
By the way, that “competitive” ’08 Malibu… is it available? They didn’t have any at the local dealer last time I checked, which was fairly recently. Nothing’s “competitive” unless it’s also “available” for purchase.
Well, let’s just take a look… Oh… their website sucks just as bad as the local Toyota dealer’s. Still… no ’08 Malibus.
Astra? Is that available? Not at the local Saturn dealer, it isn’t.
I find your list to be curious… you think cars that don’t exist can be “competitive.” Well, I suppose they can be, in a sense, but they won’t generate any revenue and I’m certainly not going to buy one.
Let’s see… Corvette? Mustang? Are these “competitive” or are they “unique?” For certain, Toyota doesn’t offer anything like that.
Explorer, Expedition, Tahoe, Navigator, Escalade… What do you think the foreign competition is? I have to ask partly because I wouldn’t know, not being interested in that market segment. What do you envision the competition is for the Lambdas?
You didn’t mention a minivan. Or an existing compact car. Or a subcompact. Or a hybrid. Or a sport-cute (Rav4/CR-V). Millions of cars get sold in these segments. Why no “competitive” offerings from Detroit?
PCH101: “Bi-got…”
ROFLOL!
RLJ676, as regards the “roll of the dice,” it’s not. It’s more like Blackjack. Do you stand on 20 or do you take a card?
RLJ676, with respect to what’s competitive, no, it’s YOU that doesn’t get it. Competitive can certainly mean all of the things you describe. PCH101 has demonstrated that he understands this. However, everyone has their own idea of what that balance of those qualities should be.
I take long driving vacations. For me, reliability is extremely important. I’ve been stranded by vehicle breakdowns twice while on cross-country trips and that well and truly sucks. For me, reliability might be 80%, style is 0% (as in, it’s a minivan, who the hell cares?), performance 10% and interior qualities are 10%.
And this has nothing to do with being a car guy or not being a car guy. Even car guys need to get to work and for that, they need transportation. 90% of the vehicles sold in America are purchased for transportation. A small percentage are purchased expressly for recreation. Even the recreational vehicles get used for transportation. How many Solstii/Skies got sold last month? Under 2K. How many Camrys? Over 30K. Impalas? Over 30K.
People will buy different cars at different times to meet different needs. Considering the reliability of one’s purchase to be of paramount importance doesn’t mean you’re not a car guy, it just means you need or want a reliable car.
RLJ676: “PCH, I actually think that you may be a professional marketer for Toyota or Honda.”
That’s so lame.
Man, this is crazy… But the “import bigotry” does exist. I’d go as far as to say those who argue so vehemently that it doesn’t are themselves. If Toyota is such a reliable, best bet vehicle, why have they recently been taken off C/R’s automatic “best reliability” list? Their bread ‘n’ butter Camry isn’t even a recommended buy anymore. I often wonder why Toyotas are regarded as such great vehicles. I put plenty of money in my 4Runner to keep it on the road – as I’m sure I would be doing with a domestic (but maybe parts wouldn’t be as expensive). I personally don’t see what people like about the Camry, RAV4 or Corolla… I’ve driven them all and I can’t say I’m impressed. They all felt cheap – from the door to the IP and the “buzzy” powertrains. I personally thought the Aura was a better vehicle. So what is it? Gas mileage? I wouldn’t be caught dead in an ugly a$$ Prius, even if it got 100mpg. IMO mpg would have to be the only reason to buy it since it really has no other redeeming qualities. As for resale value… well I guess if people are willing to pony up that kind of cash for a used vehicle, then I guess that’s their decision. But it still isn’t really an objective measure of how good a car is. Supply and demand as well as (bigotted) image play a big part.
Let me start out by saying that I have been a long time supporter of domestics with a specific bias toward GM. I have a 98 Buick Lesabre that gets pretty darn good gas mileage for a V6 and I love my ‘lil land yacht.
Now in terms of reliability there is something I think needs to be pointed out. There are a ton of people driving old-as-dirt civics around and when people look at them they just think “hey what would you expect from a japaneese car?”. But what about the practically millions of Saturn SL1s that are still rolling around with 200k plus miles on the odometer? One is just as ass-ugly as the other but people will make fun of you for driving an old Saturn around. My point is that there ARE American cars that run forever, though they may be few and far between.
Secondly, I have to give a lot of credit to Saturn for running their side by side comparos when they launched the Aura. It was balsy, and at least in my mind lent quite a bit of credibility to the vehicle. It very much goes along with what many people have been saying about the 2.8 getting out there and proving themselves to the competition. Why not get over the biases and at least go try one?
I am very much of the opinion that while the 2.8 still have a few kinks to work out of their internals, that they do have a lot going for them in design. I want to drive something that looks good, and some of the import options are just bizarre in my opinion.
This is good comedy. Not only do I not work for Toyota or Honda, I don’t own one, either.
Here’s your problem:
It’s more than reliability for many people. Styling, driving, features, price, all impact a purchase decision.
As I have stated repeatedly on this thread, it is the MARKET that determines competitiveness.
The winners tell you what’s competitive, the losers tell you what isn’t. The marketplace has rendered its verdict: the Camry is a winner, the Aura is a loser. That tells you more about competitiveness than anything else.
For Detroit to compete, it needs to benchmark the winners AND beat them. Not kinda sorta match them in a few ways, but best them in just about every category.
Until then, you want consumers to go to Vegas, when what they really want is Target. That’s the defensive posture you get when you side with the losers, instead of the can-do attitude of the winners.
Kixstart
” However, everyone has their own idea of what that balance of those qualities should be.”
This is exactly my point. That is why for many people a domestic car with an “unproven” track record is competitive and should be competitive. This is what I state, and then you restate it like you are proving me wrong somehow? This is what you’ve also been doing to Phil for 58 pages now. Hence my prior statement that I know this is a waste of my time explaining it to you.
“RLJ676: “PCH, I actually think that you may be a professional marketer for Toyota or Honda.”
That’s so lame. ”
Wow, well thought out there. Because I’m sure it’s not possible, or even likely that a major corporation wouldn’t have people on the internet present arguments, blogs, testimonies etc that try and influence buyers? If they don’t, they should. With all of the research done on the internet, and the importance of word of mouth why wouldn’t this role exist to some extent?
And as for a car guy needing to get to work, I think they slight risk of being sidelined rarely is worth the sacrifice to drive anything more exciting than a Camry or the like. It’s not the 60’s and you aren’t buying a MG or something that is literally down half of the time.
So PCH101, what you’re saying is that the big 2.8 must make a superior vehicle in every way before it would even be considered? They can’t make an equal product, as good in every way, because people wouldn’t buy it? Well, to me that sounds like the very definition of brand bigotry.
RLJ676: “I’m not surprised by that list at all givin the rather blatant import loving that goes on here. Those cars have sold to people, so there’s an ass for every seat I guess.”
I’m sure it appears that this crowd is “import loving”, but I suspect I am typical in that I would love for GM, Ford and Chrysler to be competitive in most areas of the market. I am, like many who post here, a gearhead and have absorbed far too many statistics and impressions of cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc. Yet my “bias” toward imports is based not on my love of imported brands, but direct experience with domestic products. Yes, the Corvette gives me hope that GM can design a world-class car, and I was thrilled that the CTS, when I cross-shopped it against my current 3-series, had a chassis that demonstrated what GM engineers can do. I was a big fan of the Lincoln LS when it came out, but was disappointed when Ford let it wither and die rather than make the incremental improvements which would have made it truly competitive with the European and Asian offerings. I thought the Solstice concept was beautiful and looked forward to a new and radical looking roadster, yet was again disappointed when I saw that they couldn’t or wouldn’t spend the time to even closely meet the Miata’s weight limits, or that they engineered a top which is simply inferior to the Miata, the S2000 or the Z3/Z4.
I have rented Tauruses, Impalas, Sebrings, Bonnevilles and Lincoln MKZ’s only to find that none of them drove as well as a bland rental Camry or Mazda6.
I own motorcycles and have waited for years for a cash-flush Harley-Davidson to go head-to-head with Asian and European manufacturers, but it doesn’t happen.
In the end I’m not an “import lover” – I just love machinery, and get really excited about highly purposeful machinery. A Honda Fit is just more purposeful than anything offered by Ford, GM or Chrysler. The CRV and Rav4 are just better vehicles than the American offerings. The last gen CTS was a great shot, but in the end did not measure up to the 3-series when I plunked down my money (I do have great hopes for the latest CTS, however). I’ve driven both the Focus and the Mazda3 and find a clear difference in the Mazda’s favor, whether or not it matches the Focus in reliability. I really do want to look at a 2011 Consumer Reports survey and see the Fusion matching or exceeding the competing Toyota and Honda.
I doubt that my feelings are vastly different from the typical enthusiast. Who isn’t waiting for the Car & Driver 10Best where someone, anyone, has toppled the 3-series, or made them put a Fusion in front of the Accord?
It ain’t gonna happen though if Detroit is represented by turkeys like the Monte Carlo, Cobalt or Sebring.
And there are structural issues lingering below the surface. Detroit lives with a 50 year legacy of bad negotiations with the UAW; these cannot be erased. Detroit lives with far too many brands and poor dealerships. Detroit lives with the results of bad tax law (truck and SUV exemptions, tax breaks) which they put into place.
I don’t think I’m alone in hoping that we do not end up like the UK, where the only remaining manufacturers are owned by off-shore money. Yet life goes on in the UK, and I think even Brits would agree that a German-influenced Bentley, Roller or Mini ain’t a bad car, or that an American-influenced Aston Martin still has much of that Aston DNA without the built-in mechanical virus. I’m sad that none of us can buy “real” MG’s, or Austins, or Triumphs, but the legacy of each brand lives on in a variety of superb internationally-developed platforms.
Don’t write us off as “import-lovers” – I don’t think the label applies. Opinionated, perhaps mechanically-obsessed, but I suspect everyone roots for the home team.
So PCH101, what you’re saying is that the big 2.8 must make a superior vehicle in every way before it would even be considered? They can’t make an equal product, as good in every way, because people wouldn’t buy it?
Of course. Detroit has spent more than three decades creating a bad reputation for itself. If you think that this is going to vanish in a month, forget it.
One advantage that the Asian companies have over American ones is their long-term view. Toyota invested decades into building a reputation. After screwing up royally and digging itself into a twenty-year hole, Hyundai clearly understands that it will take years, not weeks, to build a name for itself after burning so many consumers. Payback is a bitch, after all.
For as long as I have been alive, GM has been building disappointing products. Do you really think that the non-existent Volt or not yet released Malibu is supposed to reverse what has literally been a lifetime of failure?
At best, the Big 2.8 are like ex-convicts on parole. They will need to work very hard, for several years, to prove themselves. Any mistake will be viewed more critically, because of their long history of making mistakes and not making good on their promises.
True bias would require one to ignore the 2.8’s past or to pretend that they didn’t earn this level of contempt. They have screwed up badly, and they are now paying for their mistakes. They will need to be model citizens to dig their way out of it, and there is no place for instant gratification in their business model.
RLJ676: “This is exactly my point. That is why for many people a domestic car with an “unproven” track record is competitive and should be competitive. This is what I state, and then you restate it like you are proving me wrong somehow? This is what you’ve also been doing to Phil for 58 pages now. Hence my prior statement that I know this is a waste of my time explaining it to you.”
We are discussing “import bigots.” You seem to think that Detroit cars are competitive and that “import bigots” are holding Detroit back.
You’re wrong.
Aside from “people choose or prefer imports over Detroit’s ‘competitive’ cars,” you don’t have any evidence of the existence of bigotry. And the same evidence that you cite as bigotry is also evidence that the judgement of the market is that Detroit cars are not considered “competitive.”
RLJ676: “And as for a car guy needing to get to work, I think they slight risk of being sidelined rarely is worth the sacrifice to drive anything more exciting than a Camry or the like. It’s not the 60’s and you aren’t buying a MG or something that is literally down half of the time.”
That’s not for you to decide. That’s for whoever’s buying the car to decide.
As it happens, one of my friends has a British sports car of early 60’s vintage. When we go somewhere in it, which is extremely rare, the chances of arriving at destination without stopping to fix something is pretty close to zero.
Still he loves that car. But he drives his Toyota to work.
In re, “PCH101 works for Honda or Toyota” and my rejoinder, “that’s so lame…” Well, your accusation WAS lame. PCH101 has a point of view. It’s inconvenient to you, so rather than accept that this is what a customer would think, you’re going to decide, on no other evidence, that PCH101 is in the pay of the Japanese.
That’s lame. Should I accuse Phil of working for GM?
Now, you admitted that you’ve got something riding on Detroit’s success. In which case, Detroit might just as well shift to the lifeboats sooner rather than later because, instead of trying to figure out what the hell’s wrong with Detroit and fix THEM, you’ve declared us to be broken and you’re trying to fix US.
Read my lips: We’re not broken. I just want a supremely reliable car, for reasons stated. I want to buy a car and keep it for a long time without having to worry that I’m suddenly going to be buying a transmission for it. There are many others like me. You shat upon us for years and we’ve got good memories. You don’t get the business back overnight because you’ve decided there’s something wrong with us and therefore we should change, you get the business back when you earn it.
Here’s a thought for you, warrant that transmission that worries me, along with the rest of the powertrain, for 10 years and 120K miles. It *should* last that long, shouldn’t it? So, why not tell me, in no uncertain terms, that it will? That I don’t have to worry about that transmission for that 120K miles?
And not some lame-ass warranty like Chrysler’s offering (non-transferable and only includes “manufacturing defects”), just cover the damned thing. I would not necessarily get the reliability I want but I’d get an assurance of it and, worst-case, no surprise expenditures.
Now, that would make me rethink Detroit reliability, wouldn’t it? I can guarantee you that it would because that’s why I’m willing to consider Korean cars. They don’t have a proven record (well, now they do, and it’s a good one) but they relieve me of a lot of risk with a really good warranty.
Just my opinion but I have never seen any argument made that people should not consider domestics. I for one could care less what any other person chooses to purchase as a car with their money PERIOD.
Yet the flip side is that many do seem to care what I purchase. So who is the bigot?
When did it happen that if someone such as PCH101 liked a car or cars other than what is acceptable to RLJ676 that it made them a non car guy?
I don’t recall PCH101 taking issue with anyones choice of vehicle.
RLJ676, I had overlooked this gem of yours… a remark to PCH101:
“Also, there is a reason to buy the Aura, it helps ensure the survival of GM which benefits the country, which you clearly care nothing about,”
Will the last person to leave Detroit, please turn out the lights?
Has anyone else heard the radio ads from Michigan (I live in Missouri) telling industry how much they will give them to do business there?
Ryan I’ve seen the TV ads in Florida
Just for the record, I don’t care what people choose to purchase. My point is to merely show that people will bash big 2.8 products based on the past. While that is a reality, it is still bigotry, by definition. PCH101 basically proved my point by his last post. If I got his intention clear: All things aside, if presented with equal (hypothetically, in every way) offerings from big 2.8 or other, he would not even consider the big 2.8 product. This point can be proven further by another editorial here at TTAC about brands. Where the SAME vehicle was rebadged and was rated differently because of that badge. That, to me anyway, is brand bigotry. I’m not even saying that’s a bad thing necessarily. People will make their decisions based on needs and emotional factors. But why argue it doesn’t exist, when it clearly does?
I think “bigot” label is causing some of the issues here. When offered a choice of salads I always always choose a Caesar salad. In steakhouse restaurants I always choose a delmonico (ribeye) steak Am I a bigot?
Choices are made for a variety of reasons and each person is different yet I would bet that everyone makes similiar type choices in selecting foods, stores, brands etc.
I know several ford truck owners who have always owned ford trucks and who will probably buy a ford truck as their next vehicle. They will not consider a Toyota nor a Chevy or a Ram for that matter. Are they Ford truck bigots?
When asked they tell you they have been pleased with their trucks and they see no reason to even look at the competition. Its called brand loyalty. I think most people can understand the Ford truck buyers reasoning but if you change the name to Toyota Corolla and it seems to give some people coniption fits that the person did not look at the Cobalt.
It all goes back to those simple concepts that we have all heard read and even been taught allegedly that companies must satisfy their customers and if they don’t and the customer leaves they generally don’t come back.
Why does anyone think that somehow GM Ford etc is immune or that these simple concepts somehow don’t apply to them? They apply to everyone.
Any companies that a customers feels has screwed them over will be and have been shunned. This is not rocket science.
While that is a reality, it is still bigotry, by definition.
The term “bigot” has, like “bias,” been much abused and misused in this thread. Webster defines a “bigot” as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
For one, the Big 2.8 are not a protected group such as a racial group, but a collective of three companies, so it’s inappropriate to use such a term in this context. It’s frankly an insult to blacks, native American, Asian-Americans, homosexuals and others who have suffered from discrimination to be lumped in with Rick Wagoner.
For another, there is nothing bigoted about assessing an individual based upon his or her track record. When you spent years cheating the customer, it’s not altogether shocking when the customer takes his business elsewhere. That’s not bigotry, that’s prudence.
Once again, the discussion comes full circle. In a business built around branding, reputation is just about everything. Once you’ve lost a reputation, it takes many years to get it back.
I believe that the Detroit cheerleaders are frankly just lazy. They don’t want to invest the hard work and diligence required to earn back that reputation. They think that they are entitled to be loved.
A sense of entitlement does not work with the American consumer. No business deserves your custom, it has to earn it. The last thing that the smart consumer should do is spend his money with a business that feels entitled to it, because that is a sure ticket to getting burned.
I hope that you see the irony here — the greater your sense of entitlement, the more of a turnoff that you become. As a business guy rendering advice, I can tell that you that I don’t want to see the Big 2.8 swaggering around pretending that they do a great job, because they don’t. And the American consumer won’t largely be convinced of their willingness to improve until they stop swaggering.
They need to be a bit humble, admit to their mistakes and display an absolute commitment not repeating them. Until then, they haven’t earned the money, and based upon the market share decline that has been widely reported, they will be seeing less of it.
kixstart” Will the last person to leave Detroit, please turn out the lights?”
You are clearly a true American and scholar and we should all listen to your advice as gospel.
The fact you are so closed minded you see the thought that someone could work on the internet as a “trend setter/underground markerter” for a living as an insult shows you have no clue, as have most of your posts. PCH has devoted a lot of time to making his point on here, and it is reasonably coherent. Hence it’s possible it’s part of his job duties. I have had a lull in work the past 2 days, as I certainly could not post this much otherwise, as he has done for a month now.
As to the other comments on how someone looks down on your purchase of an import etc, no one has said that. The point is to at least CONSIDER a domestic. If you purely care about the best historical quality performance than a Camry, etc, might be for you. If it’s not the only part of the spectrum you care about there are competitive cars, please CONSIDER them. You don’t have to buy it if it doesn’t please you.
Likewise, Phil and I have both agreed the Big 3 have made more than there share of mistakes. However, it is not easy to fix them instantly. The product has changed in many cases and that is what should be looked at.
SpottyB: “This point can be proven further by another editorial here at TTAC about brands. Where the SAME vehicle was rebadged and was rated differently because of that badge.”
As it happens, I don’t recall seeing that. Where and when did you see this? I recall only one post (not an editorial) that pointed out a very slight difference in rating between the Vibe and the Matrix.
In any event, suppose this is true… Does that tell us that thee’s something wrong, per se, with the ratings? No.
If you build a Chevy to Chevy specs, rebadge it as a Buick and, it stands to reason that you would get a different satisfaction leve, as Buick owners probably have different expecations than Chevy owners.
There are also, as I understand it, differences between the Matrix and the Vibe… I understand the Vibe contains some Delco parts and the Matrix uses some Denso parts. And the Vibe is serviced by a Pontiac dealer and the Matrix is serviced by a Toyota dealer.
My point is to merely show that people will bash big 2.8 products based on the past. While that is a reality, it is still bigotry, by definition.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the actual definition of the word before defining it for all of us?
Much of the problem here is the intentional of use of inflammatory language. A person is not a bigot merely because he or she prefers a particular brand of car or wine. The gross misapplication of the term has really injected a lot of emotion into an already controversial topic.
Quite frankly, I suspect that many of the domestic supporters in this thread are astroturfing. They’ve been known to do it in the past and this type of thing would fit right in with GM’s new “Rethink American” ad campaign. I mean think about it, a new ad campaign is launched exhorting consumers to consider American cars, and all of a sudden Domestic supporters come out of the woodwork and extort their positive experiences. Coincidence? I think not!
I think everyone is missing the fact the term “Import Bigot” is used rather tongue in cheek. It does not put you in the same league as a klansman or skinhead (I would assume both of those groups buy strictly American, some German maybe)
“Much of the problem here is the intentional of use of inflammatory language. A person is not a bigot merely because he or she prefers a particular brand of car or wine. The gross misapplication of the term has really injected a lot of emotion into an already controversial topic.”
Yep, I made the same point hundreds of posts ago. Phil brushed it off and claimed to be using the word differently than it’s dictionary definition.
CH has devoted a lot of time to making his point on here, and it is reasonably coherent. Hence it’s possible it’s part of his job duties.
I’m just curious — is the decline in market share part of the same anti-Detroit conspiracy theory? Conspiracy theories don’t help your cause any more than does the sense of entitlement.
It comes down to this — I give the American consumer a lot more credit than you do. They generally know what they want and they know how to get it. If you want to sell them more products, you need great products and an element of trust.
Trust takes a long time to earn. You want to earn it, or not?
Oh my gawd PCH101 is trend setter/underground markerter for Toyota?
Please RLJ676 if you read this site consistently I believe there is one person who appears to work for Toyota and that person is not anyone on this thread. His name starts with “J”
You probably don’t hear this much in your workplace but I am going to tell you something that may or may not be a shock to you. People out here in non Detroit land not only have been buying less and less domestic product but we actually like yes like our cars. Some of them are domestic and some of them are not but out here saying good things about a Toyota or Honda or bad things about GM or Ford doesn’t mean someone is on Toyota’s payroll.
pch “I’m just curious — is the decline in market share part of the same anti-Detroit conspiracy theory? Conspiracy theories don’t help your cause any more than do the sense of entitlement”
You obviously don’t get my point on this either. It’s not a conspiricy theory. It’s something that is being done by various companies to some extent. I didn’t say Toyota or any thing in particular, but as a possibility. If it’s not now at Toyota, the Big 3, etc, it will be soon. You should know by your time spent on here that the internet is a powerful car shopping medium, and you can’t attack it the same way you do the airwaves. It’s not meant as an insult at all.
As to a sense of entitlement, I’m not the UAW I don’t feel entitled to anything. What I and Phil ask is that people who don’t consider domestic products for various reasons, give the best new ones at least a look. We feel they ARE better for many people. You may be surprised what you find, you may buy it. But the survival of these companies will benefit the country, which is just another reason to come back from import land and give them a chance sooner, rather than later.
I’m aware this concept evades some of you and expect some solid twisting of this paragraph. Why, I don’t know. It appears the concept of people going straight to an import is an “insult” or not possible. You know that’s not the case. Further, the market can’t decide which car “wins” if a portion of the market has thrown out a portion from consideration on brand alone. I know you think this is just punishment for past sins, but I don’t think everyone is so spiteful. IE, build a better car and we’ll consider it, well now is that time.
The Pontiac Vibe would seem a reasonable choice for someone who has an import preference, but would like to support the American economy more.
Vibe is, as all here know, a Toyota Matrix with a different grill. It’s made in the US, by UAW workers.
There is no reliability gap – it’s the same car. There is no need to wait 10 (20, 30, eternity?) years for Pontiac to develop a reputation for reliability. One can rely on Toyota’s long term reputation when buying a Vibe.
IMHO, the Pontiac grill improves the car’s looks immensely.
So, there is a competitvie product, made in the US, by a D3 manufacturer (well, kinda sorta) , and Union labor.
Yes, it is true that Honda and Toyota’s US operations get their jobs done well with fewer people than it takes GM, Ford or Chrysler. That is called productivity
You’ve missed the point of job leverage. The ratio is the number of other jobs created relative to a single assembly job, or number of jobs supported per car purchase, or per 1000 purchases. This job leverage isn’t determined so much by the productivity differences as by how much an automaker’s job presence is amplified back through the supply and services chain.
The reason capitalism trounces socialism over time is productivity.
That’s the least of it. Capitalism trumps other systems because of its innovation advantage.
Rewarding the less productive supplier with one’s business is always bad in the macroeconomic sense.
Really? How is it that Ferrari stays in the market then?
Phil
I know you think this is just punishment for past sins, but I don’t think everyone is so spiteful.
Perhaps part of the problem is a lack of understanding of what “branding” is all about.
Branding communicates a message to the customer to let him know what to expect from a product or service. It assures the consumer that he is making a good decision, and not a mistake.
In other words, it’s reputation. Reputations are earned over time. A bad one is hard to lose.
Detroit made a bed and it has to now live in it, because the market has spoken and rendered its verdict. I am defending the market’s right to render that verdict.
You want to appeal the judgment. The only problem here is that the market is The Supreme Court, so you have nowhere else to go. The guilty party will just have to do his time and deal with it.
Obviously, you’re willing to give an ex-con a second chance. That’s your right, and perhaps that will prove to have been a good decision.
But in the meantime, you have no right to decry those who don’t follow your lead as a bigot. Frankly, I think that they’re smart to take a wait-and-see approach; I’m doing the same thing myself.
If you believe in them that much, then put up your cash into my Import Bi-got Fund, and let’s see whether you can afford to pay for Kixstart’s consequence. Money talks, and we all know what walks.
pch
You are appearantly the self-appointed “market spokesman.” YOU think they don’t deserve a chance yet, so NO ONE should give them a chance. That simply isn’t the case. The point here is for the people who go straight to an import for a quality car, but not out of spite, should consider domestic. The whole market has not spoken, as 50% of it is still buying domestics. For other’s who turned away in the past, but are willing to come back easier than your “high hurdle bar,” now is a good time. The product is much improved, and the income can help keep them in business to improve it further. Maybe then you’d have enought time to see that it’s track record is good enough for you to consider. Please quit assuming everyone thinks like you.
Oh, and as for your “escrow fund challenge.” That is what the big three is doing. Those rebates and price diferrential offered up front is exactly to get you in the car and give it a chance. You almost always get more option wise for your money, out the door price, with a domestic. Why do you need it in escrow when you get paid it up front, and may never see a problem.
Also, your absurd challenge has a major flaw in it’s premise. You assume the import has 0 cost, as opposed to the purchased vehicle. I assume the opposite.
Wow! Thank you for your time and effort Phil! I really enjoy all your posts.
I see bigoted buying behavior all the time… Is it not the goal of mainstream advertizing to create bigoted buying behavior?
I mention to others to consider a Ford Fusion and they look at me as if I just called them a bigot.
You are appearantly the self-appointed “market spokesman.” YOU think they don’t deserve a chance yet, so NO ONE should give them a chance.
You misread my posts.
I have said virtually nothing in this thread about my personal buying preferences (although I have noted that I don’t drive either a Toyota or Honda, I just acknowledge their generally superior reliability.)
What I have pointed out from my very first post on this thread is that the market has made a decision. It has used a variety of criteria to reach that decision.
The market is bigger than all of us. If you have a business and you want to succeed, it is absolutely essential to understand the market, and to serve it.
Detroit betrays the market, again and again. So of course, it pays the price with declining sales and crushing rebates. That’s what happens to poorly managed companies who blame the customer instead of serving them.
And if you think that my challenge is “absurd,” then prove it by putting your cash on the line to see how it plays out. Frankly, I think that the idea scares you because at the end of the day, you want people like Kixstart to subsidize your plan…because you think that Detroit is entitled to his money. As I noted before, I steer a very wide berth around anyone who think he is entitled to my money, because when there’s an unwanted hand grabbing for my wallet, trouble is generally not very far behind.
pch
Just because you haven’t said your purchase, doesn’t mean you aren’t making leaps about the entire market. Maybe if the market was as simple as you seem to think it, you could. However, people buy these cars, so “your market” has not spoken as strongly as you think. We’d just like people who aren’t considering them to do that. That is part of a dynamic market, changing consideration, changing criterion, etc.
Further, I will find it quite funny if you are driving something that isn’t the top pick for reliability after all of your emphasis of this criteria? So what is it YOU drive then? If it’s not the best, than aren’t you siding with all of our statements that lend towards buying for other reasons?
Please read which parts of your challenge were absurd to me, and also note how that money is already out there in form of a lower price, no need for your challenge.
I now see why Phil has reduced his responding to you, as you twist all statements for the sake of argument as far as I can tell. Wouldn’t this be the definition of a troll or some similar internet jargon?
American brand names are not the default choice when social factors are considered. It has to be done on a model by model basis.
Wrong. American owned companies are the default choice on social factors, because if they go away, what replaces them (higher imports and some transplants) has less economic leverage than if the Detroit 3 persist.
And, yet, for all that effort, nothing of substance? No declaration of “we know import bigots exist because X happens in the market place and survey data says Y and we can distinguish this from informed preference by Z?” So, what you’ve written is just more unsupported twaddle.
I’ve explained what happens in the market place. The fact that no one has surveyed the marketplace on this question, explicitly, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Most of human phenomena are known through normative observation. Only a small subset of life is statistically verified. However, statistics hold more information than is inferred by reporters. Even in the commissioned JDP data on domestic avoiders, you can see the cloud. Ask people why they don’t buy X and their answer comes back with a list of factors you consider rational. Yet direct experience is the smallest contributor. It’s easy (and common) for people operating purely on perception to say they are vetting against standards while actually operating on conviction that nothing not already considered can meet those standards. The is *nothing* about the JDP or any other data that assures people are informing their biases empirically. Which came first, the bias or the data? Any competent observer knows that for many people the bias precedes the data.
Moreover, I’ll also note that since the late ’70s, at least, I’ve consistently found domestic vehicles better in real life than I was led to believe by CR and auto critics, and equally generally imports of all classes have been disappointing relative to their billing. Everything from the smoothness of Honda’s excellent engines to the vaunted plastics of Audi interiors is consistently overrated by the maven press.
There’s much more to knowing the truth about behavior than survey data. If you consider my claim of bigoted buying behavior to be “twaddle,” that’s your call. It’s immaterial to me and doesn’t change my knowledge of the phenomenon.
Except JDP, CR and gross warranty data all point to one thing; there’s a gap and it’s real.
Well, they don’t say it’s significant, actionable or sustaining. What they do show, even with backward-looking data, is that any prior gap is shrinking dramatically and new cars aren’t going to leave your stranded.
You claim the gap is a “rationalization.” You’ve got no proof of that, either.
No, a misrepresentation. I said the *use* of said gap as an excuse for excluding Detroit 3 vehicles from new car purchase consideration is, for the import bigots, a rationalization rather than a rationale.
“Why do people buy CR?” Off-hand, I don’t know for sure but most of the automobile information in CR can be determined by a test drive and a look at the window sticker and a trip to Edmunds. All free. Yet, CR sells. What’s the one thing it has that the other sources don’t? Trusted reliability information. What does that tell us about reliabilty information? That it’s important. Could I be misinterpreting this? Sure. But I’ve got an argument that aligns with real-world information.
Beats me. I usually find CR wrong in any category. But people who don’t want to or can’t think for themselves buy it. Somebody trusts them. Or not, and they just use it as a compendium for reference. It doesn’t matter. CR sells to only a minority of the auto buying population.
PCH101, I think, called your arguments “circular.” That was dead on. If we start from a premise of rationalization or from a premise that import bigots exist, each flows from the other. But neither stands alone.
Best I can tell from this is that you don’t understand a circular argument. You can claim that import bigots don’t exist. That does nothing to disrupt my argument that it’s socially beneficial to buy from the Detroit 3, and to do that you have to at least consider what they’re offering *now*. Deleting the idea of import bigots being real does nothing to undermine that a market driven by dated perceptions — or in some cases like the SL driver, consumer cowardice — reduces chances that the Detroit 3 get the cash and time to complete their reforms. Nor does it change the claim that competitive domestic models exist and are undershopped.
RLJ676 said something I so far have not: you’re looking increasingly like an import bigot. Your arguments are no different from the “some of my best friends are….” nature. And his list of competitive domestics is a good start.
Edgett,
The TWAT list is highly subjective. Yes, I dislike many of those cars too, but I also know people who own some of them who will buy the next version too because the vehicle is perfect for their wants or needs. However, most of the domestics on the list are older models and platforms that don’t represent the most current product thinking and execution. Even the unloved Sebring and Monte have their fans. That list is orthogonal to the proposition that many can be fully satisfied by competitive domestic models.
Yes, but some are more risk-free than others.
No, Pch101, something cannot be “more risk-free.” It is either free of risk or it brings risk. You take risk anytime you buy a complex, expensive product, and you take additional risk by driving whatever you buy. No market data mitigates your risk of having a flawed sample.
In any case, why not back up your position with a check deposited into my contest? It’s very easy to anonymously make pronouncements about competitiveness, but it’s quite another to stand behind them with your money. If you aren’t willing to support your beliefs with your cash, I have to question how committed you are to the cause. Since it’s for the sake of the country, I would think that you’d eagerly volunteer!
His cash commitment is in his own purchasing. As is mine. No one lives a risk-free life. Every American consumer capable of buying a new car, including you, is blowing more money annually than you are concerned about here, on something wasteful, indulgent or silly. Let’s face it, the money isn’t keeping you or Kixstart out of a domestic car.
Phil
RJL676, when I said your suggestion that PCH101 was a Toyota or Honda marketer was lame, you replied, “The fact you are so closed minded you see the thought that someone could work on the internet as a “trend setter/underground markerter” for a living as an insult shows you have no clue, as have most of your posts.”
No, I didn’t see it as an insult. I see it as a cop-out on your part.
Aside from his inconvenient point of view, what evidence do you have that PCH101 works for the Japanese? Answer: None.
But you don’t like his instransigence, his failure to accept the “bigot principle” as the real reason that Detroit’s still suffering, his skepticism that Detroit’s competitive. You’d rather believe that he’s in the pay of the Japanese, than accept the judgement of a customer and do something about the product.
So, on no evidence, you decide he’s a marketer for Toyota or Honda.
That’s so lame.
And I just love that you said this to PCH101, “Also, there is a reason to buy the Aura, it helps ensure the survival of GM which benefits the country, which you clearly care nothing about,…”
That’s just precious. The customer won’t behave himself, so you’ll insult him.
Of course, you’re not wrong all the time. To me, you said, “You are clearly a true American and scholar and we should all listen to your advice as gospel.”
That’s true. So get to work on that warranty thing I told you about a little while ago.
And here’s a little more advice… instead of whining about intransigent import bigots, give us REASONS to buy Detroit cars. Show us how Detroit cars will satisfy us and delight us.
I will find it quite funny if you are driving something that isn’t the top pick for reliability after all of your emphasis of this criteria?
Once again – it’s the market’s criteria. Consumers are drawn to reliability the way that flies are drawn to honey.
I don’t understand the unwillingness to meet market demands. If Americans wanted frumpy designs and mediocre build quality, Detroit would be flying high today.
The fact that Detroit market share is sliding — this is a indisputable fact, and the whole reason for Mr. Ressler’s editorial — tells you that the Detroit products don’t fit the bill.
People vote with their money. They buy stuff they want, and don’t buy stuff that they don’t want.
It’s very simple — if you want their money, give them what they want. While it might be good fun to build stuff that they don’t want and then complain about it when it sits in piles at dealerships across the country, I would think that it would be a lot more fun to meet the need, make profits and cash the dividend checks.
Since when did it become a heinous offense to serve customer needs better than someone else? It’s a shame that in the Detroit of today, whiners make for more appealing role models than winners.
RLJ676: You clearly are not a real car person, but more of a “reliable is the only measure of a car” person, so you will always base decisions on historical repair performance, and nothing else. As I’ve already noted trying to convince you otherwise is futile. What I also don’t understand is what you are doing on a car site at all when reliability is all you care about. I’m sure CR has a forum you’d like better.
Actually, he understands what drives the purchases of the majority of American car buyers. They are concerned about reliability, because they rely on their vehicles to get to and from work, school, etc.
Since most of them do not work on their own vehicles, reliability is VERY important to them. They hate to face the unknown.
The people who post on this site are NOT typical American car buyers.
This is not to say that reliability is the ONLY driver of a vehicle purchase. Most domestics have lagged in refinement, fit-and-finish and resale value, and – surprise! – many buyers have picked up on this, too.
And who constitutes a “real car person?” Someone who owns a Buick LaCrosse? A Chevrolet Cobalt? A Chevrolet Impala? A Ford Taurus?
I don’t think so!
From what I’ve seen, the owners of domestic cars (with some exceptions – Mustang, Corvette, XLR, CTS, V-8 equipped 300 and Charger) are motivated primarily by low purchase price and available incentives. That hardly seems like the mark of a “real car person.”
The simple fact is that Pch101 is, unfortunately for Detroit, devastatingly accurate in his appraisal of how Detroit got into this mess and what it will take to get out of it.
Sorry, but there aren’t any “Get Out of Jail Free” cards for automakers. They must work hard and EARN a good reputation, which will only come from YEARS of good reliability reports, road test results and word-of-mouth from satisfied buyers.
Yes, there are encouraging signs on the quality front from Ford, and some new GM vehicles appear to hit the mark. But there is a big difference between “getting there” and “already arrived.”
And this isn’t just for Detroit. Note that Fiat and Renault, for example, aren’t exactly rushing back into the U.S. market, because they realize that their reputations are still so bad that it would take years and billions of dollars to establish a tenuous foothold in America.
Incidentally, the Astra is hardly a domestic vehicle. It was styled and engineered in Europe, and will be built there, too. Just because it has a Saturn nameplate on the grille and is sold through Saturn dealers does not make it a domestic vehicle.
Phil: Really? How is it that Ferrari stays in the market then?
Ferrari proves the value of reputation. It survives because it builds vehicles that meet buyers’ (and the dreamers’) expectations of what a Ferrari represents and should be.
Also note that Fiat owns 85 percent of Ferrari. Ferrari is no longer completely independent. It has been backed by the Fiat empire since 1969, when Enzo Ferrari sold the sports car division after years of shaky finances.
PCH
Again, more twisting of the point. Nobody is whining about consumers not buying the cars. We are advocating they start considering if they haven’t been. Many of them are better cars, but you’d have to look at them to know. It’s so simple, yet you find a way to repeatedly rephrase it incorrectly.
kixstart
I wasn’t insulting generic customer x, I was referring to YOU. Your comments and denial of the fact buying American benefits us leads me to say that. As to PCH being a marketer, it was mostly a joke at the amount of effort put into something he has no stake in over a month’s span.
Further, if a customer flat out rejects/ignores a product out of bias (bigotry), ignorance, whatever, how have they really decided it’s not what they should spend their money on?
Phil has to admit, hundreds of posts later, that this was a chance encounter, that he doesn’t really know the guy’s situation, that he knows nothing about this person that would permit any extrapolation at all.
It’s self-evident in the editorial itself that the anecdote resulted from a chance encounter. Nothing hides this. It’s also an anecdote as launch point for an editorial. I could have subbed in hundreds of others. This one was fresh and illustrative. I don’t have know much about someone who confesses he doesn’t have the courage to face down social criticism of an American car, to know his buying behavior is a market dysfunction.
People buy imports. People serially buy imports. Are they “import bigots?”
Some are.
In Phil’s universe, the customer must be an idiot, blind to his own best interests and interested in promoting the fortunes of other countries over his own.
I didn’t actually take any position on customer intelligence, other than to say later and explicitly that I don’t think intelligence is a factor. Lots of people who have high intrinsic intelligence just don’t care about the US’ economic composition and some are even hostile to some aspects of it. Lots of people get confused about their own self interest. Lack of intelligence is seldom the limiting factor. Lack of concern, excessively narrow scope of awareness, social disconnectedness all outrank intelligence as causal factors.
You didn’t mention a minivan. Or an existing compact car. Or a subcompact. Or a hybrid. Or a sport-cute (Rav4/CR-V). Millions of cars get sold in these segments. Why no “competitive” offerings from Detroit?
All of these categories include competitive Detroit 3 alternatives, with the possible exception of the sub-compact sector.
The winners tell you what’s competitive, the losers tell you what isn’t. The marketplace has rendered its verdict: the Camry is a winner, the Aura is a loser. That tells you more about competitiveness than anything else.
This is a generic view. It’s fine as an assumption but the market’s verdict is not an indicator of quality. Just an indicator of acceptance. Marketers are always coping with the “the best product often doesn’t win” phenomenon, of which examples are legion. So, if you take a binary view that Camry outselling Aura makes one a winner and the other a loser, the language fits. But the reality is different. The Aura sells in quantity and it will remain on the market. Honda’s Accord is also outsold by Camry, and sentiment here strongly runs in favor of the Accord being the better of those two products. The Accord will remain. GM will sell some Poncho G6s, and similar-size Buicks. Malibus and Impalas will satisfy some of the demand in the segment. A new model being outsold in its first year in an established category doesn’t make it a “loser,” nor does the leading seller equate to leading quality.
I don’t think I’m alone in hoping that we do not end up like the UK, where the only remaining manufacturers are owned by off-shore money.
This is the crux. You have leverage in translating your hope into action. The time horizon that’s relevant here places all the people who will sit on their hands waiting for five more years of backward-looking ownership data before opening their minds and wallets, in the control position. Consumers in the US can, right now, today, begin making decisions that make hope unnecessary and avoidance of the UK’s automotive fate a certainty. The Detroit 3 are moving quickly, given the constraints. Consumers who are interested in the outcome can pick up a bat & glove and play.
That’s lame. Should I accuse Phil of working for GM?
I’m easy to find and verify there’s no connection.
Phil
RLJ676: YOU think they don’t deserve a chance yet, so NO ONE should give them a chance. That simply isn’t the case.
For the 5,487th time, no one, including Pch101, is telling anyone what to buy or what not to buy, or what brands to consider and what brands to cross off the list.
What is being said is that many buyers avoid domestic products – for which, in the original editorial, they are labeled with an unflattering name that suggests that they aren’t thinking.
And when when evidence is offered that their avoidance is entirely rational (i.e, either based on preferences or prior bad experiences), such evidence is airly dismissed.
Meanwhile, it is shown that a fairly significant percentage of DOMESTIC buyers are the ones who dismiss vehicles solely because of the country of origin, but somehow this doesn’t make them “bigots.” Okay…
RLJ676: The point here is for the people who go straight to an import for a quality car, but not out of spite, should consider domestic.
First, in a free market, car buyers are not under any obligation to do ANYTHING or consider ANY car. They can reject Fords because Henry Ford I hired Harry Bennett to fight the UAW or reject Toyotas because of what the Japanese did during World War II. Both behaviors may be irrational in 2007, but that’s tough.
Second, if the posts defending Detroit reflect the attitudes at the domestic automakers, then GM, Ford and Chrysler are in more trouble than I thought.
It’s 2007 – the best-selling passenger cars in two of the biggest segments are either Toyotas or Hondas.
Honda has the best-selling small SUV.
Honda and Toyota have driven all of the domestics except Dodge and Chrysler out of the minivan market.
For many people out there, the domestics are no longer the default choice, Honda and Toyota are as much a part of the fabric of suburban life as Chevy and Ford once were, and “guilting” people into switching won’t work.
And if Detroit hasn’t figured this out yet, then it really is time to turn off the lights in Michigan.
People are getting way too bent out of shape over this.
PCH101 – “The term “bigot” has, like “bias,” been much abused and misused in this thread. Webster defines a “bigot” as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
How does it not apply to the definition supplied by PCH101? …opinions and prejudices towards a particular BRAND and treats such BRAND with hatred and intolerance. Is it really so hard to see that people do this? I think everyone has it to a degree. Obviously, some more than others. I have a particular dislike for Toyota. So what? It just means I probably won’t ever buy one. But I don’t go around bashing the company just because I don’t like them. But there seem to be a lot of people who bash the big 2.8 (admittedly deserved from past performance) without giving the current product its due.
Also, I couldn’t find the link to the article I mentioned, but I found the text in an e-mail I sent to a co-worker. So maybe it wasn’t a TTAC item… my bad.
What’s In a Brand Name?
Would Lindsay Lohan be more popular if she changed her name to Oprah? Or would things be even worse if she opted to go by Osama, instead?
Just how important is a name in obtaining acceptance and avoiding failure?
According to a new study by CNW Marketing Research, a name is vital, and to prove the point, CNW did some moniker-switching to learn whether consumers held a vehicle in high or low regard based on its brand name.
It held a variety of consumer clinics using the Chevy Cobalt and Scion xB as examples. In addition to showing the cars with their true names, it switched badges to see what, if any effect, brands had on consumer perceptions about quality and reliability and if the name had any impact on whether they held the car in high or low esteem.
The conclusion: name matters.
CNW found that when Cobalt carried its original Chevy badge, it rated 6.9 out of a possible 10 ranking. But when it carried a Toyota badge, the rating rose to 8.6. If, rather than Chevy, the Cobalt was labeled a Ford, the rating fell to 6.2 and if called a Chrysler to 6.1. Those who favor a return of Fiat to the U.S., take note. When a Fiat badge was put on Cobalt the approval rating sunk to 4.8.
When a Scion xB was rolled out carrying its Toyota badge, the rating was 8.4, but when replaced with a Chevy badge, the rating slipped to 6.3. Chevy shouldn’t feel too bad: when a Ford badge was added on the xB to gauge reaction, the rating fell to 5.9 and Chrysler to 5.2. And Fiat fared poorest, with a 4.2.
One can only wonder what the outcome would have been if CNW tested a Yugo badge.
There are, obviously, explanations for this phenomenon. Poor quality among the domestic automakers in the ’70s and ’80s along with outstanding quality among the imports in the ’90s, especially among Japanese brands like Toyota, has created a perception among consumers that if a car carries a Toyota nameplate, it is infallible.
While recent quality surveys among companies like J.D. Power and Associates have proved that domestic quality has made solid gains, and is comparable to that in most imports, it is difficult to change consumer perceptions.
“The problem for some brands can be traced to long memories and the lack of attention to detail in the past,” said CNW general manager Art Spinella. “Squeeks or rattles in the ’60s or poor paint in the ’90s still haunts certain brands to this day. It took Toyota 15 years to establish its credentials.”
Geeber,
Great, more twisting of statements for the sake of argument.
RLJ676: The point here is for the people who go straight to an import for a quality car, but not out of spite, should consider domestic.
Maybe I should have added to the end; should consider domestic if they believe a purchase of this nature to benefit the company, and that helping that company would benefit the country, and they live in the country so they in end benefit? I thought that was implied, but should have learned that with some in this group either inference skills are low, or the desire to twist to suit an argument is high.
RLJ676: YOU think they don’t deserve a chance yet, so NO ONE should give them a chance. That simply isn’t the case
This isn’t implying he said not to buy them, he implied it’s not rational to in his mind. So he extends this outwards to the market as that’s the reason people aren’t. I suspect there’s more complexities than this. Given that, it shouldn’t harm anyone to suggest considering an American product if not currently doing so. I’m sorry his use of the term bigot is “so offensive” but it’s not really. Sure, if someone only buys domestics, they’re a domestic bigot. I can’t say that’s me, but they are out there. Gee, that was tough to admit.
What exactly are these posts indicitive of? Our belief that there are very quality products being produced now and some people are unaware/unwilling to check them out because of the past, which is admittadly checkered. And that if they did they might find themselves surprised/impressed and buying them, and this is beneficial to you, us, the country? Than yes this is probably representative of Detroit’s beliefs, and why is this so offensive to you? Why is this so offensive to this group?
Has anyone else heard the radio ads from Michigan (I live in Missouri) telling industry how much they will give them to do business there?
This has been going on for decades, by states looking for jobs. It was rampant in the rustbelt in the 1970s and ’80s (billboards, TV, radio). Texas promoted incentives during the early ’80s oil bust. In the ’90s, Nevada and Arizona campaigned for California companies to relocate. And we see a surge in this when real estate flattens, or natural disaster shakes confidence. It even gets down to the county, city and town level. We’d all be better off if more people took responsibility for innovating and / or finding their own way to leverage their locality’s economic assets rather than waving cash to distort the location planning of corporations.
In steakhouse restaurants I always choose a delmonico (ribeye) steak Am I a bigot?
To every Porterhouse or filet wanting a shot at your gullet, you are.
They will not consider a Toyota nor a Chevy or a Ram for that matter. Are they Ford truck bigots?
They might be. But their buying behavior happens to benefit my agenda in *this* thread.
Why does anyone think that somehow GM Ford etc is immune or that these simple concepts somehow don’t apply to them? They apply to everyone.
Any companies that a customers feels has screwed them over will be and have been shunned. This is not rocket science.
No one here, least of all me, thinks the idea of past sins having current costs doesn’t apply to the Detroit 3. I’m positing that it’s time to put that behavior aside. If you care about these companies completing their reform and retaining automaking as a domestically-owned and operated industry (I do), then put your attention on what’s changed, consider competitive products that have resulted from reform, and if convinced exercise the social shaping power of your purchasing. Detroit’s contribution to the problem and what to do about it is a separate discussion. This is not advice for the Detroit 3. I am pointing out to consumers that they have a stake in this battle and have a weapon.
For one, the Big 2.8 are not a protected group such as a racial group, but a collective of three companies, so it’s inappropriate to use such a term in this context.
Exactly how does Webster’s definition mention anything about a group being “protected?”
A sense of entitlement does not work with the American consumer. No business deserves your custom, it has to earn it. The last thing that the smart consumer should do is spend his money with a business that feels entitled to it, because that is a sure ticket to getting burned.
Ad infinitum: Irrelevant. I don’t work for anyone even remotely associated with automotive manufacturing so I am not advocating for them nor am I in a position to project entitlement even if I thought it. I am not advising the industry here. I am not asking people to spend money with any company that feels entitled to it. Entitlement is completely absent from everything I’ve proposed.
A person is not a bigot merely because he or she prefers a particular brand of car or wine.
Nor has anyone suggested this is the case.
The gross misapplication of the term has really injected a lot of emotion into an already controversial topic.
All of the emotion is coming from two people. I’m unmoved by it.
Phil
Very early in the thread, I challenged Mr. Ressler to confront whether he wanted to side with the winners or the losers.
I will do the same again now. The difference between a winner and a loser in this context is this:
-A loser whines about the reputation that he earned, and the repercussions he is suffering because of his lost reputation.
-A winner recognizes the errors of his ways, and works 110% to earn his reputation back, accepting that it won’t come easy or quickly, and that not everyone will be convinced.
As Americans, living in one of the world’s most fiercely competitive markets, we tend to promote the emulating of winners and try to avoid imitating the losers.
I would suggest avoiding any tendency to mimic the conduct of losers. Chances are very high that if you are whining a lot that you are off course. Chances are also very high that if you expect the world to change for your own sake that you are misguided and doomed to fail.
This isn’t just a lesson for Detroit, but for life itself. Making excuses for Detroit just digs the grave a little bit deeper, because you embolden that sense of entitlement.
This thread would be more productive if it offered Detroit management with constructive suggestions for improvement. Clearly, they need the help. Their whining and your tears won’t generate profits, and it certainly won’t be earning much sympathy from the rest of us.
Phil brushed it off and claimed to be using the word differently than it’s dictionary definition.
I did the former, but not the latter.
..is the decline in market share part of the same anti-Detroit conspiracy theory? Conspiracy theories don’t help your cause any more than does the sense of entitlement.
You’re deep into misrepresentation now. No one has mentioned conspiracy in this context.
Phil
failure to accept the “bigot principle” as the real reason that Detroit’s still suffering
Again, a misrepresentation. At no time have I suggested that bigoted buying behavior that favors imports is the “real reason” Detroit is suffering. I say it clearly in the original article. There are 360 degrees of blame and there is a consumer component. The consumer component is what *this* editorial is about, and I outline the reasons consumers can make a meaningful difference to the Detroit 3’s survivability. That’s as far as it goes.
Ferrari proves the value of reputation. It survives because it builds vehicles that meet buyers’ (and the dreamers’) expectations of what a Ferrari represents and should be.
Right, but it also proves that the original assertion that only the most productive producers survive.
they are labeled with an unflattering name that suggests that they aren’t thinking.
For a significant subset, it’s true I think they’re not thinking. But that’s not everyone who buys an import.
And when when evidence is offered that their avoidance is entirely rational (i.e, either based on preferences or prior bad experiences), such evidence is airily dismissed.
Not all my dismissals are of the “airily” variety. Some objections are sensible and legitimate. On some of those, OK. On others, I’m giving you reasons to set them aside. Some objections are picayune and I’m not sympathetic. Some are obsessive and meaningless. Some are rationalizations for bigoted behavior that is emotionally driven. It’s a mix of dismissals.
Meanwhile, it is shown that a fairly significant percentage of DOMESTIC buyers are the ones who dismiss vehicles solely because of the country of origin, but somehow this doesn’t make them “bigots.” Okay…
I readily agreed that bigoted buyers exist in both camps. I don’t condone it, but domestic bigots benefit my specific agenda *here* so I’m their friendlies to the cause.
First, in a free market, car buyers are not under any obligation to do ANYTHING or consider ANY car. They can reject Fords because Henry Ford I hired Harry Bennett to fight the UAW or reject Toyotas because of what the Japanese did during World War II. Both behaviors may be irrational in 2007, but that’s tough.
Correct. I’m not asking anyone to give up their free-market rights.
For many people out there, the domestics are no longer the default choice, Honda and Toyota are as much a part of the fabric of suburban life as Chevy and Ford once were, and “guilting” people into switching won’t work.
And I’ve specifically excluded “guilting” as a marketing tactic for the automakers. My argument presumes self-interest, not guilt.
Phil
This thread would be more productive if it offered Detroit management with constructive suggestions for improvement. Clearly, they need the help. Their whining and your tears won’t generate profits, and it certainly won’t be earning much sympathy from the rest of us.
There is neither whining nor tears here. None of the Detroit 3 are represented on this thread, as far as I can tell. An open proposition for consumers to use their buying power to shape their environment has been straightforwardly offered and advocated. The advice column for the Detroit 3 is a different subject and perhaps will get its own editorial and subsequent thread.
Phil
I wrote: “And, yet, for all that effort, nothing of substance? No declaration of ‘we know import bigots exist because X happens in the market place and survey data says Y and we can distinguish this from informed preference by Z?’ So, what you’ve written is just more unsupported twaddle.”
Phil sailed in with: three paragraphs of “I’ve explained what happens in the market place… [1.5K removed] …It’s immaterial to me and doesn’t change my knowledge of the phenomenon.”
Which is, oh my, even MORE words than before and still NO objective support of the notion that buying behavior is bigoted and not simply reasonably informed purchasing.
It’s real simple: you’ve got nothing. You claim bigots exist but you have not presented ANYTHING that demonstrates, unequivocally, their existence.
If you can take an hour four or five times per day for one of your transcontinental replies, why don’t you take a half hour, just once, instead and, rather than dumping words on us, dig up some data and demonstrate the existence of “import bigots?”
And, Phil, for the record, I agree, you are not whining. RJL676 has been whining. You are an enabler. You are feeding Detroit on the notion that they somehow deserve special consideration and this “home field advantage” is what propelled them into sinking market share in the first place.
SpottyB, are you intentionally trying to be funny? CNW Marketing is responsible for a widely discredited study of vehicle lifecycle cost that’s discredited here:
It’s
and here:
Complete
and here:
Bullshit
So, maybe CNW is on to something but I have my doubts. And, of course, the article you cited does end with:
“The problem for some brands can be traced to long memories and the lack of attention to detail in the past,” said CNW general manager Art Spinella. “Squeeks or rattles in the ’60s or poor paint in the ’90s still haunts certain brands to this day. It took Toyota 15 years to establish its credentials.”
Fifteen years. That’s a lot of work. Maybe Detroit should have repainted those peeling cars and comp’ed a lot of drivetrain work. And paid careful attention to their warranty rates and jumped on problems early (the infamous GM gaskets were installed over a period of at least 10 years, don’t tell me enough didn’t fail in the first few years that they couldn’t figure out what was going on). And worked with their suppliers instead of squeezing them.
The Detroit Fan Club is looking for a shortcut. It does not exist.
Phil and RLJ76 want to fix the customers. They are not broken. Some are pissed off beyond retrieval (like my wife; she will NEVER buy a Ford again. NEVER. Too bad, I’d like to look at an Escape hybrid). Detroit will have to make do without them. Or be very patient and very good in the hopes of winning them back.
Phil and RLJ76 hear a quack, see feathers and a waddle and think “goat.”
Occasionally, there are tidbits on this thread that actually make me laugh out loud:
No, Pch101, something cannot be “more risk-free.” It is either free of risk or it brings risk.
It’s hard to find a comment in this discussion that is more out of touch with reality than this one.
Clearly, the issue is one of relative risk. When buying a compact, for example, a Honda Civic’s or Toyota Corolla’s reliability is more likely than it is for the equivalent Dodge, Chevy or Ford.
If one were to go to a bookmaker to bet on it, the odds against the Honda and Toyota would be lower, because of that greater certainty. All of the data points that way, and Mr. Ressler’s assurances aren’t supported by any quantitative data that would persuade me otherwise.
All bets are not created equal. A poker hand with three aces and a king is more promising than a hand with a deuce, four, seven, nine and queen of various suits. Both involve risk, but one is obviously preferable to the other.
Of course, in this situation, the Honda and Toyota are all aces, while the Cobalt struggles for a high card. Mr. Ressler and his compadres are asking the consumer holding the latter hand to bet as if he is holding three of a kind. Obviously, we’re going to have reconsider your invitation for the next guys-night-out trip to Vegas. (Don’t worry, Kix, you’re still invited. Hope you don’t mind driving.)
Very early in the thread, I challenged Mr. Ressler to confront whether he wanted to side with the winners or the losers.
I will do the same again now. The difference between a winner and a loser in this context is this:
-A loser whines about the reputation that he earned, and the repercussions he is suffering because of his lost reputation.
-A winner recognizes the errors of his ways, and works 110% to earn his reputation back, accepting that it won’t come easy or quickly, and that not everyone will be convinced.
As Americans, living in one of the world’s most fiercely competitive markets, we tend to promote the emulating of winners and try to avoid imitating the losers.
I am not in any way encouraging the Detroit 3 to whine or evade their responsibilities. What you describe as the winner mentality is already widely evidenced inside these companies, and we’re seeing that in the latest products, which increasingly leverage the global assets of two of them, including the American components. I haven’t seen the loser mentality you describe within any relevant window of the recent past. I’m on the side of winning behavior, but the actual winners may be different than you imagine. Me? I’m on the side of a healthier United States and this is one brick in that platform.
Phil
“Wrong. American owned companies are the default choice on social factors, because if they go away, what replaces them (higher imports and some transplants) has less economic leverage than if the Detroit 3 persist.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree. IMO, a made in America Accord with 82% American content is better for my country than a made in Mexico Fusion with 50% American content. A made in the US Malibu trumps both the Fusion and Accord.
Breifly repeating myself from an earlier post, if I lived in certain parts of Alabama, I might well decide that supporting my freinds and neighbors who work for Hyundai is more important than supporting unkown persons in Detroit.
If I buy a Fusion, I reward Ford for moving production to Mexico, reducing American jobs, and reducing their presence -voluntarily- in the US. This behavior doesn’t need to be rewarded, and it is in fact completely oppossed to what you’d like to see – a healthy domestically located American auto industry. (Or do you only care that sales/marketing be located here, but manufacturing doesn’t matter? Not really sure where you stand on manufacturing in the US)
So, while I’m sympathetic to your general plea, I think buying certain American named models (which are actually foreign cars) is counter productive. If I really take your plea seriously, I have to reject foreign made cars wearing American name badges.
As an aside, I have to give you credit. You got me out trying to look at the new Malibu (alas, not yet available in stores -but it’s coming) I’ve driven through Chevy dealer lots, but I can’t recall the last time I actually went inside a Chevy dealer.
You claim bigots exist but you have not presented ANYTHING that demonstrates, unequivocally, their existence.
Frankly, I don’t have to. Nor, apparently, did Robert think I had to since he elected to publish the editorial. Over 30 years of observation in several markets make it real, further corroborated by the observation of many others in still more markets. Moreover, while there are some people who plead that they are not import bigots while not denying the existence of same, in several years of talking about this I have but two people absolutely denying the phenomenon — Pch101 and KixStart. And real-world experience seeing buyer bigotry in multiple consumer and business-to-business markets, sometimes used to my advantage, add up to hundreds, maybe thousands of proof points that bigoted buyer behavior is present throughout commerce, including here in the American auto market. Well, really, from my perspective, your denial of the phenomenon is statistically insignificant, or more accurately is statistically vanishing.
I haven’t said it before, but I’m not an accidental nor amateur normative observer. There’s academic training behind it plus decades of experience, in addition to native aptitude, and a good track record for events eventually validating early observation. Of course, that’s the nature of normative analysis. I am not interested in a religious war with an empiricist who fails to understand this.
Now, you’re free to reject my postulate or anything else about what I have to say, but it makes no difference to my position. I am also free to “airily dismiss you,” and yet I haven’t. I’m close. Most people have no doubt bigoted buyer behavior exists. Your trifling opposition to the phenomenon isn’t important nor germane. We’re stuck on that impasse, so let’s move on.
If you can take an hour four or five times per day for one of your transcontinental replies, why don’t you take a half hour, just once,
I spend less than an hour a day, typically, on maintaining this thread. I think and type quickly, and multi-task.
“No, Pch101, something cannot be “more risk-free.” It is either free of risk or it brings risk.”
It’s hard to find a comment in this discussion that is more out of touch with reality than this one.
“More risk-free” were your words. Clearly such a thing can’t exist. Relative risk was the implied point of my citation of your rhetorical impossibility.
Clearly, the issue is one of relative risk.
Then why didn’t you say that?
When buying a compact, for example, a Honda Civic’s or Toyota Corolla’s reliability is more likely than it is for the equivalent Dodge, Chevy or Ford.
And hundreds of posts ago, I noted specific D3 disadvantage in the compact sector and said it’s not where the leverage is. The risk is much smaller than you claim in this sector, but who cares? For this discussion, we sidelined compacts weeks ago. And yet, still I meet people who prefer Cobalt or Focus over Civic, including when price of Civic isn’t a barrier. Moreover, Chevy has a hit on their hands with the HHR (SS version coming with the excellent 2.0L turbo 4), which is a different packaging of Cobalt mechanicals for more utility. Everyone — and I mean *everyone* I meet who has an HHR loves it. SoCal is crawling with them. Just how bad is this reviled Cobalt?
Of course, in this situation, the Honda and Toyota are all aces, while the Cobalt struggles for a high card. Mr. Ressler and his compadres are asking the consumer holding the latter hand to bet as if he is holding three of a kind.
We’re not playing poker, we’re driving cars and worrying a lot less than you. You can wring your hands to the bone or get out and live. If the market were only about betting on reliability on the basis of your favored statistics, there’d be about 1.5 million Toyota Camry’s sold here annually. There would be pretty much one vehicle per category with everything else washed out. But that doesn’t happen. Clearly more of the market does *not* buy the Toyota option in any category than does, so the reliability gap you cite obviously isn’t significant enough to inhibit most buyers. Add up all of GM’s platform stablemates competing with Camry and it doesn’t look so dominant. Ford splits this market by bracketing with Fusion and Taurus and the Merc/Lincoln platform sharers. Clearly the market operates on a much more complex mix of buying criteria than the single bet you’re claiming.
Phil
Me: “You claim bigots exist but you have not presented ANYTHING that demonstrates, unequivocally, their existence.”
Phil: “Frankly, I don’t have to. Nor, apparently, did Robert think I had to since he elected to publish the editorial. Over 30 years of observation in several markets make it real, further corroborated by the observation of many others in still more markets. Moreover, while there are some people who plead that they are not import bigots while not denying the existence of same, in several years of talking about this I have but two people absolutely denying the phenomenon — Pch101 and KixStart.”
Of course you don’t have to. The world mostly runs on jobs badly done. Look around. Which operations actually go at anything near reasonable efficiency? Out of the legions of people employed by the typical large corporation, how many actually do anything useful? How often do managers get or ask for information that would really be useful to their decision-making processes? How often do they challenge assumptions? How often do they recognize assumptions?
What happens to Detroit when operations that run just a little bit better come along?
You think you score a point because Farago ran it? Am I supposed to believe Farago’s infallible? Farago wouldn’t claim Farago’s infallible.
As for a count of who’s denying the phenomenon, everyone else, awed by your intransigence and failure to grasp the most elemental bits of logic and reason, gave up and went home to more rewarding pursuits. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m just a little bit stubborn and you’ve given me no more reason to believe in The Import Bigot than you have given me reason to believe in The Tooth Fairy.
I’m equally unimpressed by “30 years of …” I’ve been doing what I do for quite a long time but if I want to prove my view of something controversial is correct, I provide proof or I find a way to provide proof or I devise an experiment that proves my case. Sometimes, I am wrong, in which case the failure of my experiment causes me to learn something new. I’m not so insecure that making a mistake in front of people and thereby learning something new frightens me. I don’t attempt to “prove” my case by saying, “I’ve been doing this for…” Frankly, it irks me no end when people take this cop-out.
If you’ve got something in the way of proof, produce it.
Clearly more of the market does *not* buy the Toyota option in any category than does, so the reliability gap you cite obviously isn’t significant enough to inhibit most buyers.
Then clearly, you have nothing to worry about. If Toyota hasn’t figured out what customers want, it’s a matter of time before it disappears into irrelevance and gets driven back into the sea.
But wait a minute. The whole premise of your editorial is that American buyers of imports and transplants are avoiding your favored products. According to the sales data, more customers are leaving Detroit for Toyota products than the other way around, which would suggest that Toyota might be a problem, after all.
This discussion might go more easily (or at least die a merciful death) if you could at least sort out what your thesis is. I thought that Toyota was a threat; I guess now they’re just a niche player, which means that they shouldn’t merit anything more than a glance. Which is it?
one wish. to detroit…..
There is no dream you can not fetch,
The ravine is just indistinguished steps,
From which a pilot-dreamer unfolds the wings in a stretch.
There is no pamphlet from which to start,
No manuals, or prescribed medication,
Just a dizzy picture, a daredevil of your heart.
There is no space you can`t embrace,
Close your eylashes and catapult away,
Around the closest galaxy, tie the determination with a lace.
There is no time, when a glory page you couldn`t dare,
I bow forward with a book of history,
So full of conquests
Commenced in a dreamer`s glare.
Anf the sky dividing horizon`s an illusion,
Just a dwarf size line of a doubt,
That one day will be erased by a dreamer`s solution.
/juris b/
(Chase your dream, in real deeds, and you might get there, go detroit!)
You think you score a point because Farago ran it? Am I supposed to believe Farago’s infallible? Farago wouldn’t claim Farago’s infallible.
Your words, not mine. I didn’t claim anyone is infallible. Just that an editorial is an editorial is an editorial.
As for a count of who’s denying the phenomenon, everyone else, awed by your intransigence and failure to grasp the most elemental bits of logic and reason, gave up and went home to more rewarding pursuits.
Going back through the whole thread, a *few* others have come forward with reasons they shouldn’t be considered import bigots. Some legitimately, some dubiously. But the count of deniers that the behavior exists is the two cited. I am left wondering what you expected? That an author would roll over because of an assault of mostly irrelevant counter-arguments that sidestep the basic case of his editorial?
All of your focus on trying to twist this thread into an indictment of what the Detroit 3 have done wrong is irrelevant to this topic. The text plainly outlines that this topic regards a consumer component to the factors impeding the rate of recovery of these companies. I also posit that if you’re an American automotive consumer, you should care about retaining domestically-owned auto manufacturing companies in our economy. If you don’t agree with that, walk away or argue that it’s not worth retaining them. But all the rest is a sideshow.
If you want to plant your ideas about what Michigan’s auto companies did wrong, draft an editorial under your own name and submit it for publishing. Then everyone can have at that topic in your thread.
I’m just a little bit stubborn and you’ve given me no more reason to believe in The Import Bigot than…
Noted. I don’t mind stubborn. People tend to recognize it when they see it. But I hope you don’t take offense when I say I can live with your dissent.
I don’t attempt to “prove” my case by saying, “I’ve been doing this for…” Frankly, it irks me no end when people take this cop-out.
It’s not a cop-out. I’ve told you why I know what I know. You’re a purist empiricist, apparently but we really don’t know anything about you. My name is up top. Yours is nowhere to be found. We’ll never agree on best method for understanding the world we live in. Again, if you’re irked, I can live with that.
If Toyota hasn’t figured out what customers want, it’s a matter of time before it disappears into irrelevance and gets driven back into the sea.
Toyota is a substantial presence with momentum in our market and a huge cash reserve. I cited that more of the market doesn’t buy their cars as evidence that the market isn’t as single-minded in its evaluation criteria as you claim.
The whole premise of your editorial is that American buyers of imports and transplants are avoiding your favored products. According to the sales data, more customers are leaving Detroit for Toyota products than the other way around, which would suggest that Toyota might be a problem, after all.
Yes, what I said earlier in no way conflicts with this.
I thought that Toyota was a threat; I guess now they’re just a niche player, which means that they shouldn’t merit anything more than a glance. Which is it?
Another in a continuing pattern of deliberate misrepresentation on your part. Did I use the word “niche?” No. Did I write anything that implied a “niche” characterization? No. In certain mass segments, Toyota has a plurality. They’re welcome in the market. But if import bigots drop their exclusionary mentality and consider competitive domestic alternatives to various imports, enough may find satisfaction to allow a sustaining mixed market of global products that does not torch our domestic automotive industry, and gives the Detroit 3 a footing to continue to compete on the merits.
The mix of sales in the market proves that selection criteria by consumers are varied, so exposure can reasonably be expected to improve market share. It’s refusal to consider the changed products of changed corporations that creates a consumer component to the existential threat to the Detroit 3. I am confident that if the consideration and evaluation prejudices are lifted, and people consider the social benefits of buying competitive domestic products, enough new sales will swing to the Michigan team to ensure completion of their reform.
If you don’t think Americans have self-interest in the success of these companies, then walk. Nobody’s blocking the exit. We know where you stand. Sayonarra; auf weidersehn. But arguing against this with oblique recitations of past sins that are irrelevant to the topic and that everyone here knows; denying the existence of bigoted buying behavior; claiming you want to see these companies prosper but you’re not getting off your butt for 5 or 10 more years, etc., etc.; is really just a declaration that you are ready to lose these companies or you want someone else to get in the game in your stead. As someone else asked, what do you gain? You want to stomp on these companies some more? Go ahead, you’ll have plenty of support here. I’m sure TTAC has a slot for your editorial. Please, get to writing it.
Phil
Kixstart,
You appearantly have a real lack of reading comprehension skill, judging by your interpretation of everything you have responded to here. Where has there been this whining? By asserting that there is better product out there now than the past? That people who have not been considering it in the past because of quality could now without being at risk of major hassle? That it is in their self interest that the big 3 prosper? Yeah, that’s whining. You are simply an agitator who looks for reasons to argue with a position and then manipulates statements, and ignores key points, to try and agitate people.
You can not possibly think that there are not “import bigots” as defined here. That is plainly ignorant to think some people don’t just choose an import with little to no research on the assumption they are buying “the better car.” Again, the question isn’t the motivation of these buyers or it’s validity, but they simply exist in some unkown quantity. I believe early in the comments bigger people than yourself “fessed up” to this purchasing mentality.
Again I ask, what is in it for you to root against Detroit? Grow up.
Seriously guys… The subject in the story being afraid to buy a car he obviously adores because of what his friends think is like someone not being friends with a black person because of what others will think.
I feel like I’m in a philosophy class reading some of these last few comments! Who the hell cares? It’s an editorial! It’s the writer’s opinion. Whether its backed up with facts or not is immaterial, ultimately- look at editorials in national news papers. He’s not WRONG, and there probably is no hard fast data anywhere that shows he’s wrong or right- whether you agree with his interpretation of the data or not is up to you. It doesn’t require these huge diatribes by people who feel they need to justify their feelings or opinions (or bigotry) and, respectfully, I don’t think the editor needs to argue with these yay-hoos.
I agree with the writer, and I think it’s sad that people don’t buy a car they obviously really WANT or would really enjoy because of what their friends think. REALLY sad. But that’s how the world works these days, unfortunately.
Whether its backed up with facts or not is immaterial
Well, that would certainly be convenient. I’ll hand it to Mr. Ressler — he certainly hasn’t allowed facts to get in the way of a good argument.
He’s not WRONG, and there probably is no hard fast data anywhere that shows he’s wrong or right
Actually, he’s absolutely wrong, and there is factual data, including an abundance of it presented here, that demonstrates how utterly wrong he is.
Let’s deconstruct the op-ed: Its basic thesis statements are:
-Buyers of “imported” cars buy “blindly” and based upon “pointless” criteria
-Domestic vehicles are just as reliable as are imports
The first point is contradicted by more than thirty years of market research and academic studies that consistently demonstrate that buyers of “Japanese” vehicles (a term that is becoming increasingly meaningless) are generally more highly educated and earn higher incomes than do buyers of domestic products. Furthermore, the same studies show time and again that it is concerns about practical concerns such as reliability and workmanship that drive sales, not a lack of knowledge or prejudice.
Automotive buying behavior isn’t any mystery — it is intensely studied by both market research companies and by academia. I posted one such market research report above from JD Power, but the findings of that report are not unique and are remarkably consistent with just about anything else you’d find on this topic.
Mr. Ressler can’t post any research to back his assessments of buyer behavior because he’s simply wrong. When presented with data, he offers no real rebuttals, but merely repeats his original argument, as if that actually proves anything.
As for the second point about reliability, his assertion is also wrong. That, too, is contradicted that a wide body of data that show that products made by Toyota and Honda are consistently more reliable than are competing products made by the Detroit automakers. Given the importance of reliability to many American consumers, that fact goes a long way to explaining the growing market share of those two companies.
The only way to drag down that reliability figure is to turn it into a race war of “American” versus “Asian.” The consumer doesn’t see it that way, as the sales data shows that consumer preferences are not simply a matter of buying “Asian”, but of buying specific brands that they prefer. The fact that the sales growth most favors the builders known for reliability makes it pretty clear that this is a product feature that motivates such car buyers.
So really, Mr. Ressler is 0 for 2 on this one. For an editorial that is allegedly based upon fact, there is a sorry absence of fact contained within it. He could have constructed an op-ed that stood on more solid ground, but when basic assertions are contradicted by readily accessible data, you have to wonder how much or little thought really went into this.
^^ Thanks for proving my point about diatribes
Let’s deconstruct the op-ed: Its basic thesis statements are:
-Buyers of “imported” cars buy “blindly” and based upon “pointless” criteria
-Domestic vehicles are just as reliable as are imports
You’re either unwilling to comprehend, unable, or persist in willfully distorting what I wrote, displaying the techniques of a propagandist.
I do not write that buyers of imports buy blindly. *SOME* buyers of imports buy blindly. I did not write that domestic vehicles are just as reliable as are imports. I wrote that there are *SOME*, even many, competitive models from the Detroit companies and that reliability is not meaningfully different across the board. That is, you can get a reliable car from anyone now, that is unlikely to strand you and any gaps from model to model are small enough that environmental variables and sample-to-sample inconsistencies will have more effect on your personal experience than manufacturing a quality.
The first point is contradicted by more than thirty years of market research and academic studies that consistently demonstrate that buyers of “Japanese” vehicles (a term that is becoming increasingly meaningless) are generally more highly educated and earn higher incomes than do buyers of domestic products. Furthermore, the same studies show time and again that it is concerns about practical concerns such as reliability and workmanship that drive sales, not a lack of knowledge or prejudice.
Not germane to the argument. However, the last point is not proven by the data, which only reflects how people answer questions and does not refute existence of bigoted buying behavior.
As for the second point about reliability, his assertion is also wrong. That, too, is contradicted that a wide body of data that show that products made by Toyota and Honda are consistently more reliable than are competing products made by the Detroit automakers. Given the importance of reliability to many American consumers, that fact goes a long way to explaining the growing market share of those two companies.
Said data is backward-looking, does not capture new changes in design and manufacture, and anyway my claim was that reliability differences have shrunk to the point of being meaningless to your actual decision.
For an editorial that is allegedly based upon fact, there is a sorry absence of fact contained within it. He could have constructed an op-ed that stood on more solid ground, but when basic assertions are contradicted by readily accessible data, you have to wonder how much or little thought really went into this.
So far, all of your opposition has been expressed as misrepresentation of my position, countering with oblique arguments or outright irrelevance to the thesis, and unwillingness to recognize reality that falls outside what statistic researchers have bothered to measure. Nothing substantive that is relevant to the argument has been cited. Please write an editorial on the subject that you have actually been responding to, because it isn’t mine.
That you don’t agree is an easy thing to live with.
Phil
merkurwwu
What I am still searching for is why some go to such lengths of misrepresenting everything stated to post such extended diatribes?
I have clearly stated the reason why I strongly agree with the writer, what is their’s? Why devote so much time to a premise that can be summed up by “check out domestic cars now, many of them are good.” It blows my mind that these elitists can be so strongly positioned against even the thought of considering an American car they would spend this much time saying this type of person absolutely couldn’t exist.
I have clearly stated the reason why I strongly agree with the writer, what is theirs?
For me, it’s fairly obvious —
-For one, the factual misstatements of the op-ed and many of the author’s follow-on comments merit correction. Clearly, his thesis is disproven by a wealth of research, and that deserves to be highlighted.
-For another, as an American free enterprise/ business guy myself, the commitment to failure endorsed by this article deserves to be repudiated. I find the devotion to excuses, alibis and attacks on the consumer to be a slap in the face for what this country is supposed to be about.
In theory, this country is supposed to be a meritocracy that awards success with more success and profit. As a result, the US is one of the most successful societies in human history, bringing an unprecedented level of prosperity and choice to millions of people (albeit with some notable flaws, but that is the subject of countless other opinion pieces.)
The US became as successful as it has because of hard work and a commitment to success, not thanks to alibi/enabler pieces such as this. The author is promoting a failure/entitlement mentality that is disguised as an attack on “bigots”, which is really just his jargon to describe those who disagree with him. It’s just a cheap, baseless quip not worth the bytes consumed on the screen that he uses because he has no facts, of any kind, to support his position.
Honda and Toyota are successful companies because they emulated the same behaviors typical of successful businesses everywhere — they identified a need or want, and filled it better than their rivals. They earned their success. If you want to figure out how to turn around Detroit, then stop yer bitchin’, study what the winners did right while avoiding their mistakes, and then set out to beat them.
With attitudes such as Mr. Ressler’s at the helm, the country is bound to appear to the outside world to be a whining laughing stock that deserves to fail. I think that we deserve better, but if we want it, we’ll have to work for it.
pch
The things you characterize as factual mistatements in my mind are just the inability to understand qualifiers. The term some, many, etc, skips yours and others eyesights when reading as evident by your posts.
Second, by considering something other than Toyota or Honda, are you hurting them? If they are so great than you won’t buy domestic. I agree with you, produce a better product and people will buy it. I’m saying that is the case of many vehicles, check them out, they are the WINNERS as you like to phrase everything. That’s not whining, that’s life in a dynamic market.
You have to be made aware of changes before they take affect. Toyota wouldn’t be the “quality leader” they are (thought to be) if no one left the percieved quality leader of past. This isn’t so complicated. For times to change people have to make evaluations on their own, not buy a camry because other’s did. That is currently burning people right now how did that very thing only to encounter troubles. Mr Ressler’s attitude is that the car’s are better, and should be the winner. They shouldn’t be dismissed because of past errors.
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=69795
Here’s another article agreeing with us. How do you want to twist this author’s words to suit your argument?
There have been some absolutely profound comments left for this article – I cannot begin to surpass their importance, so I won’t try.
Do I have an anti-Domestic bias? Yup. Why? Because of all the crap my parents went through with being pro-Domestic as I grew up.
-First it was my parents’ 1982 Ford station wagon (model???)…I was a toddler, but I still remember that thing being in the shop more than our garage.
-Then it was our 1988 Ford Taurus. Transmission began slipping on 2nd-gear shifts at around 75k miles…this was an issue that thousands have experienced.
-Then it was our 1993 Ford Thunderbird. Head gasket leaked well before 100k miles – $1,000’s in repairs.
-Then it was our 1990 Mercury Cougar – “new” 1994 T-Bird engine installed by previous owner, supposedly not succeptible to head-gasket problems. Supposedly. SEE Ford Thunderbird above for rest of story.
So why, pray tell, would I, being of sound mind, ever consider a Ford again? Or any domestic for that matter? Countless coworkers and friends with their Grand Am’s and Taurus’ have problem after problem, but stick with them because they still think of them as “good” vehicles.
I was in middle school after the last Ford head gasket issue hit our household (late ’90s) and I convinced my dad that he needed to shop the Japanese sedans. Test drove an Accord, Camry, and Maxima, loved them all but chose the Maxima because of its sporty character and throaty V6. He sold that Maxima last year – begrudgingly – to get a G35. It still ran like a new car at 120k miles – and the interior, leather and all, was impeccable. He says his G35 is by far the best car he’s ever owned. He’s a Nissan/Infiniti guy through and through now, after years of being burned by Ford.
Another comment: this is to the guy who claimed to have a Mercury Sable that never had any transmission or head gasket issues. Get your head out of the sand, buddy. You should count yourself lucky, considering how common those issues really are. I’m glad you’ve enjoyed your Sable – but if you’re willing to overlook blatant facts to justify your inability to admit that better cars do exist…then you’re exactly the kind of consumer that Ford is looking for!
I’m not unwilling to admit that Detroit has improved recent quality – but I agree with others, “initial” quality = nothing to me. I want 100,000 mile and beyond quality. So far, Detroit’s track record in that department is severely lacking.
Take a 5 year old Camry, Accord, Taurus, Malibu, Grand Prix, Stratus, Intrepid, Altima, and Maxima, and tell me which ones have held up better. Which ones drive much like they did new. Which ones still have all their knobs and switchgear. Which ones haven’t needed major repairs. Anyone who wishes to be completely honest can answer this question without ever sitting in any of the cars.
Biased? You’re darn right I’m biased. And for good reason. Domestic offerings have a long way to go before they’ll even reach the outer limits of my consideration.
I’m not a football or baseball fan, but as a SF Bay Area resident, I will occasionally watch a game and I do root for the home team, even if the only thing “San Francisco” about the team is the location of their home stadium. I’m sure there are transplants from St. Louis, New York, Kansas City et al, who still root for their “home” team. I don’t think I’m a San Francisco bigot, nor would I classify those who root for other teams as bigots.
When I grew up, my father mostly bought Ford products and I was partial to these by family extension; the Chevy, Ford and Mopar kids argued incessantly about the relative merits of each. None of the opinions were necessarily rooted in logic, but one would be hard pressed to call the average “Chevy guy” a bigot.
Phil’s larger point that it is nonsensical to write off any vendor based upon hearsay evidence is a valid one, if people operated on reason alone. The fact is they do not.
And while I’m sure there are many people out there like Phil who have owned American cars over the years and suffered no problems with them, it remains a fact that there was for many years a gap in quality between American cars and their Japanese counterparts. Even Phil agrees that in many segments the gap still exists. Despite evidence both pro and con, people make emotional decisions about buying a car and frequently narrow their search for wholly emotional reasons. The narrowing of the search may be loosely termed “bigotry”, but where the label might be applied in a perjorative sense, it likely occurs equally among fans of any manufacturer or even to specific models (ie: there are no doubt Corvette owners who are “bigoted” against Monte Carlos, and Civic owners who are “bigoted” against Honda Pilots).
To suggest that “…if a million import bigots dropped their bias against domestic iron and truly reconsidered what constitutes meaningful difference in a car comparison, they’d make the right choice…” is like saying “If people really considered all of the ramifications of raising children, they’d make the right choice.” As noted in 64 pages of commentary, the “right” choice is not the same across the board.
Finally, the idea that America is somehow wounded by losing General Motors (or Ford, or Chrysler) as a corporate citizen is to me patently false. If those “high-value” jobs were being done properly, each of these companies would today be well positioned as a global supplier of cars, trucks and buses. Survival of the fittest isn’t a principal which applies only to living things, but to corporations as well. And, as I pointed out several pages ago, the fact that only foreign-owned automobile companies exist in the UK has not killed their economy, even though the transition no doubt displaced any number of under-performing organizations and individuals.
In contrast to the American car suppliers, Otis Elevator is currently the world’s preeminent elevator supplier. Although headquartered in Connecticut, they have a globe-girdling array of factories, suppliers and engineers and have thus far met significant challenges from both Asian and European suppliers. The fact is that they no longer manufacture in the U.S. to the extent they did 30 or more years ago. Every other major U.S. elevator vendor has been purchased by foreign interests.
There was no doubt someone like Phil around in the 19th century pointing out that the village cobbler actually made a damn good pair of shoes, and that he wouldn’t be around much longer if folks kept buying shoes made out of town. Why the village cobbler went out of business is a matter of economics and the fact that he did not adapt to the changes in the economy. No doubt it is sad for the cobbler and his family, but that’s just the way the world works.
GM, Ford and Chrysler had ample warning of what was to come. They will either adapt and survive, or they will be replaced by those who want the business more than they do.
There you go, it looks like Macca verifies the existance of an import bigot? I thought it had been “shown” that wasn’t possible, that a full blown study was necessary to verify the existance of this type of customer? Isn’t that the reason you guys claim to be arguing with this article, that Macca doesn’t exist to you?
“I agree with the writer, and I think it’s sad that people don’t buy a car they obviously really WANT or would really enjoy because of what their friends think. REALLY sad. But that’s how the world works these days, unfortunately.”
Agreed. Its political correctness gone wild. In some parts of the country—buying a domestic make is the equivalent of admitting you are a devoted worshipper in a christian church—-you just kind of get this wierd look from people with the “why?” question.
RJL676 Said:
“…They shouldn’t be dismissed because of past errors.”
Couldn’t disagree more.
Of course I’ll dismiss Ford et al because of past “errors”. Calling the thousands upon thousands of blown transmissions and leaky head gaskets an “error” is a profound understatement. Anyone who lived with these “errors” has every right to be weary of new Ford products.
Calling the way Ford let the Taurus rot after its initial successes an “error” is also a riot. Perhaps it was an “error” when Chevy made the Corvette’s interior as cheap as the Cobalt. Was the styling of the Pontiac Aztek an “error” as well?
I could go on and on – but anyone with just a modicum of common sense will stay away from a product that has failed them in the past. It is not my patriotic “duty” to do otherwise.
Macca, I wouldn’t suggest you buy a 2002 Taurus or whatever car you have had problems with. I would suggest the new 08 Taurus is fully competitive with anything in it’s class (styling being subjective), and being totally new, how could it have failed you in the past? You are holding a grudge, which is your choice, but unfortunate if it keeps you from considering what may now be a better product for you. I guess anyone that has a problem with a current Tundra, Camry, or import in general should be going domestic only soon in your opinion. Or would they get a second, third chance?
MACCA: If we as a country held steadfast to making people pay for past mistakes—-the US would have let Japan rot and die after world war 2. Instead—-in our own self interest—the US helped rebuild Japan. Do you think that was a good move or not ? If you think it was a good move—-I suggest you re-look at Alan’s thesis.
MACCA: If we as a country held steadfast to making people pay for past mistakes—-the US would have let Japan rot and die after world war 2. Instead—-in our own self interest—the US helped rebuild Japan. Do you think that was a good move or not ? If you think it was a good move—-I suggest you re-look at Alan’s thesis.
We went and replaced their entire defective leadership structure and wrote them a new constitution. If Ford goes through the same type of drastic change in leadership, I might consider them more seriously. Its about more than replacing a figurehead at the top.
“Macca, I wouldn’t suggest you buy a 2002 Taurus or whatever car you have had problems with. I would suggest the new 08 Taurus is fully competitive with anything in it’s class (styling being subjective), and being totally new, how could it have failed you in the past? You are holding a grudge, which is your choice, but unfortunate if it keeps you from considering what may now be a better product for you. I guess anyone that has a problem with a current Tundra, Camry, or import in general should be going domestic only soon in your opinion. Or would they get a second, third chance?”
I don’t know what Tundra owners will do, but my guess is that the Camry owners will be going to Honda.
RLJ676 :
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Katie,
And that is our point exactly, the quality has improved, the reliability has improved.
There just simply isn’t a time frame to wait 10 years to prove it. He’s saying that an extra visit to a dealer over the life of the car (if that in reality though) is worth helping save the Big 3 in your own self interest (but not yours, as you dont live here).
Can’t help myself; I keep getting sucked back in. An extra visit (or two or three) is most certainly likely if you buy a domestic versus a japanese brand car. The warrantee costs by brand show that Honda and Toyota have the lowest warrantee costs of the five largest auto sellers in the US, followed by Ford and GM, and finally Chrysler with warrantee costs per unit well above everybody else year in and year out. While I have not seen any data for these costs broken down by model nro do I know if this data even exists, it is FACT to state that Japanese brand cars are less likely to fail than American brand cars. On top of this of course is the data compiled by industry and consumer groups, most notably Consumer Reports, which also show that domestics as a group have a higher incidence of repair than Japanese brand cars. Yet, in the face of all of this the “domestic bigots” say people like myself are unamerican because we have stopped buying domestic and now buy foriegn cars. You also discount historic reliability numbers because “these cars aren’t necessarily better because of historical performance of their predecessors.” While this is true, it is more sensible to base a buying decision on a vehicles historic reliability than on blind faith. Just because the domestic auto makers say their new cars are just as reliable as the competitions is no evidence that they are.
I don’t know what Tundra owners will do, but my guess is that the Camry owners will be going to Honda.
What, the Ridgeline isn’t competitive? J/K
Seriously, past problems does not mean ongoing problems. Although I am not for toyota purchase in any way, I would find it unlikely for those problems to be repetitive. If the car was otherwise fine, shouldn’t it be in the running for the next purchase, along with domestics or anything else that may be a contender for the best for your needs?
KBW,
I guess you have missed the news about major buyouts/restructering that has been happening in Detroit? There are many new faces in charge of departments, along with new departments pointed entirely at quality, etc. It just kills me how some people hold a grudge and can’t accept that times have changed.
If everyone thought like you I guess Detroit would have nothing to worry about because everyone would still view Japanese cars as tiny and inferior for everything but gas milage, but guess what, that’s changed.
“Seriously, past problems does not mean ongoing problems. Although I am not for toyota purchase in any way, I would find it unlikely for those problems to be repetitive. If the car was otherwise fine, shouldn’t it be in the running for the next purchase, along with domestics or anything else that may be a contender for the best for your needs?”
I can only answer for myself – No. If I have a major problem with a car, I’m not buying that brand again anytime soon.
I marveled at a prior post describing problems with Ford after Ford. I’d have been off to the Chevy dealer after the first Ford problem. If I had a Chevy problem I’d have been off to the Dodge dealer. If I then had a problem with the Dodge, I’d be off to the Honda dealer.
RLJ676 I don’t think one of the issues is whether “import bigots” exist. By definition they do but this behavior has always existed for all brands and products. Many down here in Florida buy exclusively Ford trucks, they don’t even look at the competition but we don’t label them Ford bigots.
Buyers make their decisions on various factors. Sometimes reasonable and well thought out, and sometimes based on false information, emotion etc.
Is the Ford truck buyer a bigot if he has never even tried the competition? Is he a bigot if he has always been satisfied with his prior ford purchases.
Now switch Ford truck with Honda Accord. Why is the Honda owner who never ventured to a domestic dealer a bigot?
The problem is the term. We would never call the Ford truck buyer as a bigot. He made what he believed to be an informed choice even if it wasn’t considered an informed choice by others. Its no different with other makes.
I think people should consider all options in order to get the best product but to call someone a bigot because they exclude some brand, vendor or purchasing options is insulting.
We don’t go around calling people who do that bigots especially if your trying to get people to buy your products
The author is promoting a failure/entitlement mentality that is disguised as an attack on “bigots”, which is really just his jargon to describe those who disagree with him.
Inaccurate characterization. I’m promoting acceleration of change in consumer perceptions based on real product improvements, so that competitive products get a fair hearing in the marketplace. The free market will remain uncompromised. Buyers still have to be convinced to buy, under this scenario. You are misrepresenting my thinking. Further, there is nothing about my commentary on import bigots that is disquised. I’m plainly pointing out their behavior as a market dysfunction that they are self-interested in changing.
The US became as successful as it has because of hard work and a commitment to success, not thanks to alibi/enabler pieces such as this.
Irrelevant to the topic. Nothing cited is an excuse. If anything I’ve written is inferred as “enabling,” it is a late-breaking synthetic construct divorced from the intent or articulation of the article.
Honda and Toyota are successful companies because they emulated the same behaviors typical of successful businesses everywhere — they identified a need or want, and filled it better than their rivals. They earned their success.
Irrelevant to the topic. No one has argued they haven’t earned their success. Some have been mystified by the public’s embrace of some of those products, but no one’s saying they didn’t work hard for their position.
If you want to figure out how to turn around Detroit, then stop yer bitchin’, study what the winners did right while avoiding their mistakes, and then set out to beat them.
Irrelevant to the topic. HOW to turn around the Detroit 3 is an amply discussed topic here and elsewhere. I don’t think there’s much mystery about it. Clearly the hows translate to much more complex execution challenges viewed from inside, than Detroits manifold critics outside the fence see. But this column isn’t about how to fix the Detroit 3. It is only about the role consumers who share an interest in their survival can play in ensuring the fixes under way reach completion.
With attitudes such as Mr. Ressler’s at the helm, the country is bound to appear to the outside world to be a whining laughing stock that deserves to fail.
Irrelevant and misplaced comment. Nothing in the editorial is advice for any automaker, nor reflective of my view of how these companies should be managed.
Macca: The most recent car you cited that your family had trouble with was a 1990 model. That car was made 17 years ago and whatever led to your trouble is unrelated to the way domestic cars are built today. You also wrote: Another comment: this is to the guy who claimed to have a Mercury Sable that never had any transmission or head gasket issues. Get your head out of the sand, buddy. You should count yourself lucky, considering how common those issues really are.
Ford made and shipped a vast number of Taurus/Sable models of that generation. There were some noted mechanical problems, but the majority of owners did not experience them. Your family’s troubles were unfortunate and shouldn’t have happened, but for the market at large, these failures were the exception, not the cars that didn’t fail. How long until your hostility fades? Just wondering.
…but one would be hard pressed to call the average “Chevy guy” a bigot.
That’s exactly what we called them circa 1967. It was usually taken as a compliment even if intended otherwise by the deliverer.
…for many years a gap in quality between American cars and their Japanese counterparts.
I view this as model-specific, not blanket brand-to-brand. The domestic cars I chose were made to a high standard relative to prevailing market quality for their year.
Finally, the idea that America is somehow wounded by losing General Motors (or Ford, or Chrysler) as a corporate citizen is to me patently false. If those “high-value” jobs were being done properly, each of these companies would today be well positioned as a global supplier of cars, trucks and buses. Survival of the fittest isn’t a principal which applies only to living things, but to corporations as well. And, as I pointed out several pages ago, the fact that only foreign-owned automobile companies exist in the UK has not killed their economy, even though the transition no doubt displaced any number of under-performing organizations and individuals.
On strictly economic terms I agree with this. Unfortunately economics neglects the human and political factors. The United States is unique in today’s world, with global responsibilities and a demographic track that will make it the only significant developed country to grow throughout the next century. If we had only the UK’s or Germany’s responsibilities, and were on track to shrink, I might care much less about this. Detroit doesn’t get a permanent pass here. The point is we have a uniquely broad existential threat to US owned auto manufacturing. Regardless of the reasons for this, these companies are on the mend. We have an interest in retaining a diversified economy with strong middle-class-supporting alternatives for a growing population.
To help our own vital companies squeak through a window of vulnerability is a small thing to seek, in my mind. Losing the Detroit 3 isn’t a death blow nor even crippling. But it is truncating to the economic platform for meeting our social preferences for a broad middle class. Economics cannot be the only guide for what’s appropriate here, and my proposal complete avoids the slippery slope of government intervention, instead finding help in the free market itself.
GM, Ford and Chrysler had ample warning of what was to come. They will either adapt and survive, or they will be replaced by those who want the business more than they do.
This is true, but American consumers have an instrument in form of their purchasing power for shaping the outcome. Personally, I use mine consciously and I have had no trouble finding interesting and competitive Detroit 3 vehicles that meet or exceed the reliability experience of import owners. I know others can do the same if they free themselves of outdated bias, bitterness and their cherished notions of status and social acceptance.
Phil
Sherman Lin,
As has been stated before the term bigot in this sense isn’t meant to lump you in with skinheads, but to “editorialize” the statement for effect. Yes, those Ford only truck shoppers in the same sense are “Ford bigots.” However, assuming they live in the US it is at least somewhat self serving to support Ford.
Why doesn’t everyone go check on how freely these “American transplants” let other’s play in their home market? Basically it doesn’t exist there. Between that and the currency games they play does everyone really think they are out for benefiting the US? The reason those factories exist in this country is to appease people, and if they didn’t have to build them they wouldn’t have. With no incumbant domestic production they would NEVER build another factory here, and slowly shut down the existing ones to exploit cheaper labor, and currency exchange benefits. But I guess that doesn’t matter, as they build a few cars here now making them “equal” to domestics in benefit to the US. Nice rationalizing to yourselves, but it is not reality.
the “domestic bigots” say people like myself are unamerican because we have stopped buying domestic and now buy foreign cars.
No one has said that *here*.
We would never call the Ford truck buyer as a bigot.
Sure, why not? It’s just that in this case his behavior serves my socio-economic agenda.
I think people should consider all options in order to get the best product but to call someone a bigot because they exclude some brand, vendor or purchasing options is insulting.
Excluding a brand, no problem. Excluding all domestic brands — different story.
Phil
Phil I understand you wanted to get attention by using the term bigot and I agree that some people using your definition are bigots whether they are import bigots, ford bigots etc and I am aware its your editorial along with your right to use the terms you wish to use but its just my opinion that you would get more people to consider your idea if you basically didn’t use bigot as your description.
I might be brand loyal or brand adverse and I may or may not meet your definition of a bigot but if someone wants to call me a bigot based on my purchasing decisions or if I get the if the shoe fits wear it routine, I just feel insulted, rightly or wrongly
Second, by considering something other than Toyota or Honda, are you hurting them?
That’s absolutely off point. You may have noticed that I am not particularly worried about the fate of Toyota or Honda. My advocacy is for the customer, who is always right and whose requirements will remain supreme within a market economy such as this one.
These companies will thrive or fail on their own merits. If they continue to serve customer needs, then they will prosper. If they stop doing so, then they will decline, and I won’t be sad to see them pay the price.
What I find amusing is that the domestic flagwavers seem to be so excited about Toyota’s recent missteps. It’s a bit like the “D” student taking joy because the straight-A student finally got a “B.”
Here’s the problem with your scenario: At the end of the day, the straight-A student still has a high grade point average, and the D student is still a flunky. The D student doesn’t earn any more respect just because the A student is flirting with a drop out of the honor roll. If Toyota continues to make notable errors, then it will pay the price for its mistakes, and will deserve what it gets.
But guess who would benefit from that scenario? At this juncture, if Toyota fails, the main winner will likely be Honda. The last thing that the reliability-conscious consumer is going to do is to run to his Chevy dealership.
If I could wave a magic wand and have my wish, it would be for the Big 2.8 and every other automaker to do an outstanding job of serving the needs and wants of their customers. That would benefit all of us because we would have greater consumer choice, and the heightened competition should lead to lower prices.
But the only way for that to happen is for the Resslers of the world to stop whining, take customer needs seriously and step up to the plate. Until then, Americans will increasingly shop elsewhere, and that will be Detroit’s fault, and only Detroit’s fault. The consumer owes Detroit nothing and it’s about time that Wagoner got a clue and realized that GM is neither a charity nor a religion worthy of our volunteerism.
pch,
It looks like you have again glanced over everything relevant to harp on something surely taken out of context to feed your diatribe. I’m still waiting for your response to this article, and how you rationalize their statements of domestics now offering a better overall package? Are they “whining”?
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=69795
Jeeze, it looks like “your market” isn’t quite done speaking, and that offering more for your dollar is compelling to some people to “risk” that theoretical extra repair visit. Basically, it’s what you ask for, a superior product value.
PCH101: “What I find amusing is that the domestic flagwavers seem to be so excited about Toyota’s recent missteps. It’s a bit like the “D” student taking joy because the straight-A student finally got a “B.”
I for one am not excited about Toyota’s mis-steps because that means a fellow American got screwed in the process from a quality mishap.
I am happy that Toyota is starting to get the same level of scrutiny from the media as domestic manufacturers. The more transparency of information—the better informed consumers will be and that is a good thing.
Sherman Lin:
…I am aware its your editorial along with your right to use the terms you wish to use but its just my opinion that you would get more people to consider your idea if you basically didn’t use bigot as your description….but if someone wants to call me a bigot based on my purchasing decisions or if I get the if the shoe fits wear it routine, I just feel insulted, rightly or wrongly…
Fair enough.
Phil
I for one am not excited about Toyota’s mis-steps because that means a fellow American got screwed in the process from a quality mishap.
If you want an example of bias, this statement typifies it.
If you compare the quantity of mistakes made by Toyota to the quantity of mistakes made by any one of the Detroit automakers, Toyota is the honor student who made a mistake or two while seated next to the class screw-ups Larry, Moe and Curly (aka Ford, GM and Chrysler.) Toyota is to a parking ticket what the Big 2.8 is to a felony crime spree.
Your displeasure is sorely misplaced, or at least well out of proportion of what is should be. You should be disappointed with Toyota for not getting it right and make it clear that you want them to get back to normal. But you should be outraged with Detroit for not only letting down millions of American consumers, but for doing the shareholders and grunt-level employees irreparable harm.
And I have been brought back to the thread that won’t die. Anybody want to score this fight?
After re-reading the original editorial, I have identified what I have a problem with:
Having driven the primary competitors in the volume car biz, I’m convinced that if a million import bigots dropped their bias against domestic iron and truly reconsidered what constitutes meaningful difference in a car comparison, they’d make the right choice– and not regret it. And we’d all be stronger for it.
Now, you have said that you are not biased either wayand that all you are asking the consumer to do is consider purchasing a Detroit product. However, the last sentence suggests that the only reasonable conclusion that one can draw is that they need to purchase a Detroit vehicle. This would, in turn, suggest that imported vehicles are no better or perhaps objectively worse than the domestic competition. Some individuals, myself included disagree with this assertion. Now, if you did not mean the right choice was to purchase a domestic vehicle, then that is not a point of contenion.
Secondly, the poster above who listed his history with Ford products is not an ‘Import Bigot’ in my opnion. While past performance is not necessarily predictive of present or future performance, it can be a pretty reliable indicator (and certainly better than no indicator at all). This is why individuals need to do well in school, so that they can attain acceptance for further study or a good job. What Phil suggests is a form of automotive affirmative action. Some believe you should take those with the best grades and others believe you are better off in other ways regardless to the loss in objective grades. Taking this back to the cobbler scenario; you can continue to support the cobbler even if his shoes are not as good as a mass manufacturer, but many choose not to and that is a reasonable choice. Now throw in the fact that I don’t even know said cobbler and I see even less reason to do so. I have always strived for the best myself and look for a like-minded companies (those with the highest grades in things that matter to me; reliability and quality).
umterp85: “I for one am not excited about Toyota’s mis-steps because that means a fellow American got screwed in the process from a quality mishap.”
But it’s OK if we got screwed by a “quality mishap” from Detroit? We should bend over and ask for another?
But it’s OK if we got screwed by a “quality mishap” from Detroit? We should bend over and ask for another?
If it didn’t happen to you personally, or if happened sometime in the past (i.e. more than a week ago), then it shouldn’t matter. Detroit needs you, the past doesn’t count, and the future’s so bright, you gotta wear shades.
KixStart: I dont think I have said anywhere that we want anyone screwed whether it is domestic or Toyota or BMW—did I ?
I am assuming you can peruse the volumes of information regarding the reliability of one model vs. another and make a choice. The thesis of this editorial merely states that if you take the information at face value—you will find a myriad of domestic offerings that will meet your quality and reliablity needs.
Net, your basic assumption that if you buy TODAY’s Detroit product automatically means you need to bend over—-well that theory is seriously flawed.
The thesis of this editorial merely states that if you take the information at face value—you will find a myriad of domestic offerings that will meet your quality and reliablity needs.
If you read above, you find that the thesis is contradicted by the actual data.
Just for starters, you can simply use data from CR and JD Power to compare a Civic to a Cobalt and an Accord to an Impala. (I made it easy by providing the JD Power data above for all of these.) In each of these cases, they do not compare and the domestics come up short.
I can present data as well (eg Fusion vs. Camry or Accord). Look, we could go round and round on this one but I think it would bore the hell out of the TTAC community. Lets move on and take comfort that our positions have been aired.
Now, you have said that you are not biased either way and that all you are asking the consumer to do is consider purchasing a Detroit product. However, the last sentence suggests that the only reasonable conclusion that one can draw is that they need to purchase a Detroit vehicle. This would, in turn, suggest that imported vehicles are no better or perhaps objectively worse than the domestic competition. Some individuals, myself included disagree with this assertion. Now, if you did not mean the right choice was to purchase a domestic vehicle, then that is not a point of contention.
This is a case where the 800 word limit sacrifices some nuance. But no matter: 1/ I’ve posited that you can buy a well-made vehicle from the Detroit 3 today, that will be reliable and satisfying if you choose adroitly; 2/ while competitive many not mean compellingly better, the battle for share is so pitched that inevitable qualitative differences between vehicles in a class are not meaningful to selection; 3/ there is social benefit to improving the survivability of the Detroit 3 through a window of special vulnerability; 4/ Detroit deserves this consideration because they’ve demonstrated convincing product evidence of mending their prior dysfunctions; 5/ you can be happy with and confident of the quality of your domestic purchase if your consideration and evaluation effort persuades you.
I’ve said I’m asking import bigots in the US market to open-mindedly consider and genuinely evaluate domestic vehicles when they shop for their next purchase. I am confident that if they are genuinely open to the proposition, enough people will find a satisfying domestic alternative and be convinced to buy. If not, you’ve done what I asked by evaluating. But in the context of the social benefits to retaining robust domestic auto manufacturing, making the Detroit 3 selection is the “right choice,” in my view.
Phil
Phil: “If anything I’ve written is inferred as “enabling,” it is a late-breaking synthetic construct divorced from the intent or articulation of the article.”
No, it’s not. The whole thrust of your “thesis” (a joke, since theses come with evidence to support them), is that Detroit merits special consideration. In the normal course of things, people will find that Toyota or Honda or – more likely, much more likely – VW does not satisfy and, given pricing, options, style, performance and other qualities, people will come back to Detroit.
You stand this on its head and say that people should come back to Detroit, NOW, to save it. That people should abandon a product-oriented focus (which, sadly for Detroit, includes branding and reputation) and buy products that have historically been inferior for “social” reasons. Detroit loves this. Detroit relies on a chunk of the market having the attitude “Don’t buy Asian” and waving the flag. Those “this is our country” ads get aired frequently for a reason.
Of course, with every rebadged Daewoo they import and with every off-shore IT or call center resource they employ, the “this is our country” ads just become more and more ironic. Or moronic. Take your pick.
Detroit must save itself. And, right now, they’ve got a shot. There’s a growing notion that there’s chinks in Toyota’s armor; that the Camry and other vehicles aren’t quite the bulletproof rides that people have come to believe. Detroit should capitalize on that. A killer warranty would help. I don’t see one. Could it be that Detroit doesn’t agree with you folks that their cars are all that reliable?
By the way, I laid off all day and – surprise – the thread didn’t go away. PCH101 found new friends.
I can present data as well (eg Fusion vs. Camry or Accord).
We covered that. You can’t really discuss the long-term reliability of the Fusion, when it’s a new car. And we already know that the residuals of the Ford are much worse, so the equity hit of the Ford will almost certainly be greater.
So we’re back to Vegas again. For many a consumer, $20k+ is a lot to gamble. If Detroit won’t cover that bet through a better, longer warranty and a residual value guaranty, then there isn’t much reason for the consumer to take the risk.
RLJ676, the Media Post article highlights what Detroit should do – and what people have been saying all along – Detroit must win back business on its merits. If they’re dialling in the right value, people will notice.
Nor did anyone say that buyers were entirely one-dimensional. For the right price, even I will buy a piece of unreliable crap.
But the end of the article says: “Still, in the Total Value Index, based on subjective new-owner statements about things like expected reliability, expected fuel economy, price paid, and expected resale value, Toyota still dominates.”
The difference between this and the projected value contest includes factors that I outlined earlier… people do not want reliability for its own sake, they want reliability to avoid inconvenience, aggravation and embarrassment.
The Total Value Index, being subjective, does reflect this. Projected value includes only the direct automotive-related expenses.
Your car breaks down. OK, it’s $200 for a starter or whatever. What about the surcharge if you’re late picking up the kids at daycare? Do they even include the tow?
Or, in my case, the first time our Ford transmission failed, I had to drive 1200 miles, roundtrip, to retrieve it when it was fixed.
Gosh, that was a lot of fun. Would you care to assign a value to that? Let’s see, 1.5 days of vacation – oops, that’s 2 full days because we originally didn’t get back on schedule – plus two days of my life gone for nothing plus fuel plus hotel bill – oops, there were 2 hotel bills – plus meals plus my friends laughing about it…
Go work on that. Let me know when you’ve got a dollar figure for me. Maybe I’ll send a bill to Ford.
Oh, here’s one I forgot, an extra day for the dog at the kennel.
And a week later, it failed again, while I was driving across town. Well, OK, I exaggerate, it lasted a full 8 days and 100 more miles after the return trip. I can only imagine what fun I would have had if it had broken down on that return trip, in one of the remote parts of the Interstate, between East Overshoe and Podunk, KS, for example.
Crazy, you say? Well, if the return trip had been another 200 miles, that’s exactly what would have happened.
And Ford HQ’s response to my request for an extension to the warranty? “No.” OK, it’s not policy and I’m unhappy but then, the answer to “Don’t you care if I ever buy another Ford again?” was “No, I’m not in Sales.”
I can’t think of a worse answer, at least not without profanity. Can you?
Phil wrote: “1/ I’ve posited that you can buy a well-made vehicle from the Detroit 3 today, that will be reliable and satisfying if you choose adroitly.”
Phil, you “positing” and Detroit “delivering…” they’re two distinctly different things.
Did you think you’d sneak this past us on the strength of your 30 years’ experience doing whatever it is you do? Well, no, this won’t fly, either.
Phil also wrote: “2/ while competitive many not mean compellingly better, the battle for share is so pitched that inevitable qualitative differences between vehicles in a class are not meaningful to selection;”
Try “quantitative” instead. Quantitative differences can be meaninglessly small but qualitative differences are distinctions no matter how small.
And the “quantitative” differences probably aren’t small enough, because consumers (thanks RLJ676) still think Toyotas are noticeably more reliable and so do warranty costs, etc, etc.
Phil wrote: “3/ there is social benefit to improving the survivability of the Detroit 3 through a window of special vulnerability;”
That would be true if Detroit was doing something special to strengthen the US strategically. Like building more and more fuel-efficient cars so as to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, improve our balance of trade through reduced oil imports and starve oil-based dictators of funds.
See a very recent TTAC article to find out what they’re doing for us:
Detroit Acts in America’s Strategic Interest?
Phil wrote: “4/ Detroit deserves this consideration because they’ve demonstrated convincing product evidence of mending their prior dysfunctions;”
Well, they say laughter is the best medicine.
Phil wrote: “5/ you can be happy with and confident of the quality of your domestic purchase if your consideration and evaluation effort persuades you.”
But too much of a good thing…
Did you think you’d sneak this past us
I stepped through a summary of my position as preface to answering a question by another poster. Consider that to have been a point-to-point or person-to-person communication with a public view.
Try “quantitative” instead. Quantitative differences can be meaninglessly small but qualitative differences are distinctions no matter how small.
Watch your language. They are qualitative differences quantified, to increasingly tiny deltas.
That would be true if Detroit was doing something special to strengthen the US strategically. Like building more and more fuel-efficient cars so as to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, improve our balance of trade through reduced oil imports and starve oil-based dictators of funds.
The Detroit 3 are doing that plus something better: relentlessly improving the mileage of high-volume vehicles Americans continue to buy and need. Take any vehicle sector: the Detroit 3 successor to a prior vehicle is both more powerful and more efficient. Even a new Escalade.
Well, they say laughter is the best medicine.
You’re doing your best to demonstrate you’re not to be taken seriously, right?
Phil
One thing I don’t get is the plea to forget the past. I don’t see why we should.
My only bad problem with a domestic vehicle was my ’87 Dakota. I won’t go through all the details. It was such a nightmare vehicle that I’m never NEVER going back to Chrysler.
By my reckoning, Chrysler owes me several thousand dollars. When their check clears, I might look at their vehicles again (well, no, I wouldn’t). I know it’s not 1987 anymore, but I’m just not willing to give my business to a company that cost me thousands of dollars. As long as I live, I’ll never buy a Chrysler product. I don’t think there is anything unfair about that.
See a very recent TTAC article to find out what they’re doing for us:
Detroit Acts in America’s Strategic Interest?
Last time, CAFE directly drove large numbers of car people into heavy, less efficient trucks. CAFE, even in mildly improved form of CAFE II, is a bad idea maligned with its objectives. CAFE is politically driven by policy amateurs lacking foresight and imagination.
I’m surprised a confessed free marketer puts any stock in it.
Phil
Phil: “Watch your language. They are qualitative differences quantified, to increasingly tiny deltas.”
For a guy who likes the language of math and statistics, you’re oddly reluctant to dig up any actual data that demonstrates the existence of the Mythical Million Import Bigots.
And “posit” is exactly what you did. You “posited” the existence of “competitive” Detroit vehicles without identifying any.
I don’t expect you to take my – or anyone’s – remarks seriously. After all, you don’t take your own positions seriously enough to support them.
CAFE didnt’ drive people into heavy, less efficient trucks, loopholes in CAFE did that. And an IRS bounty of big-ass vehicles didn’t help, either. I don’t see the Detroit execs up on the hill telling us to set up a gas tax. Do you?
Detroit has been relentlessly pushing advertising for bigger and bigger vehicles with larger and larger engines. That helps exactly how?
I keep getting sucked in, too.
My words were too harsh before as I was trying to keep myself from writing a novel…
To those who just skimmed my post – those were not my cars, the were my parents as I grew up. I know that the “newest” car on that list is a 14 year old car now – get over it, right?
Perhaps I should. It’s difficult to, however. One poster said that “he’d never recommend a woman return to an abusive husband after he was reformed”. That about sums up my feelings. After seeing my parents finally learn (why did it take so long?) and leave those early 90’s Fords (forgot to mention their 1986 Aerostar, purchased brand new in ’86, burned oil like a tank, sliding door fell off…etc, etc.) I decided that I just wouldn’t go that route when I “grew up”.
To my credit, I did say that I believe that the domestics have vastly improved recently. I’m not afraid of being “unstylish”; impressing the neighbors isn’t my pursuit in car shopping. It’s just that so far, my venture into Nissan/Infiniti has been wonderful, and I have yet to experience any major problems – and until I do, I cannot see myself making a huge change in shopping patterns.
I can freely admit that the Ford Fusion is an enticing sedan. I enjoy the styling, it seems to be a fairly well thought out sedan. I can also freely admit that the last few generations of Camry have never done a thing for me. And the latest is not up to the interior standards that I would expect. Is the Fusion a better pick? Perhaps – but Ford’s got a tough job of making enough folks think that. I cannot say that I feel “sorry” for them either, because it was at least two decades of extremely poor reliability that ruined their reputation with many, many Ford-focused (sorry) families (like my parents).
Phil,
If you are still paying attention to this thread, I’ll become one of your customers who are willing to set aside negative brand equity and consider a domestic vehicle on the basis of its relative merits to others in its class.
My vehicle association history (including vehicles in my family when I was growing up) include a 1960’s blue Pontiac (model unknown), a 1967 black Mercury Caliente sedan, a 1980 yellow Ford Crown Victoria station wagon with the rear jump seats, a 1980 light blue Ford Mustang notchback with the white vinyl roof and inline 6 engine, a 1990 blue Acura Integra LS sedan (my first car), a 2001 silver Ford Focus ZTS, a 2003 green Honda Pilot EX, and a 2005 brown Volvo XC70. The last two are the ones in my garage currently.
Although in my head, all signs point to Honda, I have a soft spot for Ford, and especially for Mercury, largely because I associate good times growing up with the Caliente. If only Ford had brought their new lineup to market a year earlier, we would be owners of a Freestyle and a Fusion now. As minivans are “forbidden” by my wife, the next vehicle update in 2-3 years will probably be between the XC90, the R350, and the Outlook/Enclave (GMC too trucky for her). I plan to run my XC70 into the ground, so I really don’t know what the model lineups will be at that time.
It was such a nightmare vehicle that I’m never NEVER going back to Chrysler.
So you still have Ford and GM products to consider.
CAFE didnt’ drive people into heavy, less efficient trucks, loopholes in CAFE did that.
Sorry no. CAFE forced a draconian design change in cars in the 1970s & 80s before technology was sufficiently evolved in mainstream-size vehicles that met most needs. Remember, the Japanese were strictly in small cars then. Americans like upright seating, headroom, good visibility, rear drive and torque. What they got were raked windshields, scrunched seating, reduced visibility and front wheel drive. Part of the market went with it. But a huge part of the market rebelled and found their modern ’55 Bel Air in a pickup or SUV. CAFE directly fueled the truck boom long before the IRS rule on 8500+ lbs. vehicles kicked in. That was a late-breaking development that affected few — too few to matter, in fact. CAFE sparked a classic policy backfire.
I don’t see the Detroit execs up on the hill telling us to set up a gas tax. Do you?
And good for them, because a gas tax is bad policy and a bad idea, particularly if it isn’t earmarked for inviolate investment in personal transportation infrastructure or possibly subsidy of mass adoption of non-oil fixed infrastructure energy sources, like rooftop solar. The Feds have demonstrated they can’t resist tapping restricted funds for the general budget.
Detroit has been relentlessly pushing advertising for bigger and bigger vehicles with larger and larger engines. That helps exactly how?
Is your calendar stuck on 1999? Do you think people buy trucks, vans and large sedans just because Detroit advertises them? What happened to your market of super-rational buyers? Let’s see: new Suburban, Escalade, GMC equivalent, etc. are more efficient than the models replaced. Same for Navigator, Explorer. Every car offering a Hemi can be had with a more efficient alternative. A Chevy small block is amazingly efficient for its power delivery and continues to get more so. 27 mpg from a 430+ hp 6.2L mill at highway speeds? Oh, yeah, you import guys whiz on its shoes because it uses pushrods. The Chevy 5.3L has been steadily improved for efficiency. Ford and GM V6s are improving. More models come with 6 speed transmissions. GM’s Ecotec 4 is a vast improvement over the prior 4 cylinder mills, in both 2.4L and 2.0L turbo form. You can get a 304hp V6 from Cadillac. I see only a 10 year pattern of steady, incremental improvement in engine efficiency from the Americans. Let’s see how many Americans want smaller engines by watching the proportion of new Malibus sold with 2.4L I-4 engines.
Phil
JCP2:
…the next vehicle update in 2-3 years will probably be between the XC90, the R350, and the Outlook/Enclave (GMC too trucky for her)…
Cal-i-EN-tay! Your Dad had style. My Dad’s equivalent was a low and wide ’69 Pontiac Bonneville. Your plans are all I ask. Include Edge too, and perhaps Cadillac SRX.
Thanks!
Phil
I keep hearing that once you drive a car to 100,000 miles, the depreciation is nil. Wrong. I had an ’01 SL1 (which needed a new differential almost a month after I bought it 60k miles…but thats a different story) and when time came to get rid of it, it had a few problems that were showing symptoms but weren’t big yet, so I didn’t feel comfortable selling it privately because with the problems that I had and what I felt would be needed in the next 10k miles would force me to drastically reduce my asking price. Call it passing the buck or whatever, but I sold it to CarMax and got about what I would have hoped for if I had sold it privately, about $1500. Thats a 2001 SL1 with a bit less than 100k miles for $1500. I have a friend with a 1991 Camry (TEN years older) with about 50k more miles than my Saturn had and he figures his car is still worth $3k. Whether he would actually be able to get $3k is debatable, but I think he could get close. Thats twice what I thought my car was worth, and his is 10 years older and 50k more miles.
Lets drop the depreciation argument, shall we?
Also, saying that its better to have the money go back to Detroit, when I think everyone in this thread agrees that the D3 are horribly mismanaged, is a pretty weak argument. Do we really want our hard earned money going to the same people who called a rebadged Daewoo ‘An American Revolution?’
“So you still have Ford and GM products to consider.”
And I will. In fact, I already have. As noted before, I left my name and number with the closest Chevy dealer so he can call me when the new Malibu comes in.
“…Let’s see how many Americans want smaller engines by watching the proportion of new Malibus sold with 2.4L I-4 engines.”
If I buy one, it will have the I4.
I keep hearing that once you drive a car to 100,000 miles, the depreciation is nil. Wrong.
The differences are largely not big enough to factor. Somewhere around 100K, accumulating more miles and time changes the remaining intrinsic value relatively little.
As you pointed out, you sold a car with known deferred maintenance issues to Carmax for $1500. You’re comparing this to a 10 years older Toyota that your friend surmises is worth $3000, but this is completely untested by him finding a paying customer.
This is the way depreciation works. The initial decline is rapid, and then it dramatically levels its taper. It’s not uncommon for a 7 year old vehicle to be worth little more or similar to a 17 year old vehicle, particularly if the older car has been well-maintained and has no issues at point of sale.
Also, sometimes at beyond 10 years, even mass market cars in good shape can bump up a bit, as people in the modern car market get nostalgic for one of the lighter, simpler cars of yesteryear, compared to their modern equivalents that have been through the bloat nebulizer of contemporary automotive engineering.
Until your friend actually cashes out at $3 Large, I’ll assume a lesser spread too small to be relevant in a new car purchase decision around the US market $30,000 average.
Phil
So kixstart and PCH, you read the article I posted, and the best you can do is state that people polled THOUGHT toyota to be more reliable? I don’t think anyone here has ever stated anything to the opposite of that. We all agree people percieve toyota as more reliable.
So where is all of the rhetoric on how that writer is so wrong in suggesting a car like the MKX is a better overall value, and that people are converting back? This is our entire premise summed up by someone completely uninvolved in this discussion. The market is constantly changing and just because the import was the right answer for a while does not mean it is now. Further, you realize a good deal of the market share being lost that you point out as “winning” for imports is the fleet markets, which is comprised of the outdated and outclassed product. This further shows Detroit’s commitment to not putting out crap for the sake of share.
jcp2- I’d recommend checking out the Ford Flex when you are looking at the GM Lambdas in the next couple of years.
Matt- You realize that the premium you pay on a toyota or honda now for comparably equipped car is much greater than your little 2 sample study points out? Further, there is no way to compare a car in need of questionable amount of repairs to another car which is most likely in better condition, and the price someone “thinks” it’s worth.
PCH: “We covered that. You can’t really discuss the long-term reliability of the Fusion, when it’s a new car. And we already know that the residuals of the Ford are much worse, so the equity hit of the Ford will almost certainly be greater.”
So why is it that a new model from Toyota or Honda still gets a free pass in your mind? Turns out the newest Toyota’s are showing more problems compared to the newest Ford’s. (Edge, Fusion, Taurus compared to Camry, Tundra) But CR recomending Fusion, numerous third party awards and rankings as higher quality, but it’s still too new? This is “import bigotry” at it’s finest. The car has proven to be an excellent value with great quality. It’s been out since 05, and that is time for a substantial track record for a “new model.” CR no longer accepts all new Toyota’s as quality, why should you or anyone else. Same with the new 08 Accord, most likely a quality car, but how can you assume it’s better than the Fusion which has been proving itself for over 2 years with many on the road?
Likewise, Ford residuals are steadily increasing with each new model launch. More importantly, considering the usual savings on out the door price, the total cost of ownership can easily be less in many cases despite a “lower residual” (as a % of MSRP).
Sorry no. CAFE forced a draconian design change in cars in the 1970s & 80s before technology was sufficiently evolved in mainstream-size vehicles that met most needs. Remember, the Japanese were strictly in small cars then. Americans like upright seating, headroom, good visibility, rear drive and torque. What they got were raked windshields, scrunched seating, reduced visibility and front wheel drive. Part of the market went with it. But a huge part of the market rebelled and found their modern ‘55 Bel Air in a pickup or SUV. CAFE directly fueled the truck boom long before the IRS rule on 8500+ lbs. vehicles kicked in. That was a late-breaking development that affected few — too few to matter, in fact. CAFE sparked a classic policy backfire.
The “classic policy backfire” occurred because the total crap which came out in response to CAFE was just that. I remember looking at the first GM X cars and marveling at the superb packaging job done by GM; from the inside, they were a 55 Bel Air, with upright seating and an amazing amount of room for a car with tidy exterior dimensions. My grandmother bought a Buick Skylark and loved how it felt just like her old and boat-like Buick. What pushed people out of these cars was not CAFE but excremental quality. The 1st and 2nd gen Ford Explorer, which helped to fuel the SUV craze was by comparison to the X car a cramped and horrible little car, but by virtue of using 1950’s technology, was reasonably reliable, something which could not be said of any of the early generation of Detroit FWD cars.
SUV’s and trucks became sales winners because for years they were exempted from crash testing and smog rules, and thus offered “big” cars for little money as there was almost no investment needed on Detroit’s part to recycle the same POS they had been building for 30 years. People were lead to believe that they were safe by virtue of size, and bought them without thinking about the fact that the regular passenger car had been carefully engineered for higher safety standards and vastly improved handling.
There are kids dying in Iraq in order to preserve our illusion that we can drive whatever we want, and commute as far as is humanly possible, in lieu of the politically unacceptable alternative of raising fuel taxes as a part of a sound national security policy. While I doubt anyone would argue that legislating auto mileage is good energy policy, the idea was to encourage more efficient cars in response to increasingly volatile energy costs. Our government is certainly the source of some really dunderheaded moves, but attempts to decrease fuel usage and tailpipe emissions are rooted in the national interest.
I actually happen to agree with your basic case that it is in one’s interest to look at all offerings when buying a new car, but when you excuse Detroit for pushing ill-handling, overweight body-on-frame monstrosities because people really wanted a ’55 Belair is where you jump the shark. The 6000 lb GVW exemption was initiated by Detroit after the tax deductions for cars was dramatically reduced in 1986, and then became a source of profits they could not live without.
RLJ676: “So where is all of the rhetoric on how that writer is so wrong in suggesting a car like the MKX is a better overall value, and that people are converting back?”
You think I have a reading comprehension problem?
The MKX “value” assigned by JDP is a combination of operating cost, including repairs and maintenance, probably just for the first three years. How is it down the road? And repair cost in the first three years should be zilch, anyway, because anything that goes wrong *should* be covered by the warranty (although, with Ford dealers, you can never really expect that – my experience, anyway). So, whether you have no failures or twenty-seven trips to the shop, the “value” is the same, either way.
In the real world, where the rubber meets the road, those twenty-seven trips to the shop are far, FAR more significant.
And I laid that all out for you. Go back and reread.
You say you’ve got something riding on Detroit’s success. All well and good. But you fail to recognize the consumer’s real needs. Not so good. And I’m not making any of this shit up. Did you take my earlier challenge and figure out what it cost me to have my “covered” vehicle fail while on vacation?
YOu undoubtedly didn’t, so let me fill in some numbers for you:
$100 – two unwanted nights in motels.
$200 – half of a too-small rental car. Ford paid the other half and the dealer bitched for twenty minutes about the fact that we wanted a full-size car while the Aerostar VAN was in the shop. There were 6 in our party. “Why do you need a full-size car?” “Ummm… because there’s 6 of us?” We ended up with a Century-sized car. Yes, when we’ve rented while on fly/drive vacations, I’ve ponied up for a VAN or taken a Crown Vic.
$50 – extra unwanted meals on the road.
$75 – fuel there and back.
$12 – extra day the dog was at the kennel
—-
$435
And there might have been other expenses I’ve forgotten. And, of course, this was sooo much fun for the children.
Do you want to add:
$800 – 2 days’ unintended vacation driving to and from East Overshoe
into the calculation? It’s not cash out of pocket but it’s two days that were mine that I lost. What if I worked contract? Then it would be cash out of pocket.
But the repair was “free.” Which was good because, as noted previously, they got more practice repairing it just 8 days later. And again a year after that. Even if it moves and I don’t need a tow, it screws up my day to make an unscheduled stop at Ford.
Like I said, you’re not thinking about the customer. And if the rest of Detroit thinks like you, then they’re going down and I won’t want a Detroiter because there won’t be any warranty service on anything I do buy after they file for the inevitable bankruptcy.
Edgett,
You must be out of your mind to think that people bought SUV’s for reasons other than they WANTED them. In a supply and demand system the supply is built to meet the demand. Your theory may make sense if SUV’s were sold at a discount to large cars, but that is not the case at all. Of course this meant more profit and car companies were happy to oblige, and CAFE rules made this beneficial to them. But this couldn’t have happened at all if people didn’t WANT them. Large cars still existed, people just migrated to the SUV for various reasons. It’s not a push based market, it’s pull. People “pulled” for more SUV’s, so ALL companies were happy to oblige, not just Detroit (Porsche Cayenne anyone?).
Kixstart,
Everyone acknowledges that in the PAST the quality gap was a signifigant issue. That is no longer the case. If you want to live in the past feel free, but I’m in 2007, looking at 2008 models. It sucks you had a bad experience, but that in no way means you will in the newer vehicles. You are just as likely to have a major problem in the new Toyotas it looks like.
So feel free to hold a grudge as that is all this is. So yes, while you keep bringing up an 86 Aerostar or whatever, while this discussion is around the 2007-2008 model year, you are not comprehending the converation quite as well as you think.
By the way, whatever your bad luck totaled up to back then, is less than you’d save now in choosing a domestic over toyota/honda. That is EXACTLY how Detroit is paying for it’s SINS. They now have to sell you more car for less. Seriously, check it out, there’s your chance to recoup that money. I AM thinking about the customer, about how you can get a better car for a better price in the case of many vehicles (there are still some suspect choices, so notice the qualifier MANY). Again, you’re not comprehending our point, that the cars ARE BETTER overall, as quality gap is minimal, so the other benefits such as pricing, styling, fun to drive make it the better package. (For people who aren’t too “bigoted” to notice, or even notice that’s our point.)
Obviously I don’t expect my one lone example to represent the whole market, but the point is that no one in their right mind is yearning for the days of simpler lighter 1991 Toyota Camrys, thus appreciating the value of my friends car. Let’s be real here. You can say he may have put more up on the front end or whatever, but the fact is that 10 years should at least pull me even with him, yet his car has maintained so much more value. The fact of the matter is that depreciation is a big part of any smart car buyer’s decision, unless he plans to run it into the ground, which I think is a small part of the market.
And my point was, does Detroit merit special attention for working in the country’s strategic interest? No. Maybe people with SUVs are like heroin addicts demanding a fix. But it’s Detroit’s choice to sell heroin.
And, yes, I DO think advertising shapes demand. And in spite of Phil’s disingenuousness, he thinks so, too.
Detroit has always dragged its feet on safety and they do nothing to promote safety in small cars; they relentlessly feed the “win through mass” concept and everything is bigger and bigger, with larger and large engines until we reach the Ford Excursion.
Why? Because they find they can make more profit on a small car.
Even in cars, look at Detroit’s advertising, “Only V6 standard in it’s class.” “Only available V8 in it’s class.” Why do they advertise this? Because their fours suck rocks and they don’t want the True Believers to find out that Honda and Toyota fours don’t suck, that you can have decent performance AND superior fuel economy. After they get fully disgusted with Detroit, True Believers head on down to Honda and Toyota and are surprised to find that their I4 Accord or Camry hops right off the line. It’s true you wouldn’t take one to New England Dragway but, so what?
And Detroit’s V6’s and V8’s suck, too. Look at the Avalon vs the Lucerne, a comparison I had reason to make recently. The Lucerne has much the bigger motor but the Avalon’s still quicker AND gets better fuel economy.
Why did I buy my first Toyota? Largely because, when we needed a new minivan (bye-bye, VW), I drove the Chevy, the Dodge and the Toyota and the Toyota was the hottest, in spite of a 20-30% smaller engine. I took it for a ride, hit the gas at the bottom of an on-ramp and by the time we got to the top, I had already told my wife we were done shopping for cars; it was just a matter of picking out a color. She liked it best, too, because of the interior. We had rented a Dodge earlier in the year and the Dodge was not only slower, I’d had the opportunity to find out that it got only 21mpg on trips. My Sienna does 24-26.
Phil talks about “rationalization.” That’s entirely bogus. We went to Toyota because it was best. And we go back, in part, because it’s treated us so very, very well. It’s not bigotry, it’s learned behavior.
If Detroit wants to provide the same experience, all the better.
I’ve already said I’d look at Detroit if the car included a killer warranty, which is what it takes to make it “competitive” in my mind. But they don’t. I guess they don’t have all that much faith in their product.
Matt, that’s not how the slope works. If your car did not need repairs, what would it have been worth? Now figure the depreciation is at it’s tail, and over the next ten years if maintained your car will basically just hold it’s value. So, in this case that at most $1000 difference at the end of the life is most likely WAY less than the difference in price paid at original purchase. Or put differently, that $1000 difference is a big portion of value at the end of life, but at original purchase only 1/25 of the price, so in this context your example really is irrelevent. Also, I’d consider a $1500 car ran into the ground (most things below this cost don’t run) for all practicle purposes further making this particular example irrelevant.
So why is it that a new model from Toyota or Honda still gets a free pass in your mind?
RLJ, sometimes I believe that you must be reading a different thread, because you claim that I’ve made statements that I never made. The conversation would work far better if you’d refrain from doing that.
Nobody gets a free pass. What everybody gets is an assessment of his track record and a judgment based upon that track record. There is an abundance of objective, verifiable data that motivates Honda and Toyota buyers to stay with them, including reliability data and residuals. If you don’t want to read the data, that’s your loss, but not everyone else is as committed to avoiding reality.
Once again — the retail market decides what competitiveness is. If you want to know what’s competitive, then look at which vehicles sell the most in a given segment, and that will tell you what’s competitive.
In the US, the leading midsized sedans in terms of retail (not fleet) sales volumes are the Camry, Accord and Altima. It would behoove anyone seeking to make a competitive product to figure out why people buy these cars, instead of other ones, and then to provide a product that is good and interesting enough to earn conquest buyers, which will require hurdling a high bar. That’s what any business competing in a highly competitive but mature market must do to win.
Mr. Ressler doesn’t want to do the heavy lifting or give it much thought. Calling people “bigots” is not only fun, but it’s a good way to avoid investing the energy needed to figure out how to win. If you want to stay a loser, the easiest path to remaining a loser is to pretend that Detroit does a terrific job and that it’s everyone else’s fault that they find themselves in their present situation.
And again, I return to an earlier point — the more you whine, the less impressed I am. What may convince the American consumer to go back to Detroit is a notable, relentless commitment to quality and customer satisfaction.
Since you claim to work in the US auto industry, I’m going to ask you a question: What did you or your employer do this week to improve customer satisfaction and to make a better product? Did you do anything, or did you assume that you are entitled to the business. If the answer to the former is nothing and you have trouble answering the second, then look in the mirror, because you are part of the problem, too.
Kixstart,
You may not want to give Detroit any points for it’s impact on the country, but you can’t assume no one else does.
In your minivan example, you looked at the options, and picked what you like best, all that is being asked here.
As for the warranty, isn’t Hyandai the only killer warranty out there? The imports don’t offer it, so to be competitive Detroit doesn’t either. If you can’t look at evidence and see the quality gap has closed than that’s your take. I just think you should look at the evidence, which is what we mean by consider.
The “classic policy backfire” occurred because the total crap which came out in response to CAFE was just that.
Without CAFE there’d have been a more orderly transition.
SUV’s and trucks became sales winners because for years they were exempted from crash testing and smog rules, and thus offered “big” cars for little money
Trucks weren’t exempted from smog rules; they just had a different standard to meet.
There are kids dying in Iraq in order to preserve our illusion that we can drive whatever we want, and commute as far as is humanly possible, in lieu of the politically unacceptable alternative of raising fuel taxes as a part of a sound national security policy.
Oil is the least of the reasons our military is in Iraq. A fuel tax isn’t sound national security policy. In fact it’s neither an energy policy nor a security policy. It could be a fiscal policy decision and I might support it if I knew what ironclad funding commitments the tax was imposed for.
but when you excuse Detroit for pushing ill-handling, overweight body-on-frame monstrosities because people really wanted a ‘55 Belair is where you jump the shark. The 6000 lb GVW exemption was initiated by Detroit after the tax deductions for cars was dramatically reduced in 1986, and then became a source of profits they could not live without.
When those body-on-frame trucks were sold in huge volumes it was because consumers demanded them. There were good car alternatives, including the original Taurus yet truck sales began to climb. The majority of what was sold was below 6000 lbs. The later 8500 lbs. tax deduction intended for business was taken advantage of by some consumers. It got high profile coverage but influenced relatively few purchase decisions.
The truck boom started when people moved to pickup trucks. The F150 became the country’s best-selling vehicle in the 1970s, before everything you cited. The now-seemingly-tidy Jeep Cherokee accelerated the boom by sparking interest in the SUV configuration. Grand Wagoneers used to be endearing and relatively scarce. The Cherokee made its attributes accessible and cheap. While it was tidy, it got worse mileage than equivalent size cars. Explorer came later, at the cusp of the next hockey stick in demand. Then it was during the long 1990s boom that trucks and SUVs swelled and really caught on to become a plurality then majority of sales. Consumers ignited the demand, not carmakers. Even vaunted Toyota, Nissan and Honda couldn’t resist making inefficient, overweight barges. Those cush-truck profits were chased by every automaker selling in the US market, irrespective of national origin. Even Porsche couldn’t stay pure.
Phil
PCH, it’s funny you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, when I’m asking a question (which you answered) when your entire “game” on here is twisting everything stated by Phil or myself or anyone who addresses you.
pch: “Once again — the retail market decides what competitiveness is. If you want to know what’s competitive, then look at which vehicles sell the most in a given segment, and that will tell you what’s competitive.”
This is absurd, totally absurd. Because a camry was a choice by many, it’s the best for you? Working on your basic idea here, I’ll look at what the market has the greatest demand for: F series trucks. So, because it meets the needs of the most people in the country, it must be where to start looking for me, or you, or everyone? Surely even you can see the flaw in this argument of the “market” you preach about having decided what is best?
Every buyer has a different criteria set, and what’s competitive to them can differ. This allows for new market entry’s, etc to be competitive with the top seller. So, our point that newer domestic models are fully competitive is still true for many people, and the sales of a camry or F-150 makes no difference at all. The high bar for good product has been met, but you have to first be aware, then consider, before sales will ever move.
PCH: “And again, I return to an earlier point — the more you whine, the less impressed I am. What may convince the American consumer to go back to Detroit is a notable, relentless commitment to quality and customer satisfaction”
And again, our point is the commitment to quality and satisfaction is THERE, and evident in the product. That was the assertion from the get go. It’s just more of the same from you, mis-representing the entire point. Further, where is the “whining” you are continually talking about? I have asked repeatedly what you consider whining, but there is no example given that I’ve seen.
You act as though you have just repeatedly proven everything wrong, but it is just circles of misrepresenting other’s ideas and claims of “winners and losers.”
As to what I do, I work in a Treasury dept so I added value to our shareholders. However, if you will look back at all of the points made, the customer is being valued and the product shows this.
“Once again — the retail market decides what competitiveness is. If you want to know what’s competitive, then look at which vehicles sell the most in a given segment, and that will tell you what’s competitive.”…This is absurd, totally absurd.
Er, you’re not exactly boosting my confidence about the competence of the US auto industry.
I’m sorry, but you don’t decide what competitiveness is, the customer does. It’s the Golden Rule — he who has the gold, makes the rules. If you want his gold, you have to earn it, not insult him and feel entitled to it.
And again, our point is the commitment to quality and satisfaction is THERE, and evident in the product.
So we’re back to the instant gratification argument. You like to pay ex-cons on the day that they get out of jail; most Americans like to wait awhile to see whether the reforms are permanent.
Previously, I referenced the Solstice as an example of why GM is not to be trusted. It missed the mark when it should have known better by making a highly unreliable car, branded with a badge in trouble, in a segment that basically has only one competitor! I mean, seriously, how stupid was that? And more to the point, why should anyone want to buy a GM product knowing that they can’t even get the low-volume, rather conspicuous Solstice right?
I work in a Treasury dept so I added value to our shareholders.
So you don’t care about the customers. That’s great, I just hope somebody does.
Actually, now that I think about it, I don’t need to hope. I’ll just spend my money with someone else who does.
PCH
Another steller example of picking tiny points of a post to respond to.
-so the best car for the mass is the most competitive for you or everyone. Let’s all buy F-series. How did the Camry become the best seller then? It overtook nothing? It didn’t become better than the previous best-seller. This is absurd. Can you seriously believe this logic? I take that back, judging from your hundreds of posts I’ve read you could. Further, your competence in mis-representing an idea is great, everything else, not so much.
The solstice is one example, great. There are many which are improved. You seem unaware that cycle life’s in the auto industry move slow, and it will take a bit to get everything up to desired levels, but many things are there NOW.
Clearly someone who doesn’t work in an area that interfaces with customers doesn’t value them? Nice inference. Get over yourself and these rediculous mis-representations.
This is absurd, totally absurd. Because a camry was a choice by many, it’s the best for you? Working on your basic idea here, I’ll look at what the market has the greatest demand for: F series trucks. So, because it meets the needs of the most people in the country, it must be where to start looking for me, or you, or everyone? Surely even you can see the flaw in this argument of the “market” you preach about having decided what is best?
You are totally misconstruing his point. If you are in the market for a family sedan it would be foolish to discount the Camry, likewise if you are in the market for a truck, it would be foolish to discount the F series.
And again, our point is the commitment to quality and satisfaction is THERE, and evident in the product. That was the assertion from the get go. It’s just more of the same from you, mis-representing the entire point. Further, where is the “whining” you are continually talking about? I have asked repeatedly what you consider whining, but there is no example given that I’ve seen.
If they are so confident in their quality why don’t Ford and GM offer a better warranty? They certainly can’t base their quality claims on history. As for those 100k mile warranties Hyundai offers one, Suzuki and Mitsubishi also offer one. Your claim that only Hyundai offers such a warranty is like many of your other claims, utterly unsubstantiated. You and others keep making the same old unsupported assertions and acting as if they are gospel. Where’s the data? When a company’s products populates the 10 worst and 45 least reliable lists, its going to take more than your exhortations to convince me to buy them.
“You are totally misconstruing his point. If you are in the market for a family sedan it would be foolish to discount the Camry, likewise if you are in the market for a truck, it would be foolish to discount the F series.”
You are missing the point. The assertion that only the top sellers are competitive for an individual is what is absurd. I’ve simply exaggerated to make this point. I’m not suggesting discounting the top model, but include other or new models.
” As for those 100k mile warranties Hyundai offers one, Suzuki and Mitsubishi also offer one. Your claim that only Hyundai offers such a warranty is like many of your other claims, utterly unsubstantiated. You and others keep making the same old unsupported assertions and acting as if they are gospel. Where’s the data? When a company’s products populates the 10 worst and 45 least reliable lists, its going to take more than your exhortations to convince me to buy them.”
3 wannabe’s (although Hyandai is constantly improving) offering long warranties does not make it necessary to offer to be competitive. However, the cost of those warranties are substantial and cash strapped companies can’t change to be competitive with a TINY portion of market share.
As for what are reliable, you can do your research on CR and JD Power or whatever you have available for your segment of interest. If there’s nothing reliable there, so be it, buy what is best. But don’t write if off based on being a domestic alone.
It will take a bit to get everything up to desired levels
OK, you admit it — they aren’t equal. There is a gap, which is noted because not everything is “up to desired levels.”
Guess what? The American consumer can buy other products that **already** are up to desired levels. They don’t need to wait for you to catch up, so why should they? Sure, some of them may take a dice roll, but others won’t, and I don’t blame them.
Previously, I challenged you to tell me what you and your employer did this week to increase quality and customer satisfaction. Your answer, was, effectively that it isn’t your problem.
You think that dealing in investor relations or whatever precludes you from this. When Dynamic88 above cites the gospel of Deming, this is exactly the deficiency in Detroit that he is talking about.
EVERYBODY in the company, from the CEO to the janitor, is responsible for quality and customer satisfaction. It is not “the other guy’s” job, it’s everyone’s job. Anyone who doesn’t understand this, frankly, deserves to be fired.
The business cannot survive without customers. A business opens its doors each day at the pleasure of its customers — without them, it’s dead. A business that ignores or, worse yet, insults the customer, not only will fail but deserves to fail.
It is not up to the customer to wait for you, but for you to catch up to the customer. Better yet, stay ahead of the customer by anticipating his needs long before the customer has even identified them himself, and you’ll have even more customers. If I want to make a charitable donation, I’ll go to the Salvation Army, not Detroit.
PCH,
Wow, again pointing out what we already have said. Not all products are competitive. We agree.
What I have done: I guess I could go throught the minutia of what I do and how it provides earnings stability so that we can continue to invest in the company and improve further, but figure most here don’t need/want what I do daily. (well, obviously I’m not doing much this week hence this diversion)
I have worked elsewhere in the company, and assure you everything is built around quality, and being fully competitive for the customer.
I am also now fully aware that I should have just kept to my initial instinct and ignored everything you write, as you are clearly just an agitator, or what I believe the internet would consider a “troll”.
RLJ676: “By the way, whatever your bad luck totaled up to back then, is less than you’d save now in choosing a domestic over toyota/honda. That is EXACTLY how Detroit is paying for it’s SINS. They now have to sell you more car for less.”
With proven reliability? After you factor in present value, Detroit would not save me the money I lost in that ONE incident. The others weren’t as extreme but they were still significant.
And you’re still not showing any signs of paying attention to the real message. Poor reliability has ramifications beyond the strict dollars-and-cents of the “automotive expense” column of the household budget.
It’s a very confusing thing for a child to get interrupted in the middle of a trip – even just across town – and have the tow truck come along and pick up your Crapsler and take it away.
Try getting a ride home at short notice from a friend when you’ve got three children and two car seats to deal with. Nobody wants that. Do you want to take calls from your spouse as she’s sitting at the side of the road in a downpour in your Ford Duzintgo? Or your Chevy Nomoveibu?
And, yes, only the Koreans offer the Killer Warranty. Japan doesn’t. Is Detroit serious about winning back the people they pissed off with poor reliablity? This is The Way.
And what effect would a killer warranty have on resale value? A big boost. But that’s a benefit realized by the customer, so I suppose it doesn’t interest Detroit.
You’re in Treasury? Adding value to the shareholders? Why? Right now, Detroit is beyond the point where they should be worrying about adding value to the shareholders unless it’s by giving up and shutting down North American Operations. They need business. If they want North American business, they have to worry about enticing the customer to buy the product. Everyone in the company must focus on that. Every resource must go into that.
I see GM is still paying dividends. That tells us a lot about their priorities.
Farago had a Q guy from Ford on the phone last week. Ford is still willing to pay for a “minder” to listen in on the phone calls and stop the conversation when candor is looming on the horizon. That tells us a lot about their priorities.
I think the author attributes too much to one anecdotal meeting with one person. One person who is afraid of explaining his purchase to his friends? That is not a trend. It is just one weak person. The world is full of those, but is it a significant percentage? I doubt it.
My family is the reverse. They all still drive domestic. If there’s any explaining to do, it would have to come from me. I’ve owned Mazda, BMW, and Toyota.
I have nothing to apologize for. I make my own decisions. I don’t care what other people think.
I will freely admit my bias against some manufacturers, particularly GM. Too many screw ups, too much money spent. I don’t care how much anybody says they’ve improved, to me, it will always be “too little too late.”
But I freely admit that. And unapologetically so. Have any of you ever had to terminate a friendship or relationship because it was a poisonous one? That describes my situation with General Motors cars. In this case, the relationship was more poisonous for me.
My pain and agony stopped on the day I sold my C5 Corvette and bought a BMW. From CarMax, no less! Loved the Bimmer. Now I drive a Toyota. Love the Toyota.
I have sworn off my co-dependency. Or maybe it was more like an addiction, my old habit of rote GM purchases.
But now I have officially divorced myself from it all. Permanently.
RLJ676: Maybe I should have added to the end; should consider domestic if they believe a purchase of this nature to benefit the company, and that helping that company would benefit the country, and they live in the country so they in end benefit?
People don’t buy a car to benefit a company – they buy it because they like it; because it has a good reputation, etc.
They may AVOID a car because of the company’s shaky financial condition.
People do not view buying a new car as a form of charity for the parent corporation.
RLJ686: I thought that was implied, but should have learned that with some in this group either inference skills are low, or the desire to twist to suit an argument is high.
A better approach is to make arguments that reflect how people choose a particular vehicle, instead of how you wish they would make that choice.
RLJ676: Our belief that there are very quality products being produced now and some people are unaware/unwilling to check them out because of the past, which is admittadly checkered. And that if they did they might find themselves surprised/impressed and buying them, and this is beneficial to you, us, the country? Than yes this is probably representative of Detroit’s beliefs, and why is this so offensive to you? Why is this so offensive to this group?
It’s not “offensive” to anyone, least of all me. I don’t care if someone wants to buy a Ford or a Chevy because he or she really does believe that quality on the new ones has improved.
What is offensive is suggesting that people who are skeptical of Detroit’s claims of improved quality, or who have been burned in the past by a domestic vehicle, are being irrational, unfair, or bigoted in refusing to include a Ford, Chevy or Cadillac on their shopping list.
The problem is that you expect people to give the domestics a chance based on what you say, and one or two fairly recent favorable quality surveys, and that together these are enough to overcome DECADES of broken promises and subpar quality.
Sorry, but for most of my adult life, Detroit has been promising that the next generation of new vehicles will close the reliability gap, so some skepticism is warranted.
Your BELIEFS are not enough to counteract DECADES of data and people’s negative experiences.
I don’t doubt that the recent Consumer Reports results are getting notice – even my non-automotive enthusiast father was talking about them – and will drive SOME sales.
But if you want “one million import bigots” to give the domestics a chance, it will take more than one survey result and the force of your beliefs, no matter how steadfastly you cling to them, to bring about this change in behavior.
RLJ676: Everyone acknowledges that in the PAST the quality gap was a signifigant issue. That is no longer the case. If you want to live in the past feel free, but I’m in 2007, looking at 2008 models.
When judging reliability, all we have is the past, because those are the vehicles that are on the road, in service, day-in and day-out. It has been amply demonstrated, through warranty expenses and survey results, that Honda and Toyota still lead in reliability compared to the domestics, and the domestics lead the Europeans.
Maybe the 2007-08 Detroit offerings are better, but you don’t know it, and neither does anyone else. We need to see how those vehicles fare after a few years of service.
I do agree that, based on 2004 and up models, the domestics are making progress, and Ford, in particular, is making steady, consistent gains, which bodes well for the future. So maybe someone who likes the styling of, say, the Fusion, would feel more confidence in buying one.
But, “getting there” and “being there” are two different things.
KixStart: And my point was, does Detroit merit special attention for working in the country’s strategic interest? No. Maybe people with SUVs are like heroin addicts demanding a fix. But it’s Detroit’s choice to sell heroin.
And, yes, I DO think advertising shapes demand. And in spite of Phil’s disingenuousness, he thinks so, too.
In which case, I would disagree with both of you.
If what you are saying is true – that the demand for SUVs was largely created by advertising and not by free individuals making their own choices – then that logic can be applied to other scenarios.
Using this logic, all that Detroit needs to do is come up with a razzle-dazzle marketing campaign, and people will begin to choose Impalas and Cobalts instead of Accords and Civics.
I think we’ve rehased the efficacy of that approach many times in the 600+ post thread.
The simple fact is that many people liked what SUVs offered; Detroit was the first to build SUVs in large numbers that appealed to people; so they profited enormously from this consumer demand in the 1990s. Note that a fair amount of the sales growth for the Japanese has come from their expansion into light trucks, and one reason VW is in trouble, aside from pricing and quality problems, is that it has not offered a “cute ute” or even a viable Pilot/4Runner/Explorer competitor.
We can’t say that people are exercising rational choices when they buy a Prius or a Corolla, but people who buy an Explorer or Tahoe (or 4Runner, for that matter) are stupid dolts led astray by flashy advertising campaigns.
KixStart: Detroit has always dragged its feet on safety and they do nothing to promote safety in small cars; they relentlessly feed the “win through mass” concept and everything is bigger and bigger, with larger and large engines until we reach the Ford Excursion.
Detroit has always promoted small cars with a half-hearted effort, period.
Until Honda’s recent “safety for everyone” effort, I don’t think that any company, domestic or foreign, was really pushing a comprehensive, holisitic approach to safety for small, economical cars.
geeber “What is offensive is suggesting that people who are skeptical of Detroit’s claims of improved quality, or who have been burned in the past by a domestic vehicle, are being irrational, unfair, or bigoted in refusing to include a Ford, Chevy or Cadillac on their shopping list.”
Most of your points are reasonable, but I do think it is irrational to pass up a car which may be a better value proposition simply because the brand is domestic. Particularly if it the value is signifagantly better. The term “bigot” is simply not (meant to be) as offensive in this context as some are taking it to be I think.
Not everyone who goes straight to an import is as “angry” at Detroit as some on here seem. The simply assume it’s the better value proposition due to percieved quality gap. That is not always the case.
I do think it is irrational to pass up a car which may be a better value proposition simply because the brand is domestic.
The marketplace has already voted on this with its dollars. The high sellers deliver a greater value proposition to more people than do the low sellers.
Detroit has one of two basic choices. It can either:
(a) Beat the competition at its own game, and increase its sales by gaining conquest customers from its rivals, or;
(b) Accept lower sales volumes and figure out how to earn a profit with less market share.
That’s really about it. They’ve got no other alternatives.
The whole flawed premise of this op-ed and posts such as yours is that you assume that the customer reached his conclusions through ignorance, sheer stupidity or “bigotry.”
The data makes it clear that the transfer in market share from the domestics to the market leaders Toyota and Honda is due to these companies doing a superior job, not by some weird fluke or something they put into the water.
Again, Detroit would do itself a lot of favors if it would simply admit that it screws up a lot, and that it needs to commit every single day to making damn sure that they never do it again. The inability of the Detroit cheerleaders to own up to their failures is a tremendous barrier to improvement, because they fight progress instead of embracing it. At the end of the day, they really don’t think that they did anything wrong, so why should they do better when it’s everyone else’s fault?
That stubbornness is not going to persuade many Americans who left Detroit to return. After all, it’s that same haughtiness, arrogance and devotion to mediocrity that drove them away in the first place.
Preach it, Geeber.
RLJ: I don’t think you’re going to change anyone’s current opinions with your claims of “better value propositions” and the “closed” quality gap.
Nor am I naive enough to think that I’m somehow going to rationalize my decision to avoid domestics to you. You think I should get over the past – and that avoiding a company because of issues dealt with over a decade ago is illogical. I don’t doubt that you are correct in this thinking.
It’s just that it’s going to take a lot more than this article and your preaching to convince folks like me.
Like Geeber said, the past is all we have in evaluating reliability, I’m not interested in “initial quality” studies. If in a few years, several domestic offerings are given the reliability nod over their import counterparts, then I’d definitely be able to justify that purchase.
But again, as Geeber mentioned, I directly recall this same rhetoric coming from Detroit for quite a while – so it’s going to take more than talk.
So if your confidence in the domestic offerings is completely justified, then time will tell. But post after post of the repeating the same lines isn’t going to sway many folks, I’m afraid. I’ve read the same thing over and over in your myriad posts – I’m not sure you’ve got much to add to the conversation at the present.
Pch101 said:
“That stubbornness is not going to persuade many Americans who left Detroit to return. After all, it’s that same haughtiness, arrogance and devotion to mediocrity that drove them away in the first place.”
Yup.
RLJ676 while it is rational to not exclude choices, I think GM is currently suffering from the flip side of what they benefited from in the past, which is brand loyalty.
I don’t think its just the fact some were burned or even repeatedly burned in the past but what is missing from your perspective is the fact that many people such as myself have had a great experience with another brand.
Back in the day many people stuck to their brands like glue. A Ford man was a Ford man, A Chevy man was a Chevy man.
What has changed?
Nothing but the names have changed. If Ford could never get Chevy owners to buy a Ford, then why could it be any different now.
Back in the day Gm was the beneficiary of brand loyalty. Its not just that people got burned. After people switched the ones that were happy with the new brands stayed with them. How difficult is it to understand this. I loved my Hondas. They were fantastic cars.
PCH
“The marketplace has already voted on this with its dollars. The high sellers deliver a greater value proposition to more people than do the low sellers.
Detroit has one of two basic choices. It can either:
(a) Beat the competition at its own game, and increase its sales by gaining conquest customers from its rivals, or;
(b) Accept lower sales volumes and figure out how to earn a profit with less market share.”
You just don’t get my point. That was the past and how we got here. We are now doing option A, and it will lead to the future. Just as the Camry passed the Taurus, the Fusion can overtake the Camry. How the hell did the Camry get to be the leader, people did what we are suggesting and checked it out and bought it. This is the beginning of the turnaround so the incumbant will still lead. In your mind the market is static, and once the leader always the leader? So then the Taurus of 91 is the people’s champ in my mind. You aren’t proving anything by stating sales statistics.
This articles theory is that customers that reached that conclusion in the past may inacurately be drawing the same conclusion.
PCH “Again, Detroit would do itself a lot of favors if it would simply admit that it screws up a lot, and that it needs to commit every single day to making damn sure that they never do it again. The inability of the Detroit cheerleaders to own up to their failures is a tremendous barrier to improvement, because they fight progress instead of embracing it. At the end of the day, they really don’t think that they did anything wrong, so why should they do better when it’s everyone else’s fault?
That stubbornness is not going to persuade many Americans who left Detroit to return. After all, it’s that same haughtiness, arrogance and devotion to mediocrity that drove them away in the first place.”
Please tell me where this is happening? All on here admit the struggles of the past, in about every post, but all you talk about is “fighting progress” and “stubborness” and “arrogance” yet provide absolutely no example of this actually happening. What in here lets you rationally draw this conclusion? Nothing. Everything you suggest needs to be done is being done on focusing on quality, etc. You just don’t know/care to accept anything accept your own misrepresentations.
Further, as Phil has repeatedly said, this isn’t about the manuf at all, but in the consumer. And the consumer that doesn’t consider a car because it’s a domestic is missing out.
Macca, you may not be convinced yet, but someday you will that the quality is on par/superior. Others will learn sooner, and will be pleased with the value they recieve. That’s fine, markets don’t shift overnight in this industry (or according to PCH never shift away from current state).
You just don’t get my point.
I think that you are in need of a lengthy education about how business works.
Here’s a basic point about the supremacy of the marketplace: Its failure to buy indicates that something is missing!
Again, your stubbornness actually creates negative equity. You obviously think that the consumer needs to wake up, but the consumer is wide awake, it is Detroit that is asleep. The consumer owes you nothing, and it is the obligation of the enterprise to identify those needs and fulfill them.
If it takes years for customers to catch on, then that’s how it is — deal with it. Too many American businesses hooked on mediocrity have embraced this MTV/ instant gratification approach to the market, but they are missing the mark.
It takes years to build a reputation. Start building it today, and you’ll get there one day sooner. Figure out how to satisfy the customer, and you can stop your whining, because they’ll repay your efforts by buying your stuff. When they willingly buy it and keep willingly buying it, that when you’ll finally know that you’re on the right track.
Where is whining in thinking you have a good product? No one has said buy something inferior.
I question your business sense in your blind look at the market. You still haven’t answered how one car surpasses another to become the sales leader if the market has spoken and the leader is best? That is the very nature of what I’m suggesting.
You assumption that all consumers are wide awake is also extremely naive. To think that all consumers are aware of their options is rediculous. There are just too many nameplates in the market for this to be possible for the average buyer, as few spend the amount of time online at car sites that you appear to.
For such a “market” expert as you like to portray yourself, you don’t seem to have a sense of it at all. You seem to think all consumers are aware of their total option universe and the attributes of those options. You appear to think that because more consumers choose something it is a better choice for anyone, and that it’s final, the “market’s spoken.” These assumptions are patently false. If these aren’t your assumptions, than I apoligize because I have no desire to twist your statements, as they tend to be proposterous enough on their own to me.
You keep stating basically what we are asking for, that the better car will sell, but declaring that you are somehow “winning” and we are whining?
RLJ676: Most of your points are reasonable, but I do think it is irrational to pass up a car which may be a better value proposition simply because the brand is domestic.
This is where you and Phil seem to miss it: people aren’t passing on GM and Ford simply because they are domestic. Consumers aren’t buying on blind faith of import brands. There is plenty of survey data, reviews, and tests out there to indicate that the Japanese imports are better choices in pretty much every area except absolute purchase price.
Consider the recent Consumer Reports article that lists 5 Japanese brands as the most reliable. Or that, in most Car and Driver/Edmunds/TTAC type reviews, Japanese imports score better than American vehicles. In the age of the Internet, everybody is going to pop online and at least read a few reviews before buying a vehicle. Sure, the comparable domestic vehicle is usually cheaper, but it is not the better car (kind of like buying a car because it beats walking).
Basically, the whole article’s premise rests on this bias, but the bias is borne on data supporting it, not blind faith. Until Detroit starts winning these comparisons, it will always be the backup choice.
Where is whining in thinking you have a good product?
Nobody cares whether YOU think you have a good product. If anything, the fact that you are so concerned about what you think, and indifferent to what the market thinks, further illustrates the problem!
These concepts are very simple, and as unchangable as gravity:
-If you want to lead the market, then study the winners and beat them.
-If you want to accept that you can’t/won’t be the leader but want to stay in business, then target a niche, serve that niche well, and learn how to make a profit on lower sales volumes.
(Incidentally, there’s no crime in selling into a niche, and many businesses do quite nicely by selling into niches. But it does require accepting that you can’t be the volume leader, and that other companies will have greater market share than your own.)
Really, that’s it. The third and frankly dumb option is to whine and complain about all the “bigoted” Americans who have the audacity to look out for their self-interest and to put their families above yours. If that’s the attitude that will prevail, then the only revenue you’ll have to look forward to are unemployment checks.
kestrel,
Better car is most definitely a subjective term, and many times the domestic can be better for many people. It can ge as reliable, it can certainly have better styling, or a better drive, or more for the price. Further, everyone’s weighting of these differs, so a magazine eval doesn’t equate to your best choice. If this was the case all C&D readers would own a 3 series, (which wouldn’t be the worse case in my mind). Also, when a domestic wins a comparison or third party award that is written off by these posters anyways, but of course they’re valuable when they point out the import winners.
Further, when purchasing you shouldn’t compare brands reliability as much as a models for obvious reasons.
Where is whining in thinking you have a good product? No one has said buy something inferior.
The problem with buying Detroit products is that its like digging through a cesspool to find a diamond. Sure, sometimes you manage to find that gem of a car but most of the time you end up covered in s***. As you have stated, “There are just too many nameplates in the market for this to be possible for the average buyer, as few spend the amount of time online at car sites.” When a nameplate is filled with mostly terrible cars, few consumers are able to do the in depth research necessary to avoid getting burned. The only rational decision is then to avoid those brands entirely.
RLJ676, we’ve heard enough of your cheerleader tune. It’s now up to the cars (and time) to tell whether you are right. Let it go.
KBW: “The problem with buying Detroit products is that its like digging through a cesspool to find a diamond.”
I laughed out loud at that… The analogy is so apt.
—
PCH101: “Study the winners and beat them.”
So true.
If the Detroit fanboys believe Toyota quality is slipping, there’s Toyota’s weakness. Exploit it. Do a Killer Warranty. 10/120 or maybe even just 8/100. Protect my investment. Give me peace of mind. And implement a “three strikes and you’re out” policy with dealers on warranty service, so that the warranty comes to mean something.
In fact, the way the Volt is going, it might be better to redirect resources from the Volt (i.e., just cancel it) and into warranty service.
Or find a different weakness, exploit that.
—
Geeber, I said “shapes,” not “defines.” I don’t expect everybody to suddently want a convertible just because convertible commercials run but if no one believed advertising worked, there wouldn’t be any. The commercial does plant a seed.
Clearly because 4 or so people have declared themselves correct you must be. I’ve heard enough of dodging everything on topic with nonsense by a small group rooting against Detroit and antagonizing for the sake of it.
I’m still waiting for anything you guys think you have proven to actually be proven, not just jabs taken at out context statements.
I’d STILL like to hear PCH’s explanation of how a new car becomes a leader? He keeps saying the market has spoken, and the leader is clearly the best, and everyone should buy it as it’s declared the best for all. That’s essentially what I keep seeing. Then answer HOW it got there, as it didn’t start the leader. This is a dynamic market, and falls in line with this premise that there are domestic choices that are now better.
I think some on here are a better picture of Detroit’s problems, elitist asses who think they know it all and there isn’t a non-import that could meet their “exceptional” standards. Well if the Camry meets the majority’s standards they aren’t as exceptional as they think.
And, yes, I DO think advertising shapes demand. And in spite of Phil’s disingenuousness, he thinks so, too.
Sure, advertising shapes demand. That’s the whole point of it. But you can’t believe this while positing a super-rational market. Still, it wasn’t advertising that put car people into trucks. A mix of factors ranging from utility that bled out of cars to social momentum and personal insecurities did that. Every auto company saw the shift in customer cash and chased it.
“Only V6 standard in it’s class.” “Only available V8 in it’s class.” Why do they advertise this?
Because more customers want this step-up than don’t. At least so far.
Because their fours suck rocks and they don’t want the True Believers to find out that Honda and Toyota fours don’t suck, that you can have decent performance AND superior fuel economy.
I guess you haven’t driven an Ecotec 2.0L turbo.
The Lucerne has much the bigger motor but the Avalon’s still quicker AND gets better fuel economy.
Are you comparing the V8 version of the Lucerne (CXS) to the V6 Avalon? Load both up to capacity with you’ll understand the value of torque in the Buick.
Mr. Ressler doesn’t want to do the heavy lifting or give it much thought. Calling people “bigots” is not only fun, but it’s a good way to avoid investing the energy needed to figure out how to win.
Cue recurring reminder that my editorial is not advice to the Detroit 3 on their business, their marketing, their product. It is an examination of a significant consumer component of the market and how it impedes their reform.
Phil
Farago had a Q guy from Ford on the phone last week. Ford is still willing to pay for a “minder” to listen in on the phone calls and stop the conversation when candor is looming on the horizon. That tells us a lot about their priorities.
That PR staffer who interfered with candor on the call handled the situation badly. That “minder” isn’t on the payroll just for that and clearly was superfluous in this instance. The QC manager should have just brushed off the PR intervention to answer the question.
I think the author attributes too much to one anecdotal meeting with one person. One person who is afraid of explaining his purchase to his friends? That is not a trend. It is just one weak person. The world is full of those, but is it a significant percentage? I doubt it.
That one incident had no influence on what I wrote. It was just the latest in a decades-long series of behaviors that sparked me to move what was in my mind onto paper. When writing for an audience, an author usually opens with a hook to win your interest. The fuel station incident was real, accurately described, and that hook.
Phil
I’d STILL like to hear PCH’s explanation of how a new car becomes a leader?
By meeting customer needs better than its rivals, and doing it consistently for enough time that the market becomes aware of it.
“Best” is determined by the marketplace, not by you (or me, for that matter.) People vote with their cash — if they don’t vote for you and you want their vote, than it is your obligation to change.
In the case of Honda and Toyota, they did it by targeting a segment or two at a time. They started with small cars, because (a) they already knew how to build them because of their experience with their home market, and (b) Detroit had concluded (wrongly) that there was little money to be made on them, so the competition was not as fierce. (They had limited resources and couldn’t then afford a head-to-head confrontation.)
Honda and Toyota realized wisely that simply replicating the market leaders wasn’t good enough — after all, if you wanted a Chevy, there was no compelling reason to roll the dice with a Toyota Chevy. Honda and Toyota also understood that they needed a special sauce to stand out, so they focused on build quality, because they had developed TQM production methods that would produce fewer defects than did the traditional Henry Ford-style assembly line methods. The two Japanese upstarts figured that as consumers discovered the benefits of lower defects that many customers would come to appreciate them and develop a brand preference based upon that benefit.
Since then, they’ve repeated this formula again and again, so that it now applies to practically every vehicle segment. Surprise and delight the consumer, and the consumer will return and provide an opportunity to take sales away from your rivals. Many consumers are risk-adverse — by securing the loyalty of the risk-adverse customer with the promise of a highly reliable product, you end with repeat buyers and lower warranty costs, which leads to dependable revenues, good worth of mouth and lower marketing costs.
That’s it in a nutshell. Make the customer happy, and they will tell others who will then give you a try. Very simple stuff in theory, but obviously difficult in practice, given Detroit’s steady and not-so-slow decline. Again, it’s that arrogance and unwillingness to improve to leads to failure every time.
The whole flawed premise of this op-ed and posts such as yours is that you assume that the customer reached his conclusions through ignorance, sheer stupidity or “bigotry.”
Sometimes. But stupidity hasn’t been among the reasons cited. You’re the one who continues to slip that one in.
This is where you and Phil seem to miss it: people aren’t passing on GM and Ford simply because they are domestic.
Less of the market is even aware of the data you cite than ignores it or chooses on other criteria. The subjective buyer, the emotional buyer, the socially-driven buyer and the peer-sensitive buyer layers other behaviors on whatever objective core they might bring with their shopping. If the market were data-driven, the sales mix would be much different than it is. Data is also used to rationalize a decision already made for other reasons. No JDP, CR, Edmunds or other data penetrates and captures the complex psychology driving consumer behavior in high-cost, high-considered purchases — especially of complex goods like automobiles.
Phil
PCH,
I guess some of the problem has been a definition of “best”. I refer to best as the best car for an individual’s criterion, you seem to think it is the best seller. Both may be valid, but yours would lead to a market of one vehicle (per segment maybe), where mine leads to diversity and options. So, when I say a domestic is best for many people, I have not been wrong. I see where it isn’t your definition, but clearly that isn’t the market’s definition because if that was truly best, there’d be only one survivor.
You have listed a solid plan for sales success, but not anything that proves the sales leaders are truly the best for everyone and non-category leaders should be ignored from consideration. The market hasn’t really “spoken” as it is ever changing.
PCH “Again, it’s that arrogance and unwillingness to improve to leads to failure every time. ”
You keep making these statements, but where have you shown this is the case. Not everything can improve instantly, but I’d find it very difficult for even you to actually believe the Big 3 isn’t wholly concentrated on improving.
Both may be valid, but yours would lead to a market of one vehicle (per segment maybe), where mine leads to diversity and options.
You write this as if I made this up. This is not my opinion, but a description of how the market works.
One more time — there are two basic ways to appeal to the market:
-Appeal to the majority, and do it better than everyone else.
-Choose a sub-section of that market, and serve it really well in such a way that you serve them better than can the product oriented toward the majority. (This is called “niche marketing.”)
That’s it. If you sell into the niche, your sales volumes will be lower — that’s how it goes, deal with it. Just as long as the niche is profitable and serves the overall business, there is nothing wrong with niches, and many businesses go happily day to day by serving them.
Unfortunately, neither the mainstream nor the niches want excuses and alibis. They want stuff that serves their needs, not your employer’s needs.
Seriously, I think that America would be a better place if the Detroit cheerleaders would realize that nobody has an obligation to worry about their welfare, and if they could appreciate the depth of what that really means. The sense of entitlement makes it worse, because more time is spent wallowing than improving. If all the energy devoted on this thread to whining could have been channeled into superior design and quality control, maybe it would have been worth something.
Detroit Advertising: “Only V6 standard in it’s class.” “Only available V8 in it’s class.” Why do they advertise this?
Phil: Because more customers want this step-up than don’t. At least so far.
Really? The last time I checked, 80% of Camrys and Accords sold with ~160hp ~2.5 liter I4s. And Honda and Toyota make lots of money. Tell me who’s likely got customer wants dialled in to their products?
Detroit finds it can exceed the competition on cylinder count, so they run advertising designed to make people think that’s an advantage. I have anectdotal evidence that it works – up to a point. A Honda salesman reports people coming in to look at a V6 Honda (probably after their most recent Ford caught fire) and driving away perfectly satisfied with the performance of an I4.
—
As for the Lucerne vs Avalon, you’re right. On paper, as you load up the two cars, the power-to-weight ratio narrows (up to 1000 lbs of payload, the Avalon is still ahead) and the torque-to-weight ratio widens (the Lucerne is ahead slightly with just driver and by a wider margin heavily loaded).
Still, at the strip, driver only, the Avalon beats the Lucerne. How often does one of these cars cruise around stuffed to the gills with people and luggage? How often is the driver alone?
At the pump, the Avalon positively whips the Lucerne (28 to 23!). There might be a noticeable advantage to a Lucerne when very heavily loaded, going up a very steep hill but, under those conditions, the Avalon will be powerful enough and I’ll take the fuel savings, thank you.
I also notice that the Avalon MSRP’s for a LOT less than the Lucerne. And seems to have more features – that I would want, anyway, like sunroof standard.
Was the Lucerne one of your “competitive” Detroiters?
No wonder you never took up that challenge.
The anger, vitriol, and closemindeness of Phil’s critics is really astounding.
All Phil is saying is compare, and if domestic is good enough for you then consider it, and overall buy what you want. And then he reminds us that there is a benefit to america in having a domestic industry, and if it matters to you then consider that as well. He doesn’t say you have to value it more or less than any other factor, he just reminds us it is a factor.
And people find this offensive?!!!
Feel free to disagree, but why are some of you posting 50+ comments to try to “beat” Phil in his argument? I’m seriously wondering if PCH isn’t in the Toyota marketing dept since he seems so threatened by the challenge to simply have an open mind and then pick what he likes best.
Buy what you want, he never said anything different! He’s just asking for an open mind. My household drives a BMW and an Acura. I take no offense that I am asked to have an open mind on my next purchase. Fair enough, we’ll see when the time comes… No promises, but I don’t think Phil was asking anything more than an open mind.
“Further, as Phil has repeatedly said, this isn’t about the manuf at all, but in the consumer. And the consumer that doesn’t consider a car because it’s a domestic is missing out.”
Purely in terms of product, I don’t think so. That’s why Phil is saying that the social considerations should come into the decisson making process, and should be heavily weighted. W/o the social factors, there’s no reason for happy Toyhondisan buyers to even look at a D3 car.
Going strictly on product, what will I miss out on if I don’t shop the D3? Suppose I want a small car such as a Civic. If I don’t look at Focus do I miss out on a better car? Not likely. If I don’t shop the Cobalt do I miss out on a better car? Again, not likely.
And what about the imports that I also ignore? If I don’t shop Mazda will I regret buying a Civic. Not very likely.
I doubt the consumer is missing anything at all by ignoring the D3. It’s only the social factors that might tip the scales, and that’s only for a small minority of import buyers who are willing to consider those factors. Most people are just going to get the best value for their money.
RLJ676: Better car is most definitely a subjective term, and many times the domestic can be better for many people.
Better is not a totally subjective term. There are any number of objective parameters that can be compared.
Phil: Less of the market is even aware of the data you cite than ignores it or chooses on other criteria. The subjective buyer, the emotional buyer, the socially-driven buyer and the peer-sensitive buyer layers other behaviors on whatever objective core they might bring with their shopping. If the market were data-driven, the sales mix would be much different than it is. Data is also used to rationalize a decision already made for other reasons. No JDP, CR, Edmunds or other data penetrates and captures the complex psychology driving consumer behavior in high-cost, high-considered purchases — especially of complex goods like automobiles.
Again, given the access to information available via the Internet as well as traditional print media, I disagree with the notion that car purchasers do not at least read a review or two before buying a car. Like you said, it’s a high cost, high considered purchase: part of this consideration is to at least rationalize in one’s own mind their choice, and an easy way to do that is to see what an “expert” says. I would also say that even if what you’re saying is true, I think it’s becoming less and less true, especially with younger people.
Also, even if the pro-import bias is pre-existing, the available data do nothing to refute it, making the bias essentially right. So, I don’t see why this makes the consumer wrong.
PCH “The sense of entitlement makes it worse, because more time is spent wallowing than improving. If all the energy devoted on this thread to whining could have been channeled into superior design and quality control, maybe it would have been worth something.”
It’s funny you mention sense of entitlement, when all anyone is talking about is building better cars. That is the point you seem to miss the most, but I suspect you fall into the “elitist” category where no domestic is good enough for you. You’ve already admitted you don’t drive a Toyota or Honda, so I’m still complexed by what’s your interest in this at all. Also, if time spent in here could have better served Detroit somehow, than your company is hurting as well over the past month.
As for a niche, so to you not number one in sales is a “niche”. Sure, if you say so. Than I guess 300K of sales for a program a year as a “niche” to you would be just fine for Detroit or anyone. That’s not a niche, but whatever. Moreso, no car sells to a majority that you speak of, as that would be over 50% market share for the segment, so again, your “market view” just doesn’t seem to work out.
JDV, you’ve just stumbled into a lions den of unexplained anger towards this article/Detroit.
I don’t know how much you read but become familiar with the term “strawman argument” to follow along.
Oh, and PCH will claim he is not a marketer for an import, as this came up like ten pages ago. I wondered the same thing you do.
Dynamic, another good job of picking 2 examples that have already been conceded as less than competitive, compacts and smaller. Your point is clearly proven now.
Further, the best value for your money will many times be found in a domestic as there is a signifigant price advantage.
“Buy what you want, he never said anything different! He’s just asking for an open mind. My household drives a BMW and an Acura. I take no offense that I am asked to have an open mind on my next purchase. Fair enough, we’ll see when the time comes… No promises, but I don’t think Phil was asking anything more than an open mind.”
Partly right. But Phil implies that many import buyers can’t think for themselves and are playing follow the leader, buying what others tell them to buy, or being afraid to get what they “really” want for fear of having to explain it to their friends. Additionally, we’ve seen posts suggesting that import buyers are bicostal eletists, and one poster who suggests we are somewhat anti-Christian.
The truth is, Phil’s anectdote about the man at the gas station was a poor one, because hardly anyone is buying out of fear, or ignorance. (And can someone tell me how a man that timid and wishy-washy becomes successful enough to by a Merc SL550? )
I don’t argue there aren’t import bigots, just that they aren’t stupid godless lemmings. They have good sensible reasons to buy import/transplants.
I have no quarell with Phil over asking people to keep an open mind, and check out the domestics as they shop. But for people who’ve been burned, or people who pour over warranty claims data, or people who are simply delighted with their transplant and keep coming back w/o shopping anything else, there simply aren’t that many who are going to take Phil up on his plea.
“Further, the best value for your money will many times be found in a domestic as there is a signifigant price advantage.”
That’s for each customer to decide for himself. Low price often doesn’t equate with best value for money – for many customers.
“Dynamic, another good job of picking 2 examples that have already been conceded as less than competitive, compacts and smaller. Your point is clearly proven now.”
We can go through the same process with many sizes of vehicle.
Would I miss out bying an Accord rather than an Impala? Would I miss out buying a CR-V rather than Mariner?
You are the only poster (unless I missed a post or two) who has claimed superiority for some D3 vehicles. Even Phil acknowledges that a gap may exist. He says it is negligible, and he may or may not be correct. But the D3 offering would have to be superior for someone to “miss out” by not shopping them. They aren’t superior – at least not by any objective measure.
W/o the social considerations part of the argument, there’d be no basis for Phil’s editorial.
Really? The last time I checked, 80% of Camrys and Accords sold with ~160hp ~2.5 liter I4s. And Honda and Toyota make lots of money. Tell me who’s likely got customer wants dialled in to their products?
I think they have a disproportionate percentage of the customers who want 4 cylinder cars. However, your cited percentage is higher than I’ve seen. Do I think the Detroit 3 should offer more 4 cylinder options? Yes. But their customer likes the V6 step-up and responds to the offer. On a platform basis (rather than a model-name basis) its a significant preference.
Still, at the strip, driver only, the Avalon beats the Lucerne. How often does one of these cars cruise around stuffed to the gills with people and luggage? How often is the driver alone?
Many people buy for peak load or maximum utility requirements irrespective of routine utilization.
I also notice that the Avalon MSRP’s for a LOT less than the Lucerne. And seems to have more features – that I would want, anyway, like sunroof standard.
Lucerne is available in three model levels. The CXS is really aimed a little above Avalon.
At the pump, the Avalon positively whips the Lucerne (28 to 23!).
Only because you’re choosing to compare a V6 car with the premium V8 version of another. But even at that, the American who can afford either car is not saving a meaningful amount of money in that differential. As the radio ad for a Lasik surgeon says, “you spend more than that at Starbucks.” Neither of these cars are bought on performance, but the experience of driving the Buick’s torque over the Toyota’s slightly lower horsepower is a different motoring aesthetic.
Was the Lucerne one of your “competitive” Detroiters?
It is for some people. I like the 5.3L eight and lower mass of the LaCrosse Super if I got a hankering for a Buick.
Seriously, I think that America would be a better place if the Detroit cheerleaders would realize that nobody has an obligation to worry about their welfare, and if they could appreciate the depth of what that really means. The sense of entitlement makes it worse, because more time is spent wallowing than improving. If all the energy devoted on this thread to whining could have been channeled into superior design and quality control, maybe it would have been worth something.
Obligation? Absent. Entitlement? Absent. Whining? Absent. None of these things are present in my arguments made here.
Phil
Dynamic, that is exactly what my sentance means, hence the qualifier “many”.
RLJ676
Sorry, missed the “many”. I stand corrected.
You’ve already admitted you don’t drive a Toyota or Honda, so I’m still complexed by what’s your interest in this at all.
I guess that I wasn’t as articulate as I had hoped.
Two reasons for my responses: (a) The author’s “factual” statements are inaccurate and disproved by data, and (b) as a businessperson, the sheer incompetence of Detroit management is frighteningly bad.
Here’s the irony — Detroit would be vastly better off if it paid attention to myself, KixStart, Dynamic, etc. (and to Mr Farago and other industry critics) than to those such as yourself. We are providing what is effectively free consulting in the form of a blunt wakeup call, which will be needed to turn these companies around.
You can buy whatever you want, but the article is a litany of copouts and excuses. Again, there is an abundance of research that makes it clear why some consumers prefer the “imports”, and it isn’t because they hate America. They aren’t racist “bigots”, they just want better stuff, so either give it to them or stop whining.
KixStart: Geeber, I said “shapes,” not “defines.” I don’t expect everybody to suddently want a convertible just because convertible commercials run but if no one believed advertising worked, there wouldn’t be any. The commercial does plant a seed.
You still give too much credit to both advertising and the car industry.
The domestics stumbled on to a lucrative segment when AMC introduced the original downsized Cherokee in 1984 (which succeeded because it had four doors; the Ford Bronco II and Chevy S-10 Blazer were only available in two-door form).
Note that it took over seven years – or 1991 – before Ford followed up with the four-door Explorer, which was based on the old Bronco II platform.
Both vehicles were a case of new products finding waiting customers, not a case of advertising shaping customer demand.
The segment grew from there, as everyone from GM to Hyundai started vying for a piece of the action.
Detroit’s mistake was to ignore its passenger car business in favor of light trucks, because there was initially less competition in this segment, and their profits were higher on trucks than on cars.
JDV,
Phil’s entire “thesis” (unsupported in so many ways as to render this term a joke), requires that customers are so bigoted (prove that for a fact for just one minute) or stupid (ditto) as to be working against their own best interests.
Funny that… most people do gravitate towards that which they find rewarding without Phil’s help. Perhaps he can advise us on choice of homes, microwave ovens and HD-TVs?
Once we get past these insulting assumptions, we find that Phil expects us (the consumer) to change our behavior on his say-so.
Suuuure. We’re all on board with that.
No, really. Why would I walk an extra mile (or visit an extra dealer) to satisfy Phil’s weird idea that I should have “direct experience” before purchasing something? Consumers set their own agenda. Detroit has to find a way to persuade them to shift it.
And consumers are aware of the shifting value proposition from Detroit. As Detroit quality appears to get better (mostly initial Q studies, which are useless for long-term owners), reports of this get ink out of all proportion to the actual achievement.
And “value proposition” is a relative thing. If a consumer gets peace of mind from buying ANOTHER Toyota, when the previous few have been trouble-free, well, it’s his money and peace of mind is a valuable thing. If he buys something from an unkown quantity or, worse, something from a vendor that burned him or a neighbor or relative before, he’s not going to be easy in his mind about this purchase. It’s human nature.
Phil also seems to think we need reminding the Detroit is the home team and we should somehow automatically want to support it – or believe that Detroit to supports us. Frankly, my earlier interaction with Detroit suggests that once the check clears, they’re done with me. Why should I believe this has changed in any way? And in terms of the larger economy, Detroit is shifting work OUS and putting the screws to the UAW. While doing this, GM continues to pay a dividend.
Reality is that Detroit did a bad job for a long time. Payback’s a bitch.
And I don’t feel any particular “vitriol.” Phil’s wrong and I find the propagation of things wrong to be offensive. I take that back… to all appearances, Phil’s wrong. I’ve challenged Phil, repeatedly, to support key assertions and he hasn’t. No proof is… no proof.
Or, maybe there is vitriol to be found here. Someone posted that they felt Phil’s screed insulted them. Phil’s reply was “fair enough.” No way to read that except that Phil’s OK with insulting people.
I disagree with the notion that car purchasers do not at least read a review or two before buying a car.
I think everyone who read the whole thread agrees that I have bought a lot of cars. Spend some time in busy dealerships watching all the deals that are going down simultaneously. Walk around. Listen. You’ll see precious little incidence of customers informed by reviews. You will hear a lot of hearsay and also people making every negotiating mistake possible. This latter is sometimes out of ignorance, but most of the time it’s just because the emotional factors take over and the person wants the car, now.
Partly right. But Phil implies that many import buyers can’t think for themselves and are playing follow the leader, buying what others tell them to buy, or being afraid to get what they “really” want for fear of having to explain it to their friends.
Let’s give them benefit of doubt and say “won’t think” rather than “can’t.”
import buyers are bicostal elitists
In terms of distribution, there’s enough truth to the charge to stick.
Phil’s anecdote about the man at the gas station was a poor one, because hardly anyone is buying out of fear, or ignorance.
Perhaps it depends on what “hardly” means to you. People don’t *buy* so often on social pressure as they instead *exclude* on social and peer sensitivity. And they do often buy on lemming behavior or social momentum because it seems easy for the portion of the market that are followers. Most people in any market are followers, by the way. There’s no market majority comprised of alpha influencers.
And can someone tell me how a man that timid and wishy-washy becomes successful enough to buy a Merc SL550?
Yes, but you’ll have to come to L.A. and buy me dinner plus two cold Manhattans to hear it.
Phil
The domestics stumbled on to a lucrative segment when AMC introduced the original downsized Cherokee in 1984 (which succeeded because it had four doors; the Ford Bronco II and Chevy S-10 Blazer were only available in two-door form).
Note that it took over seven years – or 1991 – before Ford followed up with the four-door Explorer, which was based on the old Bronco II platform.
Both vehicles were a case of new products finding waiting customers, not a case of advertising shaping customer demand.
The segment grew from there, as everyone from GM to Hyundai started vying for a piece of the action.
Detroit’s mistake was to ignore its passenger car business in favor of light trucks, because there was initially less competition in this segment, and their profits were higher on trucks than on cars.
Good summary and true. But wasn’t the first Explorer built on the Ranger pickup platform?
Phil
“In terms of distribution, there’s enough truth to the charge to stick.”
I doubt it. The coasts have big cities, and large populations, but are they really buying more imports per cap? And if they are, is it simply because there are more imports offered per cap on the coasts?
It’s hard for someone in a rural area to buy an import – sometimes. They might be 100 or more miles from an import dealer.
Phil’s entire “thesis” requires that customers are so bigoted or stupid as to be working against their own best interests.
Insufficient intelligence has never been cited but has been specifically excluded as a reason. You left out the word “some,” as in “some customers.” The bigoted buying behavior in any segment works against customer self-interest and in part it’s due to the customer simply not considering enough criteria.
Bigoted buying behavior, by the way, is the objective of advertising, branding and marketing. I don’t object to it on a brand basis. It’s when Americans blindly exclude competitive offerings from domestic companies because of their origin — and yes, in doing so, they undermine their own self-interest beyond the immediate purchase.
Once we get past these insulting assumptions, we find that Phil expects us (the consumer) to change our behavior on his say-so.
No, actually. Rather on your (now) enlightened free will.
Or, maybe there is vitriol to be found here. Someone posted that they felt Phil’s screed insulted them. Phil’s reply was “fair enough.” No way to read that except that Phil’s OK with insulting people.
“Fair enough” says that I respect Sherman Lin’s reasons for feeling insulted. He was straightforward, non-vitriolic saying so. He also said he understands why I think he shouldn’t feel insulted, but nevertheless he does. Unfortunately, in the business of opinion writing, which is what the entire editorial realm is, some incidence of insult is normal and, yes, I’m comfortable with that reality.
Phil
The coasts have big cities, and large populations, but are they really buying more imports per cap?
Yes. In California and New England this trend has been in place since the early 1980s, and moving up and down each coast.
Phil
Funny that… most people do gravitate towards that which they find rewarding without Phil’s help. Perhaps he can advise us on choice of homes, microwave ovens and HD-TVs?
I’ll leave the microwaves to others, but HDTV and related, happy to. Just send me email.
Phil
Geeber is right about the SUV’s. Just as Toyota and Honda have determined market needs and filled them in multiple segments, so Detroit deserves credit for determining a market need and fulfilling it in the SUV segment.
Both the Grand Cherokee and Explorer nailed their targets very well, as did the Suburban in the large SUV camp. The SUV did well because it could appeal to both the family/station wagon crowd that wanted both carrying capacity and a degree of hipness, and the yuppies who wanted some cool/ rugged factor. When oil was $12 per barrel, it worked well for them.
Detroit’s mistake was to ignore its passenger car business in favor of light trucks, because there was initially less competition in this segment, and their profits were higher on trucks than on cars.
And Geeber is right about this, too. One of Detroit’s major problems today is that they effectively abandoned the car market, which has left them stuck with a rather unattractive, non-diversified product mix in this period of high fuel prices.
That, and they were protected by the chicken tax, which limited competition from the imports and made it possible to compete effectively despite their generally mediocre reliability. Of course, that’s changing now, and while I see a fair bit of brand loyalty, and while Nissan’s and Honda’s truck efforts seem to be only sputtering along at best, I am willing to bet that at least Toyota will ultimately get it right and become a dominant player in the full-size truck segment within the next 10-20 years. Without the tariffs protecting them, what will Detroit do then?
Many have pointed out that a killer warranty would go a long way to convincing the public that the quality/reliability gap has been closed (substantially).
What if Toyohondisan were to offer a killer Hyundai-like warranty? They don’t need to, to sell cars, (well maybe Toyota’s rep is getting a bit tarnished and this would restore their rep.) but what if they did? Suddenly the gap opens up again (assuming it’s actually been closed in the first place). As reliable as the cars are, Toyohondisan could afford this.
Dynamic88:
‘What if Toyohondisan were to offer a killer Hyundai-like warranty? They don’t need to, to sell cars, (well maybe Toyota’s rep is getting a bit tarnished and this would restore their rep.) but what if they did? Suddenly the gap opens up again (assuming it’s actually been closed in the first place). As reliable as the cars are, Toyohondisan could afford this.”
Exactly (in bold). The gap hasn’t been closed yet – it’s just getting a little narrower. The only place the gap has been closed is in the minds of Detroit cheerleaders. One model per brand still doesn’t cut it (Chevy – Malibu, Pontiac – G8, Ford – Fusion) when your competition has an answer for each of those plus great cars in every other segment as well. Plus, they’re banking on the new Malibu, for instance, to be the Camry slayer…but it isn’t even out yet. I don’t doubt that it’s light-years ahead of the previous, archaic models – but I’m not holding my breath that it’ll make significant changes in people’s perceptions.
I mean, this new model may be great, but has anyone here been in the fourth-gen (1997-2003) Malibu? Those were some of the least refined cars I’ve had the displeasure to be in. And refinement aside – they are infamous for leaky intake manifold gaskets, faulty fuel pumps, air conditioner problems, and transmission failures…all without one recall. But yes – we owe it to ourselves to check out Detroit’s products.
Many have pointed out that a killer warranty would go a long way to convincing the public that the quality/reliability gap has been closed (substantially).
While I would agree that a comprehensive and rather conspicuous warranty is an essential part of a turnaround plan, I don’t believe that a warranty alone would do much good.
American consumers don’t endeavor to get a great warranty, per se, but peace of mind, good workmanship and manageable operating costs. As KixStart hinted above, they would prefer that the car just not break in the first place.
And not all build quality issues are addressed by a warranty. The niggling problems, such as squeaks and rattles, tend to be annoyances that no warranty will likely fix, yet they are still aggravating to the customer. First, they need to build a car that looks solid enough to persuade someone to buy it (conspicuous workmanship), and then be sure that it won’t become a rattletrap filled with fading materials and broken bits within a few years.
If you want to learn how to sell a car with questionable reliability, yet still be able to maintain customer loyalty and strong residuals, then study BMW. The combination of aggressive leases and free service packages helps to keep customers in BMW’s by capping their operating costs (an important consideration for buyers of European cars) while helping them to build a positive relationship with the dealership.
When the TSB’s get fixed during a routine maintenance visit that included a free loaner and a latte, the TSB’s no longer seem to be a big deal because it created no inconvenience. And the manufacturer was able to catch it before it became a problem, rendering it a non-event that won’t come back to bite it when the leased vehicles are turned in and resold. Once again, it’s focusing on the customer, and not whining about his preferences, that brings in the business.
A few quick observations:
1. The looking at the data, the domestics are not closing the gap in reliability, Ford is. The problem for me is that Mazda makes better fords than Ford. Checking out TrueDelta, the Aura has had significantly more problems than the import competition based on his times in the shop survey.
2. On the term Bigot. I don’t think that a “Honda Guy” or “Ford Guy” is an import bigot as this person has a brand prefernce and outside of that may put other import and domestic brands on an equal playing field. However, those that blanketly consider non-japanese brands inferior to japanese brands would be correctly identified. I just don’t think that there are more than a million of the latter.
3. Reliability will always be my major concern until a non-luxury make will offer loaner cars when I drop mine off. If detroit did this, I would be there right now. I need to go to work/school and that is the most important thing. I would say that based on that I would pick a civic for my next car. Though I like both the Mazda 3 and Scion tc, they have both had issues. We’ll see.
4. No one has yet addressed my question of whether the import buyer is a different type of buyer than the domestic buyer. If the imports sell more 4-cylinder cars and detroit sells more larger engine cars, that suggest that they are. So does the preference difference bet. the Lucerne and Avalon. I would look for the best fuel economy even in a large car. Also, I noticed the top 10 most researched cars at Edmunds are all imports (I think the first domestic is #14). I know that most of the market does not, but we aren’t talking about the market in general. We are talking about import buyers.
5. Toyota/Honda business is related to the topic as you are trying to take business from them. The question in some eyes is whether to support detroit, but, in turn, to take business away from people who have been loyal to you as a customer. Those are competing larger issues for me. I am also partial to Honda as they have always been reliable and my dealer has always taken care of issues quikly and to my satisfaction. So, buying to support Detroit would disclude me from supporting the Honda dealer that has treated my family well. Again, other brands (Nissan) have no such loyalty for me. Thus, I am equally likely to look at other brands equally, but am still partial to Honda if nothing proves signifantly better for the price.
This is an important issue, and I have to throw my opinion in the ring. I have a Chevrolet Equinox LT-AWD as a company car. The car is decently equipped, has heated seats, leather interior, and a sunroof. Not bad for a free car, right?
Now for the bad: The engine sounds as coarse as can be, the interior has plastic surfaces that are inexcusable in a disposable take-out container, the vinyl trim on the sides of the seats actually feels nicer than the leather, there are uncountable rattles in the interior, and it has had to have the brakes resurfaced TWICE in 20,000 miles. ( I have to disclose here also that I have had a 1995 Mercedes E300D that had only three brake jobs in 330,000 miles and I can assure you I am NOT hard on brakes).
So, what’s my point? It may be “reliable” because it has not left me stranded on the side of the road. BUT, is it better because it is a domestic? The vehicle’s sticker price was somewhere in the mid-$20K range. I have rented a LOT of cars lately and the other domestics are not much better. However, I do see a silver lining in all of this: I think GM is FINALLY hearing us consumers. Check out the new Saturn Aura, and Vue. I have rented both, and frankly the interiors were actually nice. Ford has made strides in this arena lately as well… so that leaves Chrysler. Ugh, do NOT get me started on the interior quality of their latest offerings.
Here is one more thing to cheer about if you like to cheer for the home team: Toyota has been getting a lot of bad press lately, and sometimes from their biggest supporters: Consumer Reports. Automobile Magazine (I think…) had a Camry on their long term test fleet that had poor interior fit and finish. A friend of mine has a new Camry that had two separate interior knobs fall off while driving. I am not kidding.
I will cede my ill thought out depreciation argument, however I will still maintain that given two equally priced and equipped cars, one Toyondissan and one Chevy/Ford/Chrysler, the domestic will depreciate much faster.
However, one of Phil’s main arguments was that buying domestic is better than a transplant because the money goes to high value HQ jobs. As I pointed out earlier, who would want to send money to those guys? Especially when I don’t think there is anyone here who would argue that the management at the D3 has been anything short of incompetent, short-sighted, and greedy. Until I see that the D3 are worried about the future beyond their next quarterly earnings reports, I have little reason to want to send them my money.
PCH “Two reasons for my responses: (a) The author’s “factual” statements are inaccurate and disproved by data, and (b) as a businessperson, the sheer incompetence of Detroit management is frighteningly bad.”
Your arragonce on both your ability to “disprove” everything and on how Detroit is now being run and should be run is what I find frighteningly bad.
I dont think you’ve conclusively proven a thing, especially since much of these “facts” are in an opinion editorial? Further, you seem to want to ignore that this “free consulting” you find so valuable is all “duh” statements that are known by all, and more importantly being done by the Big 3. The problem is the cycle life and costs of automobile production make it very difficult to enact all changes quickly. Now be cash strapped and try and do it. The things you want emphasized are, and some of the results are now visible. I have been stating this for a week but you fail to comprehend it/believe me.
To me a good example of the problem with timing of the market is some of Toyota’s newest products (forgetting their new quality issues). In a time when MPG is of growing importance, they introduce a truck with terrible gas milage and a larger, worse milage Scion xB. I’m sure they would like to rethink some of those ideas now.
Basically, if you were as good for the auto industry as you think, get a job in it and turn it around. As people keep pointing out, the management here is “overpaid”, etc, so it can be quite lucrative. Ask Alan Mulally.
RLJ, that was a nice rant, but a few basic points:
-Reliability surveys from JD Power and Consumer Reports consistently show Honda and Toyota to produce more reliable cars than direct rivals in their segments. There are exceptions, but the rule is what it is.
-Consumer surveys show that buyers of Japanese cars tend to be highly conscious of reliability, workmanship and fuel economy. The JD Power study that I cited above has findings that are consistent with research on this topic that has been done since the 1970’s.
-So it’s not shocking that these people buy Hondas and Toyotas that are, in fact, more reliable.
Sounds like these consumers are largely getting what they pay for, and they know who to buy from in order to get what they want.
This is all very straightforward. If anything, it is laughably easy to figure out what consumers want, because they aren’t shy about using their money to vote for the stuff that matters to them most. And there is so much market research on vehicle buying, produced by a whole host of companies and academics who have measured it six ways to Sunday, so if observational skills weren’t enough to tell you what consumers want, those studies will.
My only question is why Detroit thinks whining is such an admirable trait. If whining was a key to riches, they would have never lost their lead in the first place.
RLJ, while Phil’s may be an “opinion” editorial, opinions must be grounded in FACTS. And opinions must be defensible in the face of FACTS.
It can be my opinion that you’re a unicorn or a billy goat but FACTS are necessary to establish that and FACTS would make truculently holding such an opinion look stupid.
—
I took a look at TrueDelta recently and the car that’s consistently among the best on repair history is the Prius. The Prius is decidedly more complex than a typical sedand (for example, hot coolant from the engine is pumped into an insulated flask when the car’s not running to keep it hot until the car is wanted again!) and involves more necessarily newly invented/engineered parts than anything else on the road, yet it’s pretty much leading the field for reliability. Including the first Gen 3 Prius year!
This is an astonishing feat!
Another car that’s among the best – the Camry hybrid. Ditto for complexity and brand-new part count.
The Detroit Fan Club can whine (and it is whining) all they want about Detroit not getting a fair shake in the market but Detroit would be hard-pressed to build a fourth-model-year Impala that was as reliable as a Prius or Camry hybrd. Toyota may have stumbled with the V6 and 6-speed auto but the reliability of the hybrids is a persuasive argument that Toyota really knows what the hell it’s doing.
Being an engineer by day and a psychologist by night, I’m always fascinated by how people think, especially around technical topics. There are 2 broad groups that most people fall into: (1) those who are more process-driven and (2) those who are more vision-driven.
The people in the process group tend to be externally-focused and work better with numbers. They have a better feel for statistics, methodologies, and the social sciences that spring from them.
The people in the vision group tend to be internally-focused, so they have a harder time assimilating numbers. It’s “lies, damned lies, and statistics” for them. They are more able to think out of the box, but they more often reach wrong conclusions.
Interestingly, the process folks are more flexible in their thinking because their conclusions are more based on data. If the data changes, they more easily change their conclusions. They don’t understand how people can reach poor conclusions if the data doesn’t support it.
The vision folks don’t understand why the process folks keep pestering them with irrelevant data. They have their conclusions because they tend to only be interested in data that supports their views.
For the “In Defense of: The Big Three”, you can reach your own conclusions. :)
Don’t forget good old fashioned brand loyalty which is why I believe so many do not look at a domestic brand. It doesn’t matter if brand B is just as good as brand A now. Once a consumer deliberately chooses brand A, they simply will not likely leave it unless they experience disatisfaction with brand A. GM rode that brand loyalty for years. Its no different now. To somehow believe consumers would behave differenly now simply because the GM and Ford are no longer the favored brand for some buyers is not realistic in my opinion.
I don’t recall buyers switching brands in droves because Chrysler needed the business in the early 80’s. In fact I believe that is when GM reached their highest market share.
I understand the editoral I just don’t believe that most people will follow it based on how people buy things and on how they acted in the past.
Kixstart and PCH, none of what you continue to post has really anything to do with this topic.
PCH “-Reliability surveys from JD Power and Consumer Reports consistently show Honda and Toyota to produce more reliable cars than direct rivals in their segments. There are exceptions, but the rule is what it is.”
No one is saying otherwise. However, in many instances the quality gap is non-existant (the exceptions) and in others it is small. Therefore, it may not be the most important decision in a car purchase anymore, making other factors more important.
You continue to confuse an individual’s best product choice and popularity. The most popular product still isn’t best for everyone. It’s simple, but you refuse to admit this despite the fact you don’t drive the most popular car (F-series) so you intrinsically understood this point.
The biggest reason for NOT buying from at least one of the big 3 was quality concerns(from internal market research before you ask for the source). This is different customer than you seem to think is the only one, one that buys something BECAUSE of quality alone. Basically, this editorial addresses the first type of customer much more so than the latter. For as much of an expert in the market as you claim to be, I find you are more of an expert in popularity contests.
Kixstart, great, buy a Prius. What does that have to do with anything? If you’re in the market for a hybrid, the Prius sure seems like a safe bet. Sure, you’re great at pulling “facts” like this prius gem, but it means absolutely nothing in this context, as no one claimed the domestic is always best. Also funny how the types of major problems Toyotas’ recently had is meaningless to you, but an issue 5 years ago by a domestic is still so important.
For all your guys comments about whining, it seems that you are just whining about why yours or anyones “bigoted” purchase without considering all competitive vehicles was rational.
Ah, but therein lies the rub, RLJ…what you consider a “competitive” vehicle falls under a far different definition than what I consider competitive. Detroit needs more than 2 or 3 “competitive” sedans to really stage this “American Revolution”.
Macca, Thats fine enjoy your “Camry” or whatever it is. Hopefully you just considered more than it before purchasing it. Seeing as you’re on a website devoted to cars it’s a safe bet you did. Not everyone does though.
Kixstart and PCH, none of what you continue to post has really anything to do with this topic.
Actually, it’s totally on point. A good chunk of Mr. Ressler’s editorial is dedicated to the claim that the domestic cars are just as good as the imports, and that consumers just don’t know what they’re doing by rejecting them. (Go back and read it — he makes this point abundantly clear, and he does so more than once.)
The reliability data and market research thoroughly disprove that point. Consumers are generally not unreasonable and do understand the products well enough to choose products that serve their criteria, as their choices make clear. They may not be super-experts, but they do know what they want and they generally know which brands are likely to provide it.
Now, if you want to disagree with the reliability surveys and the market research which consistently show this to be true, that’s your choice.
But if you want to convince everyone else to agree with you, then you need to present a compelling argument as to why we shouldn’t be believe the data and to believe you, instead. “I told you so” is not persuasive to me, many of those posting here, and millions of consumers who clearly take their money to places where you’d rather it not be spent.
PCH, the point of a better car being SUBJECTIVE is what you miss. So the data showing that some imports are more reliable that you are convinced are the trumping “facts” does nothing to counter this point. That some domestic cars are better (not MORE POPULAR, nor MOST RELIABLE) choices for a portion of the population that may not even be aware they exist, not alone have researched them enough to make an informed decision.
Until you can somehow produce “facts” showing ALL imports are MORE reliable, and so much more reliable that they trump all other criteria for the entire import buying public you haven’t done anything at all to dispute the validity of my interpretation of the author’s assertion; Some domestics are a better choice for some customers, and they may not be considering them because of lack of information.
Claiming a victory is not the same as actually winning. For all of the money that goes to imports you keep harping on, there is still half the market buying domestic, so I still don’t see what you’re proving by talking about “the market has decided”? The same as the “many” posting here that happen to share your anti-Detroit sentiment are in no way a representitive portion of the market as whole. In my words, they are more representive of costal elitists who are “into cars” but not cars in general, only defect free ones however bland they may be.
“In my words, they are more representive of costal elitists…”
When all else fails, there’s always name calling.
“When all else fails, there’s always name calling.”
When the shoe fits.
“JDV,
Phil’s entire “thesis” (unsupported in so many ways as to render this term a joke), requires that customers are so bigoted (prove that for a fact for just one minute) or stupid (ditto) as to be working against their own best interests.”
It has really seemed to me that some of you are looking to be offended. Perhaps its the negative conotations of the word bigot is more offensive to you than it is to me. To me I read the word bigot and substituted “strongly biased”, I suspect you substituted something else. I suspect bigot is a word that pushes your buttons… And I suspect Phil still doesn’t know how he pushed your buttons so strongly that a few of you repeatedly put words in his mouth he didn’t say, and then a different one of you responded to that allegation with anger. You are getting each other worked up just as much as you are reacting to Phil.
I’d also like to make a little bit of fun of another point made earlier in the thread:
PCH101: “Let’s repeat after me: The customer is always right. The customer is always right. (Come now, don’t be shy!) The customer is always right. That’s right — it’s always. Not some of the time, or occasionally, or never, but always, 100% of the time.”.
Hah! How about those customers buying the exceptionally bad american models in the late 70’s? Were they right? ;-)
Sometimes the customer is wrong.
Sometimes perception lags behind reality.
RLJ, now you’re just strawmaning here.
the point of a better car being SUBJECTIVE is what you miss.
Actually, you’re the one missing this point. We know what consumers prefer, because they go out and buy what they want. The fact that Honda is able to sell more Accords than Chevy is able to sell Impalas is a strong indicator that more consumers prefer the Accord than do the Impala.
If you read the market research, it becomes pretty obvious that there are many reasons for this, some of which are objective and others subjective. But regardless of what they are, more consumers want the Accord, so if you want to beat Honda, it would be a good idea to figure why this is.
Again, here’s your main problem: you think that consumers are stupid and bigoted, and if they only knew more about the domestics that they’d start buying domestics. But in fact, the opposite is true — the more information that becomes available, the more successful that Honda and Toyota become. The market is shifting ever more deeply toward those two brands (with Nissan a fairly distant third), so obviously, those brands have figured something out about how to appeal to customers.
Until you can somehow produce “facts” showing ALL imports are MORE reliable, and so much more reliable that they trump all other criteria for the entire import buying public you haven’t done anything at all to dispute the validity of my interpretation of the author’s assertion
That is a massive strawman. Obviously, consumers don’t see this race war that you’re describing. They do not see Mitsubishi or Mazda, for example, as being on par with Toyota or Honda. The sales figures make that clear. The brands growing market share over the long run are those that are most in tune with what the market wants — that’s how they are able to make sales.
As an example, have a look at September YTD sales, and you will see that among the ten Asian automakers in the US market, 75% of the “Asian” sales are going to three companies: Toyota, Honda, and Nissan, in that order. While the domestic flagwavers see one big amorphous Asian enemy (bigotry will do that, you know), the market sees two automakers that it strongly favors, a third that it prefers somewhat less, and seven that appeal to a small segment or to specific niches.
The strongly risk adverse, reliability-oriented buyer makes up about 15-20% of the market, if JD Power is to be believed. Those buyers are smart to avoid domestics for the reasons already presented — the domestic products are not competitive for their needs. It will take many YEARS of consistent results to reach these people. If you are impatient about that, I’m sorry, but if Detroit really cared about them that much, then Detroit shouldn’t have worked so hard to lose them in the first place.
PCH “Actually, you’re the one missing this point. We know what consumers prefer, because they go out and buy what they want. The fact that Honda is able to sell more Accords than Chevy is able to sell Impalas is a strong indicator that more consumers prefer the Accord than do the Impala. ”
What the hell is your point with these statements. You just keep stating obvious things, that have nothing to do with the points I’m making. Yes, a more popular car sells more than less popular. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I don’t want to even get into the intricacies (again)of a dynamic marketplace and the current popular car is not the future’s, so it shouldn’t impact what is better for an individual buyer whatsoever. This is another one of those things you repeatedly blaze by to take something else out of context to twist.
PCH “That is a massive strawman. Obviously, consumers don’t see this race war that you’re describing. They do not see Mitsubishi or Mazda, for example, as being on par with Toyota or Honda. The sales figures make that clear. The brands growing market share over the long run are those that are most in tune with what the market wants — that’s how they are able to make sales.”
It’s quite ironic that you’re calling my argument a strawman, while doing that very thing. I’m not trying to twist what you said at all, rather what it would take to DISPROVE our point, as you haven’t done but claim to.
PCH “Again, here’s your main problem: you think that consumers are stupid and bigoted, and if they only knew more about the domestics that they’d start buying domestics”
Again, the definition of strawman… Where did I or anyone say any consumer was stupid, and I’ve explained how “bigoted” is a euphanism. Your persistance in something you shouldn’t care about is “admirable” but your skill at it is far less so. Uninformed is what consumers are, they are carrying quality and other assumptions from the past that may not still be relavant. You are clearly clueless to the purchasing public as a whole. Not everyone lives on the web researching (or pointlessly arguing about) cars. Doesn’t make them stupid at all.
Congrats on posting more “facts” that don’t support anything. I guess I’ve lost what it is you think you’re proving other than repeating sales figures and calling it proof? It doesn’t prove one way or another that SOME people buy imports with out considering domestic products that may be a better value to that individual if fully informed.
I guess this goes back to the point that you are truly just in this to agitate, as you have no stake in spending 70+ pages on this. I have stated why I’m annoyed with the anti-Detroit sentiment, as it’s my livelihood and city.
RLJ,
1. I don’t believe that anyone has suggested that consumers are entirely one-dimensional. Go back and do a review. Naturally, most people look at a mix of issues (like budget). However, reliability IS an issue and bad reliability – and the reputation for it – will push consumers away. There is no question that this has happened. Detroit, generally, has a bad reputation for quality, especially among people who currently drive Japanese cars (and probably some German).
I have also pointed out WHY some consumers – probably many – are putting a growing emphasis on quality issues. Someone, you or Phil or whomever, posted that, after looking at differences in costs and adjustint for excess expected repairs, the value of a Detroiter was remarkably like the value of a Toyondissan. All well and good.
But this “automotive expense” calculation does not take into account the real and imagined expenses that the consumer actually faces when the car goes fffft. Daycare missed? Appointment missed? Begging rides… again? Just plain aggravation?
Your response to this is “no big deal,” the expense is probably overcome by the new superior value.
Well, that’s an attitude that will drive you right into bankruptcy. Because, standing here, I don’t see the superior value, I see a lower purchase price offset by another night in East Overshoe waiting for Shaftya Ford to fix the thing.
Clearly SOME people think that Detroit cars are worth buying because Detroit still has about 50% market share. This alone hints at a mix of issues.
And, in some segments, not all the Japanese compete (large trucks, for example; Honda is conspicuously absent).
2. No one has said that ALL imports beat ALL domestics in quality issues. Certainly, in the case of VW, this is far from true. Toyota has probably built some lemons. But! Toyota has far more hits than misses and Detroit has, relatively, more misses than hits. Toyota gets the Quality Halo and GM does not.
You wrote, “the gap is non-existent.” How can something be non-existent? If you meant there was no gap, you’d say so. But you’d be wrong and you uderstand, even if you don’t care to acknowledge, that the brand is tainted by the gap. GM has to get it right across the product line to get perceived as having “equal” quality and reliability.
Others have written on TTAC about the value of a brand; it stands for something. People have been trained – in part by Detroit! – to shop by brand. If GM has a few cars that beat Toyota but is generally of lesser quality and reliability, “GM is worse” is the shorthand that the consumer learns.
And I actually think Toyota’s recent stumbles are relevant. It has me thinking about Hondas. But overall, I like most people, won’t start to think Toyota’s crap, until Toyota has a real track record for crap.
3. The Prius is relevant in much the same way that any Halo Car is relevant. What does this say about the manufacturer? For most people, it means Toyota is the technological leader. It’s fully oriented towards being a Car Of The Future. There are few comporomises. It’s even a no-nonsense aero shape. It’s also a Quality Halo Car. It’s a car that’s tops in reliability when the deck was stacked against it. Luckily for Detroit, most people won’t notice this. But it’s very, very impressive.
Suppose I were to write a computer program. I could just write a new one, using existing and thoroughly debugged libraries and we would expect some bugs. Or I could write a new one AND we could re-write all the string-handling subroutines in the library that the program is to use. Then we’d expect a LOT of bugs. Toyota has done the latter with FEW bugs; fewer bugs than a normal development project.
This has huge implications when more new types of car are introduced.
If I intend to buy a totally new type of car (a Volt or a Prius, for example) and I have a choice between a company, A, with a proven process for delivering a totally new car that’s remarkably free of bugs and a company, B, that has never delivered a totally new car that’s remarkably free of bugs, which one should I choose? While it’s true that A may make mistakes, they do have a way of delivering a reliable car.
Sure, there will be other factors. Style, comfort, overall performance, price, etc. But it’s better to start with a “win” in one dimension than to be one down at the start of the game.
I have to tell you, though, I will absolutely regard anyone who buys a first-model-year Volt as crazy. Lease? Maybe. Buy? Crazy.
4. Finally, as regards what is “competitive,” everything is competitive… at a price. The market judges Detroit cars are competitive only when priced lower (most cars) or when they’re iconic (Corvette) or when other manufacturers don’t have a proven presence (trucks).
—
To Macca, you said: “Seeing as you’re on a website devoted to cars it’s a safe bet you did [consider many issues]. Not everyone does though.” And there’s your problem; what’s the consumer’s obligation to do anything in particular? Nada. Zilch. Nistam. Nichts. Nothing.
The customer already understands who the home team is and the customer would like to like the home team but the customer has evaluated the home team over the years and has made up his mind/bored by it all/doesn’t believe it’s that big a dea/whatever. Doesn’t matter; Detroit must win customers the old-fashioned way.
You and Phil want to fix the customer. You can not fix the customer. The customer is not broken. Fix the cars, your dealer network, your image.
Back the cars as though you believe they’re bulletproof… maybe we’ll believe it, too.
“Coastal elites?”
Not me. I live in the Midwest. Either coast is a two-day drive.
kixstart
” I don’t believe that anyone has suggested that consumers are entirely one-dimensional. Go back and do a review. Naturally, most people look at a mix of issues (like budget). However, reliability IS an issue and bad reliability – and the reputation for it – will push consumers away. There is no question that this has happened. Detroit, generally, has a bad reputation for quality, especially among people who currently drive Japanese cars (and probably some German).”
I agree with this wholly. However, the point is Detroit’s quality is improving and those people we ran off may not be aware of this.
Kixstart “You wrote, “the gap is non-existent.” How can something be non-existent? If you meant there was no gap, you’d say so. But you’d be wrong and you uderstand, even if you don’t care to acknowledge, that the brand is tainted by the gap. GM has to get it right across the product line to get perceived as having “equal” quality and reliability.”
Gap in brands as a whole, sure. In every vehicle, no way. The exceptions mentioned being where there isn’t a quality gap.
kixstart “Your response to this is “no big deal,” the expense is probably overcome by the new superior value”
My real point is that if a competitive vehicle is chosen than the odds of it happening again is no big deal, but when it happened it certainly was a big deal.
kixstart “You and Phil want to fix the customer. You can not fix the customer. The customer is not broken. Fix the cars, your dealer network, your image.”
How pray tell do you fix the IMAGE without telling the customer your car is better, and asking them to check it out to verify this? That IS EXACTLY in the hands of the customer, and that’s what we’re saying. It looks like you unknowingly AGREE. Image is all in the perception of the customer.
jdv: Hah! How about those customers buying the exceptionally bad american models in the late 70’s? Were they right? ;-)
Different times and a different automotive market.
There were far fewer choices available to customers, and the most of the domestics did not compete directly with the imports.
The Japanese were at the low end, and the Europeans were at the high end. Detroit had some small cars competing with the Japanese, but most of its sales were to the middle of the market, and to the more conservative segments of the luxury market (Cadillac and Lincoln).
Interestingly enough, if you look at sales trends during the 1970s, three of the domestic brands that did the best were three that earned decent reputations for reliability during the 1960s and early 1970s – Buick, Oldsmobile and Cadillac. Ford tended to do better in small cars than GM, and guess what – its smaller cars tended to be more reliable than their GM counterparts (and the whole Pinto gas tank fiasco didn’t surface until 1978, or seven years after the car debuted).
At the time, we didn’t KNOW that how bad some of those models were. Several domestic marques – especially the highline GM marques – still had very good reputations (hence their strong sales).
The market was still somewhat “quality” driven even then, despite being handicapped by no internet and no widespread dissemination of quality surveys in the media (no JD Powers results back then, and Consumer Reports survey results didn’t receive nearly the press at that time that they do today).
Buyers were going by the information they had at the time, which in many cases was different from what we now know about various cars today.
Oldsmobile, for example, still had a good reputation in the late 1970s. It was therefore quite a shock when the Oldsmobile Diesel turned out to be a disaster. NOW we know better.
The gap in brands is what’s key. The consumer is not motivated to analyze Detroit quality model by model (as if they could, because the models don’t last). Of course, people also inherently understand that consistency is extremely important. Good in SOME places doesn’t cut it.
Cetainly, image is the customer’s perception. You have to shape it.
But you don’t have a lot of choices, the only one I can see is to act as though the cars are bulletproof. Nobody’s doing that.
And the message from you, about inconvenience, embarrassment and aggravation was “no big deal.” That was the message from Ford, too. My time is worth a lot to me. I don’t plan to spend it waiting for my car. More and more, people realize it doesn’t have to be this way. Someone else pointed out the BMW way, which is to sell a car that is not 100% bulletproof but manage the customer’s experience so that he doesn’t mind as much.
RLJ “My real point is that if a competitive vehicle is chosen than the odds of it happening again is no big deal, but when it happened it certainly was a big deal”
See what I said.
Look at your response.
“And the message from you, about inconvenience, embarrassment and aggravation was “no big deal.” That was the message from Ford, too. My time is worth a lot to me. I don’t plan to spend it waiting for my car. More and more, people realize it doesn’t have to be this way. Someone else pointed out the BMW way, which is to sell a car that is not 100% bulletproof but manage the customer’s experience so that he doesn’t mind as much. ”
Can you possibly understand my doubting of some peoples reading comprehension skill? I don’t know if this is deliberate “twisting” or what.
I feel the Dealer’s are doing a better job of managing the customer than the past, but this is something difficult to police. The dealer issues is really a whole other subject itself.
RLJ676: How pray tell do you fix the IMAGE without telling the customer your car is better, and asking them to check it out to verify this? That IS EXACTLY in the hands of the customer, and that’s what we’re saying. It looks like you unknowingly AGREE. Image is all in the perception of the customer.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with, say, Ford touting its improved quality survey results (although Consumer Reports doesn’t allow companies to use its results in advertising, so Ford will have to rely on the mass media to spread that one).
And I don’t think anyone has a problem with customers visiting their Ford dealer to test the latest offerings, or even Ford asking customers if “they have driven a Ford lately” or encouraging potential customers to “swap their ride.”
What I don’t like is the suggestion that people have some sort of OBLIGATION to include the domestics on their shopping list, and that if they don’t they are “import bigots” or somehow causing the downfall of America.
I also don’t like the suggestion that people who have been burned by the domestics in the not-too-distant past are being irrational for sticking with vehicles that have proven to be reliable, comfortable and able to meet their needs.
Yes, this is ultimately in the hands of the customer, and it will take YEARS of good quality results and word-of-mouth for Detroit to win some of those people back. If Detroit is out of time…well, that is Detroit’s fault. These concerns have been voiced for DECADES, and for too long Detroit responded with haughty disdain, half-hearted measures or excuses galore.
I agree with this wholly. However, the point is Detroit’s quality is improving and those people we ran off may not be aware of this.
The customer who is reliability conscious doesn’t care that Detroit is improving. That’s the wrong standard to apply.
What they care about is what vehicles are most reliable. And the answer to that question remains what it consistently what it has been for the last few decades — the leading Japanese marques. Detroit may be better than it once was, but they still aren’t the best alternative, so who cares?
Your point highlights yet another problem with Detroit — your benchmarks are completely off the mark. Instead of benchmarking the last generation Detroit product, you need to identify your best competitors and BEAT them.
Nobody wants a Chevy Accord — the person who wants an Accord will buy a real one. If they are going to switch from an Accord, the alternative had to be clearly superior and/or different in an interesting way.
Re: “No big deal…”
Your clear implication is that it’s all water under the bridge. It’s not.
As a result of that, and having been perfectly happy with something else, Detroit must put on a good show.
Equal quality (not just a few models). Great value. Great dealer service.
As you pointed out, you sold a car with known deferred maintenance issues to Carmax for $1500. You’re comparing this to a 10 years older Toyota that your friend surmises is worth $3000, but this is completely untested by him finding a paying customer.
While you are technically correct, that Camry will be worth closer to $3,000 than $1,500, assuming it isn’t smoking or a wheel doesn’t fall off during the test drive. The older Toyota will remain more valuable just in ever decreasing amounts as both cars get older. In reality, though, most people don’t hang onto their cars beyond 5 years if that; so, depreciation and residual value are most certainly a factor when buying a car if you are honest about your car buying habits and want to take all pertinent factors into consideration.
Also, sometimes at beyond 10 years, even mass market cars in good shape can bump up a bit, as people in the modern car market get nostalgic for one of the lighter, simpler cars of yesteryear, compared to their modern equivalents that have been through the bloat nebulizer of contemporary automotive engineering.
You’re joking right? Cars don’t start to become collectible-other than exotics, which are collectable from the moment they roll out the doors in Italy-for decades. Tri-5 Chevys have been desirable collectors items for years, but do you know what they were in 1968 or even 1978? A used car with little residual value left. When I was in highschool in the mid 80’s, a 67 Mustang fast back was a second teir car-above a Maverick or C10 Chevy but below a Toyota 4X4 truck or a BMW-that a highschooler might have. there is no way that a 1994 Tempo or Taurus is collectable. And, though they may be some day, that hardly should enter into the equation as to whether or nto you should buy one.
KixStart :
October 26th, 2007 at 10:02 am
RLJ676: “So where is all of the rhetoric on how that writer is so wrong in suggesting a car like the MKX is a better overall value, and that people are converting back?”
You think I have a reading comprehension problem?
The MKX “value” assigned by JDP is a combination of operating cost, including repairs and maintenance, probably just for the first three years. How is it down the road? And repair cost in the first three years should be zilch, anyway, because anything that goes wrong *should* be covered by the warranty (although, with Ford dealers, you can never really expect that – my experience, anyway). So, whether you have no failures or twenty-seven trips to the shop, the “value” is the same, either way.
In the real world, where the rubber meets the road, those twenty-seven trips to the shop are far, FAR more significant.
And I laid that all out for you. Go back and reread.
You say you’ve got something riding on Detroit’s success. All well and good. But you fail to recognize the consumer’s real needs. Not so good. And I’m not making any of this shit up. Did you take my earlier challenge and figure out what it cost me to have my “covered” vehicle fail while on vacation?
YOu undoubtedly didn’t, so let me fill in some numbers for you:
$100 – two unwanted nights in motels.
$200 – half of a too-small rental car. Ford paid the other half and the dealer bitched for twenty minutes about the fact that we wanted a full-size car while the Aerostar VAN was in the shop. There were 6 in our party. “Why do you need a full-size car?” “Ummm… because there’s 6 of us?” We ended up with a Century-sized car. Yes, when we’ve rented while on fly/drive vacations, I’ve ponied up for a VAN or taken a Crown Vic.
$50 – extra unwanted meals on the road.
$75 – fuel there and back.
$12 – extra day the dog was at the kennel
—-
$435
And there might have been other expenses I’ve forgotten. And, of course, this was sooo much fun for the children.
Do you want to add:
$800 – 2 days’ unintended vacation driving to and from East Overshoe
into the calculation? It’s not cash out of pocket but it’s two days that were mine that I lost. What if I worked contract? Then it would be cash out of pocket.
But the repair was “free.” Which was good because, as noted previously, they got more practice repairing it just 8 days later. And again a year after that. Even if it moves and I don’t need a tow, it screws up my day to make an unscheduled stop at Ford.
Like I said, you’re not thinking about the customer. And if the rest of Detroit thinks like you, then they’re going down and I won’t want a Detroiter because there won’t be any warranty service on anything I do buy after they file for the inevitable bankruptcy.
I had a similar experience with a Saturn VUE. Thank God it broke down in a city with a Saturn dealer only 150 miles from home. As an added bonus, the dealer got Saturn to pony up for the entire cost of a similar rental for the time it took to repair the Vue. I had the joy of driving a Ford Escape for a week-it made the 4 cylinder VUE look good by comparison. All I had was one day’s rental, two days missed work, one extra day at the motel, and associated meals. The hassle-priceless. I’ve told more than one person I know to shoot me if I ever buy a Saturn again (this was one of many problems).
RLJ676 :
October 26th, 2007 at 11:34 am
” As for those 100k mile warranties Hyundai offers one, Suzuki and Mitsubishi also offer one. Your claim that only Hyundai offers such a warranty is like many of your other claims, utterly unsubstantiated. You and others keep making the same old unsupported assertions and acting as if they are gospel. Where’s the data? When a company’s products populates the 10 worst and 45 least reliable lists, its going to take more than your exhortations to convince me to buy them.”
3 wannabe’s (although Hyandai is constantly improving) offering long warranties does not make it necessary to offer to be competitive. However, the cost of those warranties are substantial and cash strapped companies can’t change to be competitive with a TINY portion of market share.
As for what are reliable, you can do your research on CR and JD Power or whatever you have available for your segment of interest. If there’s nothing reliable there, so be it, buy what is best. But don’t write if off based on being a domestic alone.
The point is that the Big 3 need to offer the buying public some assurance that the new Ford, Chrysler, GM product isn’t going to be a peice of crap like the one they had 20, 15, or 10 years ago (actually 5 years ago in my case). Empty promises with nothing to back them up aren’t going to get people to bet $20k+ of their hard earned money, a longer warrantee might depending on its length and level of coverage. Hyundai believed enough in their products to offer a 10-year warrantee to get people in their cars, why is this beneath the Big 3? We should take them at their word and get burned yet once again?
The definition of insanity-doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I’d have to be insane to buy a Big 3 offereing and expect a different result without some concrete assurance (e.g. longer warrantee-putting their money where their mouths are) that something had changed for the better in the way that they design and build cars.
Lumbergh21: “I’ve told more than one person I know to shoot me if I ever buy a Saturn again (this was one of many problems).”
I didn’t have to go to the trouble of issuing similar instructions. My wife told me she’d shoot me if I ever bought another Ford.
Most of your points are reasonable, but I do think it is irrational to pass up a car which may be a better value proposition simply because the brand is domestic. Particularly if it the value is signifagantly better. The term “bigot” is simply not (meant to be) as offensive in this context as some are taking it to be I think.
Not everyone who goes straight to an import is as “angry” at Detroit as some on here seem. The simply assume it’s the better value proposition due to percieved quality gap. That is not always the case.
Once again, your argument is that consumers should ignore the past and believe what Detroit and their ad execs are telling us. We can’t ignore past performance just because the Big 3 tell us to. To do so would be ignorant. The average Joe and Jane on the street wants something concrete to make them think that something has changed. I would love to buy a good Chevy, but I need a solid reason to ignore the past performance of GM before I will buy from them again. Somebody whose own interests are served by me buying a GM product telling me to trust them isn’t good enough and that includes my brother-in-law who works for GM.
Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.
Again, Detroit would do itself a lot of favors if it would simply admit that it screws up a lot, and that it needs to commit every single day to making damn sure that they never do it again. The inability of the Detroit cheerleaders to own up to their failures is a tremendous barrier to improvement, because they fight progress instead of embracing it. At the end of the day, they really don’t think that they did anything wrong, so why should they do better when it’s everyone else’s fault?
PCH101:
I think that is not entirely an accurate representation of the majority of the Big 3 corporate types at this time. Maybe in the past, but not now. They seem to have come to the conclusion that they can’t continue to say ignore the man behind the curtain. The problem with them saying that their products are equal to the foriegn products in quality is that there is no reason for anybody to believe that they are telling the truth. Afterall, they weren’t saying buy the Chevy Nogo, it’s pile of excrement made in the USA. Why should we believe them now when they say that the new Chevy Nogo is great. Maybe it is, but I’ve got no reason to think so.
Dynamic 88
…And what about the imports that I also ignore? If I don’t shop Mazda will I regret buying a Civic. Not very likely.
Clearly you haven’t driven a Mazda3 or Mazdaspeed Mazda3. ;-) You are definitiely missing out buying a Civic or Corolla.
Dynamic 88
Would I miss out bying an Accord rather than an Impala?
After driving a rental Impala earlier this year, I can unequivocally say, no they wouldn’t. When I got back home and behind the wheel of my Mazda6s I was very tired (red-eye flight home), but once I took the first sweeping on ramp onto the freeway under heavy acceleration, a smile began to creep across my face. I can’t imagine who buys Impalas unless its one of those, I’ll-never-buy-jap-tin-it’s-unamerican types who never test drive anything outside of Chevy and possibly Ford or Chrysler. I haven’t driven an Accord or Camry in a while, but I can’t believe that they aren’t head and shoulders obove an Impala.
Detroit’s mistake was to ignore its passenger car business in favor of light trucks, because there was initially less competition in this segment, and their profits were higher on trucks than on cars.
Good point. Here’s a wild thought. Rather than increasing compensation for their employees-top to bottom all got richer-and paying dividends to their stock holders, maybe the first thing they should have done was put money back into research and came up with a better engine, a better transmission, a better car to beat the foriegn competition in other vehicle segments. Then what is left over can go to the stockholders and finally to the employees from the bottom to the top, inclusive.
RLJ676
For all your guys comments about whining, it seems that you are just whining about why yours or anyones “bigoted” purchase without considering all competitive vehicles was rational.
Actually I did something that flag wavers don’t, I test drove dozens of vehicles in an attempt to find the right one for me. I settled on a Mazda6 because based on my test drives and research it was the best combination of size, performance, reliability, and price. Yet, I somehow find it offensive that I was told I made wrong decision by not buying a Malibu or whatever “American” car.
lumbergh21 –
Actually I did something that flag wavers don’t, I test drove dozens of vehicles in an attempt to find the right one for me. I settled on a Mazda6 because based on my test drives and research it was the best combination of size, performance, reliability, and price. Yet, I somehow find it offensive that I was told I made wrong decision by not buying a Malibu or whatever “American” car.
I recently took my car in for service and was given a basic Mazda6 4-cyl automatic as a loaner -I was really impressed at the competency of the Mazda and by the excellent automatic transmission. That’s coming from someone who doesn’t buy automatics. While I might have wished for more power, the 4-cyl was more than adequate and had no problem merging onto the freeway or finding the right gear in kickdown. I did rent the “Lincoln” version of this car (MKZ) a couple of months ago and it was nowhere near as good as the Mazda, despite having a stronger V6 and all the goodies in the interior. If only Mazda built a rear wheel drive car larger than the excellent Miata.
PCH “Your point highlights yet another problem with Detroit — your benchmarks are completely off the mark. Instead of benchmarking the last generation Detroit product, you need to identify your best competitors and BEAT them.”
This is our point. There are domestic cars that BEAT the competition. They have better styling, better drive, better value, etc, and in some cases better quality. Your poor inference skills that we’re saying buy a worse car is just dead wrong. You wouldn’t know this though if the car is automatically not considered.
kixstart “Re: “No big deal…”
Your clear implication is that it’s all water under the bridge. It’s not.
As a result of that, and having been perfectly happy with something else, Detroit must put on a good show.
Equal quality (not just a few models). Great value. Great dealer service. ”
This flat out shows you either can’t comprehend what you read, or just misrepresent to meet your agenda. I flat out said IT WAS A BIG DEAL, that this is obviously the kind of problem that got Detroit to this point.
Lumbergh “Actually I did something that flag wavers don’t, I test drove dozens of vehicles in an attempt to find the right one for me. I settled on a Mazda6 because based on my test drives and research it was the best combination of size, performance, reliability, and price. Yet, I somehow find it offensive that I was told I made wrong decision by not buying a Malibu or whatever “American” car.”
Well, good job not understanding the article. Phil suggested people consider domestics and not blanketly disregard them simply because their domestic. Assuming you drove/considered domestic options before purchase, you are not at all who he is referencing in this case. You bought what you found you like best after considering the options. Further, buying a Mazda is rarely done for quality as the main concern, making your story even farther from the case he describes.
It continues to amaze me how many people are “offended” and “disproving” this article without understanding what it’s premise even is.
Anyone, and I mean anyone who compares a rental to a car you would actually buy is doing the automotive industry a disservice. I know of no person who maintains their car the same way they take care of a rental car. After about 3 months ALL rental cars except for a few are in no way comparable to one I would buy after after 3 months. I recently rented a car from a large rental company ( not rent a wreck although it seemd that way). The car was a compact and had many shortcomings. Uncomfortable seats, ugly dash, horrible sound system. After I returned home I asked a friend who owned the same make and model car with roughly the same mileage. What a difference. His was a joy drive, my rental sucked and confirmed why I hate renting a car.
Queensmet, that is exactly the point by many of these posters, to do disservice to the auto industry (specifically the Big 3).
You are dead right about not really being able to compare a stripper model, run into the ground rental to a privately owned car.
RLJ676, You said it was a big deal, AT THE TIME. Yep, it sure was. But you restricted this to AT THE TIME. No… it endures. It’s still a big deal. That’s what you miss. No one forgets. They might forgive but they don’t forget. For forgiveness, Ford has to offer something special.
—
The last rental car I had – a Cobalt – was most certainly not stripped. It had upgraded everything. I was quite happy to get back to my 5-year older Toyota, which had fewer squeaks and rattles and an interior that looks closer to new.
—
Dynamic88 asked an important question, something like, will I miss out on anything if I just buy the Civic?
The answer is, no, you won’t. The Civic is a great car. Even if the Cobalt (or whatever) was a better car, you were happy with the previous Civic and you’ll be happy with this one. You will get a quality vehicle that will serve you well. You won’t know what you’re missing and you won’t care. And there’s nothing whatever wrong with that.
You’ll also have, from the outset, peace of mind. The last one (or two or … six) was (were) reliable, so you’ll fall asleep every night knowing the car will start and take you to work.
If you can get satisfaction just by going to the previous vendor and getting the same car, why go through a lot of anguish over what to buy? If you have a good relationship with the dealer and he makes it plain he values repeat business (the Toyota dealer is like that), it’s a fast, smooth, easy process that gets you into a new car with minimal hassle and aggravation.
RLJ676:
Maybe you failed to read the entire article including the end where he says,
“Having driven the primary competitors in the volume car biz, I’m convinced that if a million import bigots dropped their bias against domestic iron and truly reconsidered what constitutes meaningful difference in a car comparison, they’d make the right choice– and not regret it. And we’d all be stronger for it.”
Now based on the entire article, beginning with the title, what choice do you suppose he’s referring to? In all of your posts what choice have you been defending and what choice have you been attacking? Finally, the post that you are quoting was primarily in response to one of your posts not the article. I have written several posts in response to the article itself and many more in response to other posters. I guess I didn’t make it clear by quoting your post that I was responding to one of your statements (the one that I quoted). Let me make it clear, this is in response to your latest post directed towards me not in response to the original article.
There are domestic cars that BEAT the competition.
See, that’s the sad part — the cheerleaders really believe that. It’s why things in Detroit are so slow to change, because you really believe that you have nothing left to do but to convince the market of how right you are.
The domestic products, I am sad to say, don’t generally even come close to beating the competition. That’s the entirety of the problem. In virtually every category, there is another brand that delivers more of what it is supposed to than the competing domestic. The few recent arrivals that are promising are too new to judge for long-term reliability, so caution is merited and the market will need to see results before moving those few vehicles up the list.
Usually, the only advantage that the domestic offers is an initial lower purchase price. That price is typically too low to generate much of a profit, so perhaps being the low-priced leader isn’t such a great strategy.
There is a gap, and the gap needs to be bridged and ultimately reversed if the Big 2.8 want to lead the market again. The market sees through the advertising BS and knows that what you’ve said is almost never true, so it shops elsewhere. It knows that it certainly isn’t true in the case of compact and mid-sized sedans, which are the leading passenger car segments in the US, so it goes to the brands that are most trustworthy. Given GM’s importance in the evolution of branding, if anyone should understand this, it should be them.
Lumbergh
“Now based on the entire article, beginning with the title, what choice do you suppose he’s referring to? In all of your posts what choice have you been defending and what choice have you been attacking? Finally, the post that you are quoting was primarily in response to one of your posts not the article. I have written several posts in response to the article itself and many more in response to other posters. I guess I didn’t make it clear by quoting your post that I was responding to one of your statements (the one that I quoted). Let me make it clear, this is in response to your latest post directed towards me not in response to the original article.”
You’re entitled to be offended by his opinion of right choice, but you still are not what he’s (or I) am getting at. You considered all options (domestic or foreign) in a category and chose what suits you, that’s all that’s asked. If you are looking for a sporty (ie zoom-zoom) sedan and can’t spring for a 3 series I agree the Mazda 6 is a good choice. I just think you should check out a Fusion as well to see which is better for you (which it sounds like you did).
What the article is about and my point is to not DISMISS something based on it being a domestic brand. If you check it out, and it isn’t better to you, don’t buy it. If you want to add the benefit to the country and therefore to you, into your decision please do. If you’ve read through alot of these posts no one claims that a domestic is ALWAYS the right choice.
Kixstart,
If you don’t place any value on bang for buck, than blindly choosing a civic won’t “hurt” probably. However, what would be so painful in considering a few other options? I suspect buyers in this class are trying to save money though. And as I keep saying, it’s a subjective purchase and I find the Civic ugly with a terrible dash, but the competition in that market isn’t great either.
RLJ676:
“This is our point. There are domestic cars that BEAT the competition. They have better styling, better drive, better value, etc, and in some cases better quality.”
Care to offer some examples? Or perhaps your only “evidence” for this argument is Ford’s latest “Swap Your Ride” commercial? I mean, really, enough beating around the bush – just spell it out for us, would you? Which models are so “clearly superior”?
And no, I don’t place much value on “bang for my buck”, especially if thats the only thing a vehicle has going for it. I’m not going to buy a car because it’s the cheapest in its segment but doesn’t have any qualities that elevate it above its competition.
And if you had read my posts way-back-when, you would have seen that I’m a Nissan/Infiniti guy. Who lives in Oklahoma.
I like RLJ’s attitude that the Japanese imports are just lifeless “appliances” and that the Domestics are the real “driver’s cars”. What a riot! You think the Big 3 are really pumping out that much “driving excitement”? Sure, the Camry has always provided a quiet, serene (boring) ride, but I suppose that’s what lures in so many buyers. Plus, the Japanese sedans have all been increasing power in an effort to add some “sport” to their otherwise sedate family-ready sedans. Have you driven an Infiniti G35? Is that an appliance?
So please, enlighten me as to which Domestic cars exude performance as compared to their appliance-like rivals. And please don’t cite the Corvette.
Macca,
So you can cite whatever import you want, but the vette’s out because it doesn’t suit your agenda? Doesn’t seem fair. How about Mustang? Sorta like taking statements about Camry’s and applying to a G35, also doesn’t apply. But in the same way, I don’t think that the Camry’s quality reputation should be applied to Nissan as it’s probably not the first place people shop on quality. So G35 to Camcord is a apples to oranges.
There are many different classes, and it’s acknowledged not all of them have competitive cars. In your cases up until the 08 CTS there hasn’t been a truly competitive domestic rear drive, near luxury sport sedan. I would prefer a 3 series to a G, and as a matter of fact have purchased a 330I (before joining the auto industry) over a G35 or IS350, but I also considered the Zephyr (no RWD or even AWD at time) and prior CTS (junk interior). So in this class, if you go straight to the G35 I still think you’re missing the best car, but the compeititon from domestics has not been compelling really until the newest CTS.
Work crowded out this thread for me for a few days, and as I watched my phone email scroll up a new batch of messages, I saw we’re headed for 800 posts. Let’s give it a nudge.
We know what consumers prefer, because they go out and buy what they want.
Which says nothing about why they want what they’re buying. Nothing. All of the backward-looking survey tallies only represent the portion of the market willing to respond to surveys, and people are communicating after-the-fact in the context of having been asked and in the post-purchase psychology. To be sure, some of those buyers have purchased a car they believe to be objectively superior, and they may have even researched their choice. But some of the market bought on hearsay, social momentum, peer sensitivity, impulse, subjective evaluation and, even, outright ignorance of alternatives.
you think that consumers are stupid and bigoted, and if they only knew more about the domestics that they’d start buying domestics. But in fact, the opposite is true — the more information that becomes available, the more successful that Honda and Toyota become. The market is shifting ever more deeply toward those two brands (with Nissan a fairly distant third), so obviously, those brands have figured something out about how to appeal to customers.
As far as I can tell, *you’re* the only one here who thinks the customer is stupid, because you’re the one who says we think so when in fact no one has questioned the customer’s intelligence. Is this sublimated disdain emerging? I know *some* of the market exhibits bigoted buying behavior and it’s specifically import bigots I want to see behavior change in. Indeed if people who know nothing of domestic cars sampled the best of them, more domestic cars would be sold. Not in the same increment as there are import bigots but some, perhaps enough to meaningfully change the economic balance. The shift to Toyota appears more pronounced on a model basis but on a platform basis, GM and Ford have less of a disadvantage than cursory review of sales indicates. It’s not at all clear that the best way to close the remainingg sales gap would be to simply build a more perfect Camry, however.
The strongly risk adverse, reliability-oriented buyer makes up about 15-20% of the market, if JD Power is to be believed. Those buyers are smart to avoid domestics for the reasons already presented — the domestic products are not competitive for their needs.
The risk-averse are not smart to avoid domestics that are competitive; they’re merely risk averse acting on backward-looking data. Intelligence isn’t the governing personal asset here, the personal emotion of fear is.
It will take many YEARS of consistent results to reach these people.
Possibly, even probably. Unless some of that group are peeled from their fear by a more compelling concern that opens their minds to domestic alternatives prior to the natural trust cycle kicking in. Even this fear-motivated consumer is free to change his operating assumptions.
But this “automotive expense” calculation does not take into account the real and imagined expenses that the consumer actually faces when the car goes fffft. Daycare missed? Appointment missed? Begging rides… again? Just plain aggravation?
Aggravation and inconvenience can easily outrank actual expenses as a resentment instigator, I agree. However, buying from among the current and coming competitive domestic models puts you at no more meaningful risk than buying an import.
If I intend to buy a totally new type of car (a Volt or a Prius, for example) and I have a choice between a company, A, with a proven process for delivering a totally new car that’s remarkably free of bugs and a company, B, that has never delivered a totally new car that’s remarkably free of bugs, which one should I choose? While it’s true that A may make mistakes, they do have a way of delivering a reliable car.
In the case of Volt vs. Prius, Volt. Volt is simpler, being a serial hybrid. It is technically more elegant. If as a consumer you’re accepting the compromises of a hybrid, then Volt is the simpler way to attain the same result.
The customer already understands who the home team is and the customer would like to like the home team
Actually, for a portion of the import market, this isn’t true. There are import buyers who emphatically don’t want to like the home team and they are blissfully unaware of what manufacturers comprise the home team or reasons to keep them in the game.
The gap in brands is what’s key. The consumer is not motivated to analyze Detroit quality model by model…
Expanding the context for their buying decision is new motivation to alter that apathy.
What I don’t like is the suggestion that people have some sort of OBLIGATION to include the domestics on their shopping list, and that if they don’t they are “import bigots” or somehow causing the downfall of America.
Obligation? No. You’re free to reject any notion of obligation. But if you understand the population drivers of American society looking forward and the desirability of a variegated economy, and that comprehension leads you to appreciate the value of the Detroit 3 as domestically-owned and operated companies, then the difference between reason and obligation will be scant. If you refuse to consider domestics that evidence real change for the better, you are in fact exhibiting bigoted buying behavior. But I haven’t suggested that you’d be causing the downfall of America. More like a truncation of our potential to offer the widest occupational choices to the only growth-based large developed society for the next century.
I also don’t like the suggestion that people who have been burned by the domestics in the not-too-distant past are being irrational for sticking with vehicles that have proven to be reliable, comfortable and able to meet their needs.
You’re free not to like it. I don’t say people who have stuck with proven cars are irrational. Rather that people who refuse to consider and evaluate what’s changed for the better, among the offerings of the domestic makers they are self-interested in seeing continue, are operating on bias and outdated assumptions. They are irrational if they appreciate the larger social context of their buying power, see the value in retaining the Detroit 3, yet avoid everything they make.
If Detroit is out of time…well, that is Detroit’s fault.
Fair enough. It is Detroit’s fault that they have to fight their way out of this hole. BUT if they fail, the consequences are ours to bear. An evolved, mature person sets aside blame for another day when assessing what they can do to avert a problem they will have to pay the consequences for not solving. These companies are mending their prior destructive ways. They have some unique problems that are induced by aspects of our social, economic and political realities that we all share responsibility for and yet the affected companies are surging in the competitiveness of their products. What’s the point of continuing vituperative resentment directed at people who mostly weren’t present for the egregious mistakes of the past? If you see the current existential threat to these companies and wish to keep them in our economic mix, the time for resentment has passed.
Nobody wants a Chevy Accord — the person who wants an Accord will buy a real one. If they are going to switch from an Accord, the alternative had to be clearly superior and/or different in an interesting way.
I agree with this. That Camry and Accord sell in volume is testament to the dysfunction of the market. Camry is a mediocre design well executed, with its former strength of convincing superficials now slipping. Accord is more sharply engineered and satisfying but finds itself outsold by the inferior Camry, and is also slipping in its former excellence on the superficial factors that impress people in the showroom. They ought to be wanted less, and it is lack of distinctive alternatives that drives some of their sales strength. Too many builders are trying to build exactly the same car.
****
All of the talk about the alleged gap between contemporary domestic and import engineering and manufacturing is moot. Whatever differences remain have shrunk to the point of not being meaningful to one’s estimate of trouble. Sample-to-sample inconsistency within a model or a manufacturer is a greater real risk than general operating integrity of a well-made model, particularly if the best of the domestics define your choice universe along with the imports. Pinch all you want, the cited quality gap (which I’ve personally avoided in over two decades of domestic vehicles) if it remains at all is a tiny fraction of the differential measured a decade or more ago. When I wrote the original article, I presumed intense opposition from a core committed subset of import loyalists, defenders and bigots. None of that is surprising. What is surprising is inability to assimilate the basic argument and respond to it directly.
ALL of this is distraction from the main point: are the perceived quality differentials between reliable imports and domestics worth incurring the social costs of losing the Detroit 3 as domestically-owned manufacturers before they have a chance to complete their reform? This is a simple proposition. Nowhere in any of my communications has there been any reference to “flag-waving.” Not even a fleeting advocacy for buying patriotically has seen mention. I’ve not written nor implied that an import buyer is un-American. Yet the rabid opposition has willfully distorted this discussion by injecting these terms into the discussion. It’s a distraction and it is logically invalid.
I have posited that a sizable percentage of the import buying car market in the US is comprised of import bigots — people who will not educate themselves about the changed output of the Detroit 3 to even-handedly evaluate them along with their target imports. I am unrepentant regarding the use of the term, for it is descriptive. No volume of words here will cause retraction. Think denotatively, not connotatively. Being an import bigot doesn’t associate you with the KKK. As a marketer, I’ve spent a good part of my life creating bigoted buying behavior in multiple sectors of the economy, and I’ve succeeded. But this wasn’t written as marketing advice. It’s an observation of both a behavior and the socio-economic dysfunction resulting. Citizen to citizen, I’ve pointed out that there is more to your self-interest in your automotive buying decision, if you live in the United States, than the car and your ego’s attachment to an idea of a a tenable choice.
Is there *anything* about this appeal that excuses Detroit for past lapses? No. Is there anything about this that violates free market principles? No. Is there anything about this that involves whining? No. I have identified a problem and put aside my past disappointment with the Detroit 3.
All of these allegations to the contrary amount to a variety of logical diversions that avoid the central issue: the purchasing power of consumers establishes their responsibility for the economy they live in. You can reflexively or objectively buy an import car and be beyond criticism, but not beyond comment. Comment is the right of anyone observing your behavior and its consequences. You have the right to say, “I don’t care; I’m not willing to use my purchasing power to improve the chances of the Detroit 3.” If that’s the case, than put your chin forward and say it. All this arguing that “see, there’s this (skinny) quality gap that still exists…or used to…and might still…” is just rationalization for avoiding what you really want to say, which is “I don’t care.” And you have every right to not care.
Some people say, “I’d love to see the Detroit car makers succeed.” Only to point out they “…need 3 , 5 or 10 years of ownership data for new models to prove the maker has made lasting gains in quality before I’ll put my money on the table…” OK, that’s your right. But if all of us who are willing to give the Detroit 3 an honest chance aren’t in fact enough, then the loss of these companies will send some questions in the direction of the import bigots who never even learned of the progress made in domestic products. At the end of the day, there will be people who put their money on your future as well as their own, and others who refused to consider the whole. There’s simply no denying this. I just want the reflexive import and transplant buyer to look hard at the purchase they are about to make in the absence of any evaluation of domestic equivalents and answer for themselves: “Is it worth losing the American carmakers?” If the only answer you can give me is, “…it’s their fault and the only thing I have to go on is past performance…” then your answer to that question is “yes.”
Does that mean everyone has to buy domestic? No. I don’t even want them to. I’m asking import car shoppers to openly and genuinely consider the competitive domestic alternatives. Whether you find them par or slightly behind, in the larger social context is the import purchase worth its consequences. Some will say yes, and they arrived at their decision after objective evaluation. Fine, you’ve done what I ask. But some will say no. They’ll say no, not realizing that they’d lost touch with how good the best domestic products are. And they might reevaluate their selection criteria, realizing that small differences have become picayune. If you think the differences are large, then perhaps you’re looking at the wrong American cars.
All the other talk of rationale, rationalization and justification of consumer rage is an interesting faceted view into the mentality of a specific kind of data-driven, reputation-obsessed consumer. Interesting, but an elaborate diversion from the central advocacy of my editorial. Don’t like being considered an import bigot? Then don’t be one. You don’t think bigoted buying behavior exists? Your world is a fantasy. Can’t separate from a patriotic appeal my case for conscious use of your purchasing power as a shaper of the world you live in? That’s your comprehension problem, or your willful misrepresentation of my advocacy.
However, for everyone who has or will give their reflexive import preference a second thought and enlarge the scope of their evaluation, you’ve understood me perfectly.
Phil
RLJ676:
“So you can cite whatever import you want, but the vette’s out because it doesn’t suit your agenda? Doesn’t seem fair. How about Mustang? Sorta like taking statements about Camry’s and applying to a G35, also doesn’t apply. But in the same way, I don’t think that the Camry’s quality reputation should be applied to Nissan as it’s probably not the first place people shop on quality. So G35 to Camcord is a apples to oranges.”
No, the Vette’s out because it’s a $45k+ performance car – not a ~$30k sedan suited for daily driving. Plus it’s just plain silly to think that a niche car like the Vette is really going to turn Chevy around.
Plus, I’d rather shop Nissan/Infiniti for quality over the domestics.
Although my phrasing was poorly assembled, it was not my intention to compare the G35 to the “Camcord”. Just wondering if you thought the G was an “appliance car”.
Phil Ressler:
“All of the talk about the alleged gap between contemporary domestic and import engineering and manufacturing is moot. Whatever differences remain have shrunk to the point of not being meaningful to one’s estimate of trouble.”
Keep telling yourself that.
Macca
“Keep telling yourself that”
Keep denying it and miss out on better cars.
If you want to shop Nissan that’s fine, but if you throw everything else out that makes you an “import (Nissan) bigot” as previously defined. You may end up in a good car, but miss out on a better one.
RLJ676:
“Keep denying it and miss out on better cars.”
“Better” by your standards, not mine. Remember, I’m not putting on a blindfold when I shop for cars – I’ve done my research and looked at the competitors. I’ve just so happened to remain brand loyal for over a decade now because that particular brand has yet to let me down and they create vehicles that meet my standards and needs. Based on my standards, everything in the Nissan/Infiniti lineup trumps the Domestic competition.
Kudos for finally naming a Domestic that’s competitive (CTS) but the only-used-a-straight-edge styling (subjective, of course) doesn’t do much for me. As for BMW, I’d rather have a rear-drive sports sedan that spent more time in my garage than my mechanics. BMWs just don’t have the longevity for my money and require too much upkeep.
But I’m still dying to know, what other Domestics are the clear “winners” in your book? That is, against the Camry (and it’s recent “downfall”) and the Accord? And you’d be remiss to leave out the highly competitive Altima. Name some names.
Fusion is in my opinion a much better choice than camcord, and I believe this is backed by 3rd party choices as well but I’m sure they are meaningless. Quality is better according to these sources, along with styling, AWD, value etc. Basically the Fusion challenge, while hokey as being ran “through” C&D and R&T, is real data.
I also like the Aura and the new Malibu looks pretty good, and is getting good reviews for materials, craftmanship, etc.
I’ve been in the 07 Camry and there is nothing to be impressed with on the interior, and the styling is awful (subjective of course). The 08 Accord is much better in my mind, but I still prefer Fusion and think others would as well if looking at all the evidence. This gets to the core of this discusion though, is should you ignore it because your 90 Aerostar or whatever was crappy?
The point is you can’t assign a true winner if you’re judging a one pony contest.
OK, so we’ve come full circle —
-All the surveys that disagree with Mr. Ressler are apparently just wrong. The Rule of Ressler — ignore all data that contradicts the proclamations of Mr. Ressler.
-The reliability data is “backward” in nature, therefore we can’t use it. The promise of reliability is apparently good enough (even if that promise has been broken more than once.)
-The cars are competitive, because Mr. Ressler says they are competitive. Since the market is a great mystery to all of us (with those useless survey and sales figures), we should instead base our assessments of competitiveness upon Mr. Ressler’s opinion of competitiveness.
I believe that Mr. Ressler serves as a good proxy for Detroit, an indignant, sputtering Father Knows Best mentality that earnestly believes that the customer is out of touch. Which might explain those declining market share figures.
Fine, let’s suppose for the sake of argument that the market is out of touch and the dumb consumer can’t hold a candle to Mr. Ressler. If that’s the case, then why not just fool the poor dumb customer, as Toyota, Honda et. al. apparently have, by giving them something that they want, even if they should prefer something else? Wouldn’t meeting the demands of this dumb, unruly customer be an easier way to make money, keep people employed and help the shareholders?
Until reading this, I had never realized that a Cobalt is not merely a sub-par compact car that can’t compete in its class, but is actually a superb statement about the independence of the American spirit and the willingness to be a lone voice in a wilderness of appliance-driven conformity. It’s really the consumer’s fault for not appreciating the coarseness of the engine. And the additional trips to the mechanic should be lauded for the added opportunity that they provide for human interaction with the mechanics and tow truck drivers whom we might not otherwise be so fortunate to meet. God bless us all, everyone.
RLJ676
Yawn, lack or real sources or data makes for a fairly uninteresting post. Would you like to provide a link or a citation perhaps or would the injection of actual data into your worldview be detrimental to its existence?
And about that Fusion challenge, here’s one person’s view on the event. http://purdrivel.blogspot.com/2007/01/ride-and-drive-aka-fusion-challenge.html
KBW,
The reason I’m not linking to CR which has found it more reliable is I was giving MY opinion. Just as the link you provided was an opinion, certainly not proving anything. His comment on the interior looking bad because it was black as opposed to tan showed how thorough he is I guess.
If you want to deny all of the findings that domestic quality has improved feel free. However that is what we are talking about here, people like that are “import bigots.”
You can do your own research pretty easily, just google Ford Fusion consumer reports, and page after page of “Ford quality gains and Toyota slips” shows up. This doesn’ mean passes, or all makes are better, but it is pretty evident the gap is not what it was. Here, since you seem unaware of this here’s that search
http://www.google.com/search?q=ford+fusion+consumer+reports&hl=en&start=10&sa=N
I’m fully aware of that particular article, but you seem to be unaware of its contents. Perhaps a few snippets will remind you of what the article actually states.
ToMoCo now slots beneath Honda, Acura, Scion and Subaru.
Of the 39 cars rated “most reliable,” the domestics scored just four nods. Of the 44 “least reliable” models, The Big 2.8 accounted for 20. And the biggest loser is… the Solstice, with 234 percent less reliability than CR’s statistical average.
Note the lack of domestics in the top 5 and abundance of domestics on the least reliable list.
Besides, this has no bearing on me since I would not purchase a Toyota product anyways. (lack of manual transmission on anything but the cheapest cars) Likewise, I would not purchase any of the mainstream Ford or GM products for the same reason.
-All the surveys that disagree with Mr. Ressler are apparently just wrong. The Rule of Ressler — ignore all data that contradicts the proclamations of Mr. Ressler.
You have trouble with either comprehension or willingness to accurately represent another’s view. I didn’t say the surveys are wrong. I said they a) do not reveal as much as you claim, and b) are impertinent to my central advocacy.
-The reliability data is “backward” in nature, therefore we can’t use it. The promise of reliability is apparently good enough (even if that promise has been broken more than once.)
You can use it, but it is backward-looking and impertinent to the central argument. If backward-looking data governs your behavior, then you are communicating that you’re not interested in the survival of the companies in question, or not interested putting your skin in the game.
-The cars are competitive, because Mr. Ressler says they are competitive. Since the market is a great mystery to all of us (with those useless survey and sales figures), we should instead base our assessments of competitiveness upon Mr. Ressler’s opinion of competitiveness.
No. You should get in the relevant cars and come to your own conclusions, weighing all the factors that matter.
I believe that Mr. Ressler serves as a good proxy for Detroit, an indignant, sputtering Father Knows Best mentality that earnestly believes that the customer is out of touch. Which might explain those declining market share figures.
This is not advice for Detroit nor is it how Detroit is thinking these days.
Until reading this, I had never realized that a Cobalt is not merely a sub-par compact car that can’t compete in its class, but is actually a superb statement about the independence of the American spirit and the willingness to be a lone voice in a wilderness of appliance-driven conformity.
Nothing so lofty. Putting aside that the compact segment was already granted as an area of unresolved weakness by the Detroit 3 and not the focus of this advocacy, there are some people who simply think a Cobalt — against my expectations and yours — is in fact better for them than a Corolla or Civic.
It’s really the consumer’s fault for not appreciating the coarseness of the engine.
For some people, it’s just not important.
And the additional trips to the mechanic should be lauded for the added opportunity that they provide for human interaction with the mechanics and tow truck drivers whom we might not otherwise be so fortunate to meet.
Additional trips that are eluding most Cobalt customers. And, again, how bad is this Cobalt if its mechanical stablemate HHR is a well-regarded hit?
Wouldn’t meeting the demands of this xxx customer be an easier way to make money, keep people employed and help the shareholders?
Yes, and that’s what the Detroit 3 are doing. But people have to consider and evaluate them to know this.
And about that Fusion challenge, here’s one person’s view on the event. http://purdrivel.blogspot.com/2007/01/ride-and-drive-aka-fusion-challenge.html
To be fair, the current Ford challenge isn’t the same as the Car & Driver comparative drive chronicled by the writer at the link. The Ford Challenge swaps an import owner’s car for a Fusion, which they drive on normal roads doing the driving of their normal life.
Phil
To be fair, the current Ford challenge isn’t the same as the Car & Driver comparative drive chronicled by the writer at the link. The Ford Challenge swaps an import owner’s car for a Fusion, which they drive on normal roads doing the driving of their normal life.
The fusion challenge specifically referred to by RLJ676 is the one my link mentioned. I am fully aware of their current ad campaign. Its even more contrived than the Fusion challenge mentioned previously.
KBW “The fusion challenge specifically referred to by RLJ676 is the one my link mentioned. I am fully aware of their current ad campaign. Its even more contrived than the Fusion challenge mentioned previously.”
Contrived how? That people who previously most likely were “import bigots” were surprised by a car they didn’t consider beforehand? Contrived because it supports ideas you for various reasons don’t believe?
As to the CR articles, I was specifically talking about the Fusion, but it also notes that many other products improved. I believe 93% of Ford’s are now recommended or better. This falls in line with the quality gap is quite diminished, and shouldn’t be as big of a factor as in the past.
Mr. Ressler, your last rebuttal didn’t really elaborate on my assessment of your arguments:
-You don’t like surveys
-You don’t like data
-Consumers don’t apparently have the savvy to shop very well, i.e. buy what you would have them buy.
It may not sound very nice when described so bluntly, but that is in fact the essence of your argument.
As far as your “central argument” is concerned, I’m not sure that you even recall what it was yourself. So I’ll remind you.
Of its 805 words, the first 249 (about 30%) are dedicated to a single anecdote which describes a Mercedes owner as a coward and implicitly congratulates you for your bravery and independence. (Oh, if only all of us could have even a fraction of the Courage of Ressler.)
The next 282 words (about 35%) are devoted to blaming the customer (the “360 degree” thing), claiming that consumer preferences are often “pointless,” and your belief that “American consumers share an irrational belief that American-made goods are inherently inferior to those produced by Japanese, German and even Korean manufacturers.” (Notice the use of the term “irrational belief.”) This is summarized as a reflection of the consumer being “unfair.”
The remainder of the text goes on about the American economy, before wrapping up with a 51-word pronouncement that there are one million “import bigots” (which has been as easy to produce as was McCarthy’s “list” of Communists during the Red Scare.)
So really, the core of your argument is built upon this irrational/cowardly consumer argument — that is, after all, about two-thirds of what this article is about. Unfortunately for you, we see from the data that not only is there a real, demonstrable gap in the products, but that buyers who are domestic avoiders avoid them because of this gap.
And apparently, you must have forgotten the degree to which you committed to this position. Beecause since the article was written, you have in fact admitted to the gap. So even you aren’t really convinced by the original work.
It’s easy to see why the data troubles you so much, as its use torpedoes your argument completely. The position that comprises two-thirds of your article is wiped out by means of a few minutes spent with Google or in the reference section of a public library.
I am always highly suspicious of those who try to dismiss data for its inconvenience and in the absence of a compelling rebuttal. This article serves as a good reminder why that suspicion is wise to maintain.
I am fully aware of their current ad campaign. Its even more contrived than the Fusion challenge mentioned previously.
Accepting that both are marketing initiatives, how is the current Fusion challenge “more contrived” than a comparo on a closed-course in a large parking lot or on a track?
Phil
Phil: “As far as I can tell, *you’re* the only one here who thinks the customer is stupid, because you’re the one who says we think so when in fact no one has questioned the customer’s intelligence.”
“Stupid” is probably a bit of an overstatement. However, the entire point to your article is that the consumer is working against his own best interests. Let us suppose, just for one second, that this is true: why would the consumer decide his behavior was suboptimal and do something about it? No reason at all.
And there’s no reason to believe the consumer is not acting in his own best interests. Your premise requires the consumer be unaware that Detroit’s got troubles. Who doesn’t know that? The consumer would have to be unaware that Detroit is a big factor in the economy. Who doesn’t know that? I mean, of people who are likely to read your screed at all. Your premise requires that they have no awareness of JDPowers, Consumer reports and other sources. They probably read the papers. They are car buying without any understanding of the value propostion of Detroit. That’s probabaly not the case; the “value proposition” of Detroit is all over the Sunday papers. By the way, the biggest Toyota dealer in the area doesn’t advertise in the Sunday paper. Apparently, they don’t need to. I think they do a lot of repeat business.
The consumer just is not shifting very fast and they likely have their own good reasons for it.
I would say it’s from a lack of faith in the product. That takes time.
The consumer is not broken. You can’t fix him.
Phil: “That Camry and Accord sell in volume is testament to the dysfunction of the market.”
Ummm… no, the Camry and Accord sell in volume because people like them, in many cases having owned previous generations and the cars hold up well for years. The consumer is making a smart choice. It’s possible it’s not the best choice but it’s still satisfying to the consumer, so he’s going to continue to make it.
Phil: “Think denotatively, not connotatively. Being an import bigot doesn’t associate you with the KKK.”
I guess you should have used a different word. You could have said “domestic avoiders.” But I see why you didn’t… because that brings us back to the JDP survey and damned if those “domestic avoiders” don’t have good reasons for what they’re doing.
Phil: “Use your economic power to shape…”
I do, I do. I vote for continued excellence. I vote for class-leading fuel economy. I vote for durable, yet pleasant interiors. I vote for long-lasting, reliable cars.
Phil: “[Camry and Accord]… convincing superficials…” “… superficial factors…”
What ARE you smoking? The reliability and longevity of a vehicle, from which Toyota and Honda get their reputations, is part and parcel of its reason for existence. It sits in your garage and awaits the call. When it does not answer the call, it is a useless, no matter how decorative, lump of metal. These are some of the most essential factors of a vehicle.
Phil: “The risk-averse are not smart to avoid domestics that are competitive; they’re merely risk averse acting on backward-looking data. Intelligence isn’t the governing personal asset here, the personal emotion of fear is.”
Unfortunately, reliablity history is, well, historical. We’re not privy to Detroit’s processes and policies, so we don’t know if the workers are *really* empowered to find and solve problems and whether or not the design team is still just pitching designs over the wall to manufacturing and whether or not they’re sourcing parts for cheapness or durability. Competitive is partly defined by reliability. That’s just one of life’s unfortunate realities. You’ll have to learn to live with it.
And congratulations on using another loaded term, “fear.” The words “prudence” and “caution” actually make more sense.
Phil: “All of the talk about the alleged gap between contemporary domestic and import engineering and manufacturing is moot. Whatever differences remain have shrunk to the point of not being meaningful to one’s estimate of trouble.”
Is that straight from Bob Lutz?
As for Phil’s assertion that the Volt is less complicated, that’s true enough. But! It’s still entirely new tech! Has GM ever proven it can get a totally new car to market, in quantity, trouble-free?
Of course, thanks to GM’s technological laggership, I don’t have the choice of an unproven Prius against an unproven Volt in 2009… or 2010… or … whenver… The Prius has now been around for 3 years. It’s only the Volt that will be unproven in 2009… or 2010… or… whenever.
kixstart “I guess you should have used a different word. You could have said “domestic avoiders.” But I see why you didn’t… because that brings us back to the JDP survey and damned if those “domestic avoiders” don’t have good reasons for what they’re doing.”
I don’t understand how JDP survey’s saying domestics are improving are of no use, don’t take enough things into account, etc, which everyone pointed out earlier are now enough good reasons to buy imports?
So a domestic excells (or even shows signifigant improvement) in JDP Appeal, initial quality, etc = meaningless.
Import does the same = reason to be an import bigot.
This is basically the theme of the thread.
The Volt will have a 16kWh battery pack. At current market rates this will cost 6k for the cells in that battery. Since deeply discharging these cells is a bad idea, you will need additional capacity to cover the fact that you are only discharging cells 50% or so. In total, the battery alone will likely cost 10k if they go the correct route. A simple way of cutting corners on this car would be to discharge the battery pack more deeply. This would lead to superior performance in the short run, but impact battery reliability. Given GM’s history of bean counting, I would be quite cautious before buying one of these things.
Phil Ressler:
“If backward-looking data governs your behavior, then you are communicating that you’re not interested in the survival of the companies in question, or not interested putting your skin in the game.”
Huh? Why on Earth would I be interested in the survival of said companies? They got themselves in this trouble after multiple decades of generating crap-on-wheels. It’s their fault, and it’s not my “duty” to get them out of the hole. Their downfall would just serve to show that the latest “bridge the gap” efforts were too-little, too-late.
“Not interested in putting my skin in the game”? Where do you come up with this stuff? Buying a car shouldn’t involve putting my “skin” in any “game”. It’s not a game, or at least it shouldn’t have to be. That’s why I’m a domestic-avoider. Aside from lacking refinement and fit-and-finish in the segments I’m interested in, I don’t want my car purchase to have to be a “game” of “will it float?”.
KixStart
“The fact is, Phil has not proven the existence of “import bigots.” I challenged you and you responded that Phil had done so. That’s not correct. If you’re convinced of their existence take your swing at it. Provide evidence. Provide evidence that clearly identifies bigoted behavior.”
You can’t be serious.
Lets take the imports out of it. When you see one of those redneck pickup trucks that have a picture of Calvin on the back window pissing on a Ford or Chevy logo, wouldn’t that mean they were a “Ford Bigot” or a “Chevy Bigot”?
Or all the Saab defenders that came in to the “In Defense of Saab” thread. Wouldn’t they be Saab-bigots?
If it makes you feel better, sub “loyalist” for bigot.
But to deny that some people don’t strongly attach themselves to a category. Wow. You can’t be serious.
-You don’t like surveys
Surveys are fine. You just have to know the limits of what they reveal.
-You don’t like data
Data is essential but not sufficient. I’m informed by data, not driven by it. More to the point of most of your posts, I’m resistant to data that is impertinent to the argument.
-Consumers don’t apparently have the savvy to shop very well, i.e. buy what you would have them buy.
Savvy and “shop very well” aren’t related here. I wrote about an insufficiency of will, not skill.
It may not sound very nice when described so bluntly, but that is in fact the essence of your argument.
Sorry, no. That’s the essence of your misstatement of my argument. Different thing.
Of its 805 words, the first 249 (about 30%) are dedicated to a single anecdote which describes a Mercedes owner as a coward and implicitly congratulates you for your bravery and independence.
I think it’s instead a recounting of a Mercedes SL owner’s own sentiment, which I go on to criticize.
The next 282 words (about 35%) are devoted to blaming the customer (the “360 degree” thing), claiming that consumer preferences are often “pointless,” and your belief that American consumers share an irrational belief that “American-made goods are inherently inferior to those produced by Japanese, German and even Korean manufacturers.” (Notice the use of the term “irrational belief.”) This is summarized as a reflection of the consumer being “unfair.”
Keeping in mind that the editorial addresses just a pie-slice of the 360 degrees of blame, these are among the points I made.
The remainder of the text goes on about the American economy, before wrapping up with a 51-word pronouncement that there are one million “import bigots” (which has been as easy to produce as was McCarthy’s “list” of Communists during the Red Scare.)
Well given that this last skims over the details unlike the prior, I can’t be sure what you understand about that section other than that you don’t like it.
So really, the core of your argument is built upon this irrational/cowardly consumer argument — that is, after all, about two-thirds of what this article is about. Unfortunately for you, we see from the data that not only is there a real, demonstrable gap in the products, but that buyers who are domestic avoiders avoid them because of this gap.
You wrongly presume a market comprised entirely of open-minded, rational, data-driven buyers, which is a fantasy. The data you cite only describes the buyer you are most familiar with — you. This is at best a plurality buyer in the import sector and perhaps smaller. Surveys do not surface the lazy buyer, the import bigot, the social acceptance buyer, the peer-sensitive buyer, etc.
And apparently, you must have forgotten the degree to which you committed to this position. Beecause since the article was written, you have in fact admitted to the gap. So even you aren’t really convinced by the original work.
Wrong. My position has been consistent. Measured gaps of any consequence are backward looking, and current metrics do not reveal differences meaningful enough to be actionable in a decision.
It’s easy to see why the data troubles you so much, as its use torpedoes your argument completely. The position that comprises two-thirds of your article is wiped out by means of a few minutes spent with Google or in the reference section of a public library.
Your rejoinder assumes that ever-smaller reported differences retain the same significance as when they were large and actionable for their magnitude. I reject this. Further, I’ve said clearly that the differences you use as rationalizations and excuses for excluding the best American machinery from consideration are not worth the social costs of losing the Detroit 3.
I am always highly suspicious of those who try to dismiss data for its inconvenience and in the absence of a compelling rebuttal. This article serves as a good reminder why that suspicion is wise to maintain.
Impertinence can be a useful rhetorical tool when others aren’t paying attention. But I am. Data has its limits until it becomes meaningful information. The total picture puts the narrow data you cite into perspective. That data can be used as an excuse to remain aloof, or as motive to get involved. Survey data tells you more about what people want you to believe than about how and why they behave as they do. Statistical research, like incidence of repair, can give you a reliabile picture of what happened, but so far these compilations lack normalized standards for comparison. There’s truth in the domestic/import quality gap in the past, and yet on a model-basis I was able to completely avoid said gap for 25 years. It has been possible to select and buy competitive American cars if you avoid the dogs for the last quarter century, and the proposition is once again ascendant.
Phil
Huh? Why on Earth would I be interested in the survival of said companies? They got themselves in this trouble after multiple decades of generating crap-on-wheels. It’s their fault, and it’s not my “duty” to get them out of the hole. Their downfall would just serve to show that the latest “bridge the gap” efforts were too-little, too-late.
They did get themselves into trouble. But you and the rest of us will pay the price of them failing. They are now doing what you want — generating quality. It isn’t your duty to buy, but it’s in your self-interest to give them a chance, if you live in the U.S. If you don’t, this thread is not germane to you. You put your skin in the game of life when you apply your purchasing power to attain objectives beyond product satisfaction alone.
Phil
Again, you’re being disingenuous.
I wrote about an insufficiency of will, not skill.
No, in your terms, the American consumer who doesn’t follow your whims is “irrational” and a “bigot.” Your words, not mine.
Incidentally, I never claimed that the consumer was completely driven by data. What I’ve said is that they know enough about the product offerings to buy the stuff that serves them best.
You don’t need to be an expert to avoid domestics. But as it turns out, all sorts of people these days avoid domestics. They see what’s out there, and they prefer other stuff.
I’ll say it one more time — I don’t know why it is so hard for you cheerleaders to just ask Detroit to build stuff that people want. If they did, they would sell it. But I think we’ve seen here that it’s that Father (GM/Ressler) Knows Best mentality that keeps them from doing it. The consumer’s job apparently is to spend, not to think.
Oddly enough, a lot of people don’t actually want less reliable products with poor workmanship, poor residuals and sub-par fuel economy within their respective class if they can be avoided. It doesn’t require Mensa membership to know that a car that works and works well is better than one that doesn’t.
I keep waiting for the curtain to draw back and to have “Phil Ressler” discovered to be no less than GM Car Czar Bob Lutz trolling us in disguise. As the Chinese say, Mr. Lutz, “Perseverance brings good fortune.”
Here’s hoping that GM, Ford and Chrysler “persevere” to build the best cars on the planet. When/if they do, we all win and even if they just try hard, the consumer is the beneficiary of their hard work.
One way or the other, the last 82 pages are evidence that competition is alive and thriving in the car biz; cars today, almost independent of origin, are light years ahead of where they were 20 years ago.
in your terms, the American consumer who doesn’t follow your whims is “irrational” and a “bigot.” Your words, not mine.
You missed the “will, not skill” part. Irrational and bigot references apply as follower to “won’t consider.”
I’ll say it one more time — I don’t know why it is so hard for you cheerleaders to just ask Detroit to build stuff that people want.
As for me, I have. As for them, they are. But that’s a different discussion entirely.
If they did, they would sell it.
If people will consider and evaluate.
But I think we’ve seen here that it’s that Father Knows Best mentality that keeps them from doing it. The consumer’s job apparently is to spend, not to think.
Fabrication. No such sentiment is part of this argument. In this rubric, the consumer’s job is to evaluate and decide, not decide sans evaluation. And to enlarge the criteria for selection.
Oddly enough, a lot of people don’t actually want less reliable products with poor workmanship, poor residuals and sub-par fuel economy within their respective class if they can be avoided. It doesn’t require Mensa membership to know that a car that works and works well is better than one that doesn’t.
And odder still that you’d make such a citation since the proposition specifically excludes reduced reliability, fuel economy, or anything else meaningful to product satisfaction.
I keep waiting for the curtain to draw back and to have “Phil Ressler” discovered to be no less than GM Car Czar Bob Lutz
Sorry. I don’t work in the auto industry. I’m easy to discover and verify.
cars today, almost independent of origin, are light years ahead of where they were 20 years ago.
And that, is a truth about cars.
Phil
JDV, I’d be perfectly happy with “loyalist.” However, Ye Olde Pundit Phil chose to use “bigot.”
It’s insulting and he’s OK with that. I’m not.
Nor has he the remotest idea of the magnitude of the attitude (bigotry, that is). He can quantify exactly none of it.
And Phil proposes that the consumer let Detroit off the hook by setting aside his natural behavior in favor of making purchase decisions the way Phil would like.
The consumer is not broken. There’s no point fixing the consumer. The consumer is delivering decisions that satisfy the consumer and when they don’t the consumer is re-evaluating past decision making processes and making changes. That’s how the market works.
Anyone who likes is, of course, free to buy a domestic car. I don’t discourage looking at them, either. I just think many are going to consider it a pointless exercise and I understand why. I’m not doing it because I don’t like the odds.
Phil’s been nattering on about “backwards-looking” data but this is the only reasonably objective data the customer has to determine a company’s priorities. Are they pushing the metal onto trucks any old which way or are they taking time to do it right? We get to judge on results and Detroit’s results, for years, were poor.
Phil’s most recent note (as of this writing, more could be on the way) suggests an extremely narrow view of “consider.” For some, consider means, “saw on the parking lot and was unimpressed.” For others, it’s “looked at reliability history and said, ‘fuggedaboudid.\'”
Detroit’s going to have to find a way to build on that.
PCH also mentioned that the consumer is making choices “that serve him best.” I think this is not quite true… I would say, “the consumer is making choices that he thinks serves him best.” How they consider their choices is part of this. This is also the case for consumers who “Don’t buy Asian.”
In any event, telling the consumer he’s doing it all wrong is not likely to yield positive results.
Okay just a couple of comments on the CR initial quality survey. Yes Toyota fell and Ford moved up, but Toyota is still third and Ford is in the teens. Toyota still has much better quality overall. By brand, the only Amercian name in the top 10 was Buick and it was 10th. While it is promising news from Ford, there is still a gap as of this year in initial quality and the Japanese still rule that category. And seriously, is there anything in the mainstream car segment that is domestic and reliable aside from the Fusion? Maybe the article should just get “import bogots” to consider the Fusion trio.
Phil,
No, survey data is not perfect…no research is. However, it is all we have and almost of all it tends to favor the idea that quality is generally ranked as :
1. Japanese/Asian makers
2. American makers
3. German/ Euro makers
While you may feel that the gap is so small as to be negligable, many of us feel it is still important enough to rule out American meatl. Put Ford in the Top 10 in a quality/reliability sirvey consistently and I will start looking. Till then, I’ll only consider the Fusion.
Mr. Ressler, I think that you need to stop trying to win the argument, and decide what it is that you are actually arguing.
One minute, you denounce the consumer as a coward who is “irrational” and whose tastes are “pointless.” The next minute, the consumer can apparently decide for himself what is competitive, and doesn’t apparently need to sacrifice anything to go domestic.
First, there was no gap. Then, the gap appeared. Oh, wait a minute — the gap then disappeared again. At this moment, I’m not even sure that you even know whether your current argument is that there is a gap or not.
I feel as if I’m in a used car lot. You’ll say anything to get us behind the wheel of that dog in the lot that has been gathering dust for weeks.
It all sounds familiar: A Resslermobile is just as good as that foreign job that I prefer…no, wait a minute, the Resslermobile isn’t just as good, it’s actually better! And there’s no gap to be found in the Resslermobile…well, OK, actually, there is a gap. But the gap is really tiny, no big deal. Forget that — there was no gap in the first place.
This line of argument of yours has become more slippery than a water park on a summer weekend. It’s a bit like the Monty Python Argument Clinic, where you’ll adopt a contrary position just for the sake of it. It might help if you would take a stand, stick with it and try to prove it. Actual data would be preferable, as Ressler Says doesn’t really cut it as an accepted source of reference.
After 20+ pages of back and forth I still can’t see what some of you think you are disproving? I see where some are spiteful towards the Big 3, but holding a grudge doesn’t make your points more valid as they seem to act.
Here are the points of contention as far as I can tell.
– Import bigots don’t exist.
This is really ignorant to think. Here is the THIRD comment on this article
“I’m living proof of said bias. My personal history with domestic cars has completely taken them off the table for future car purchases…I won’t even consider them. Unfair? Maybe…but to me they aren’t doing much to win me back either”
There’s been more saying the same. Is anyone still contending they don’t exist as defined? The quantity of them is up for debate, but that isn’t the real point of the article as far as I can tell.
-The quality gap hasn’t changed.
Again, this is pretty hard to still really believe if you are informed. There are many competitive domestics that beat or exceed imports. Further, the point is that the gap is small enough that for many it can now be secondary or further down the line in considering a new vehicle. Because everyone’s criterion is vastly different, you basically CAN NOT prove this isn’t true. Why you are trying is beyond me. Stating you don’t find the gap gone or small enough does not prove anything.
-Last is that the success of the Big 3 does not benefit the country, and a better country doesn’t benefit everyone in it.
Again, this is hard to understand how you argue against? To claim otherwise blows my mind. If any of them went under it would have consequences that would impact a great portion of the country. Further, there would be NO motivation for the transplants to continue to build here, leading to a further loss of manuf jobs in the long run as they move production to exploit cheaper labor/ exchange factors.
So for me to feel you have accomplished anything in disproving the article, it would take PROVING in ALL cases these three points are always the case. When an argument uses clarifiers like some, it takes proof that NONE exist to disprove. So all of these single points of data, and acedotes that some seem to think seal their case of proof against these things is not logical. A single example though does prove the existance of “some” (one is some) but can’t prove the counter, which is essentially impossible.
A few hundred posts ago I wondered if we could nudge this to 500. Now I wonder how far over 1,000 it will go.
Phil
“Actually, for a portion of the import market, this isn’t true. There are import buyers who emphatically don’t want to like the home team…”
OK, I can agree with that.
“…and they are blissfully unaware of what manufacturers comprise the home team or reasons to keep them in the game.”
But this is harder to believe. Even my mom knows who the US auto makers are.
Re: Fusion
Since this model has come up again, I must reiterate that it is not a domestic car, it merely wears a domestic badge. It’s a Mexican made car and that remains true, even if Ford owns the factory.
A very important element in Phil’s plea, is that we should consider the buying power we have to help shape the future economy in a way that preserves the D3. No one who takes Phil’s argument to heart could possibly be considering the Fusion.
We’ve already argued about Camcord vs Fusion and which car is actually more American. So let’s not cover that groud again.
All we really need to do is compare Fusion with it’s domestic rivals. If one really wants to support the D3, then anything actually made in this country (assuming it’s competitive) trumps the made in Mexico Fusion.
So if we really take Phil seriously, we move immediately from Camcord vs Fusion and what’s best for America, to Malibu (or some other domestic) vs. Fusion, and what’s best for America. Made in America trumps made in Mexico.
There is simply no reason to take Phil seriously, and then go about the process of choosing in a half-assed manner. Either we make supporting domestic industry part of our buying decission, or we don’t. If we do, we immediately reject American brand names produced in other countries in favor of Ameican brand names produced in America.
And Phil proposes that the consumer let Detroit off the hook by setting aside his natural behavior in favor of making purchase decisions the way Phil would like.
This is how progress is made in this world. Previously “natural” behavior is modified and then changed.
The consumer is not broken. There’s no point fixing the consumer. The consumer is delivering decisions that satisfy the consumer and when they don’t the consumer is re-evaluating past decision making processes and making changes. That’s how the market works.
OK, the consumer isn’t “broken.” Instead, some consumer behaviors are dysfunctional to their larger self-interests. Consumers are people and they exhibit deficiencies. It’s a strictly economic artifact that in this single realm of markets, participants’ deficiencies have no value assigned to them. They just are. But if you blend the social impact of purchasing power as an instrument for shaping your world, then behavior change is worth advocating and waking up consumers to this possibility.
Phil’s been nattering on about “backwards-looking” data but this is the only reasonably objective data the customer has to determine a company’s priorities. Are they pushing the metal onto trucks any old which way or are they taking time to do it right?
Even the build quality on the new generation Ford and GM products across the board demonstrates that the backward-looking data has questionable relevance to current platform products. The products are material evidence that the producers are changing in the way we want. It’s reasonable to view “reasonably objective” data as “reasonably limited” in its actionability. People here, outside of Pch101, seem to agree their vaunted data is really only the best they can get. Get up close with the car.
Put Ford in the Top 10 in a quality/reliability sirvey consistently and I will start looking. Till then, I’ll only consider the Fusion.
I recall seeing an analysis a few years ago making the point that the 50th ranked contemporary car was more reliable and better made than the 5th ranked car 15 years earlier. This general trend is the reason #1 and #20 aren’t separated by enough quality difference to be predictive of the experience you’ll have buying either.
Phil
“Here are the points of contention as far as I can tell.”
“- Import bigots don’t exist.”
I agree that it is pointless to argue their non-existance. The number, and to me more importantly their nature (I don’t believe most are eletist) is open to question.
“-The quality gap hasn’t changed.”
I don’t beleive anyone (or at least not many) have been arguing this. It seems that most believe that the gap has closed. What is being argued is how narrow it is. Some think it’s almost nil. Not everyone agrees.
“–Last is that the success of the Big 3 does not benefit the country, and a better country doesn’t benefit everyone in it.”
No one has been arguing this either. Some have suggested that laissez faire, in some Psuedo darwininan fashion gives us the strongest economy in the long run. And some have questioned how dire the situation is – can’t the D3 shrink from their current size and still survive?
This seems like a good place for an aside – so here goes. Question – would it be a smart move for the D3 to get smaller intentionally, then re-grow? It’s apparent they havn’t the cash to make competitive vehicles in all catagories. It’s equally apparent they havn’t the will to be competitive in all catagories (the deficiency in small cars has been conceeded). Would it make sense to concentrate on fewer market segments, putting all resources into being the best in class and then regrow (re-entering market segments) with newly burnished reputations?
A very important element in Phil’s plea, is that we should consider the buying power we have to help shape the future economy in a way that preserves the D3. No one who takes Phil’s argument to heart could possibly be considering the Fusion.
On the socio-economic factors, Camry vs. Fusion, Fusion. But Malibu vs. Fusion – yes, Malibu.
Now, if you take your buying power as shaper of your world seriously, it’s completely valid to value the Detroit 3 but prefer to endorse GM’s US manufacturing of a model you’re considering over Ford’s decision to locate production in a NAFTA country.
Either we make supporting domestic industry part of our buying decission, or we don’t. If we do, we immediately reject American brand names produced in other countries in favor of Ameican brand names produced in America.
Rewarding GM for Malibu’s domestic production is a legitimate narrowing of the agenda to objectively shop the Detroit 3. But if you like Fusion better than Malibu, it’s contribution to keeping Ford in the game trumps assembled in the US Camry. In a more balanced market where the Detroit companies are no longer facing an existential threat, the Fusion/Camry debate on economic leverage becomes more nuanced. If Malibu is better than both, problem solved.
Phil
Phil
” Even the build quality on the new generation Ford and GM products across the board demonstrates that the backward-looking data has questionable relevance to current platform products. The products are material evidence that the producers are changing in the way we want. It’s reasonable to view “reasonably objective” data as “reasonably limited” in its actionability. People here, outside of Pch101, seem to agree their vaunted data is really only the best they can get. Get up close with the car.”
I’m sure I can judge fit and finish and panel gaps as well as anyone. I freely confess a complete inability to tell, merely by looking, whether or not an automatic transmission will go out at 30K or run flawlessly for 250K (assuming required maintenance of course). Equally, getting up close doesn’t really tell me if the head gaskets are going to blow at at 50K or 100K. (Is there a way to tell?) This why we must reference the backward looking data (because forward looking data isn’t available except to time travellers)
“I recall seeing an analysis a few years ago making the point that the 50th ranked contemporary car was more reliable and better made than the 5th ranked car 15 years earlier. This general trend is the reason #1 and #20 aren’t separated by enough quality difference to be predictive of the experience you’ll have buying either.”
What about the top 4 ranked cars? I was happy with the reliability of my ’87 Civic. Prove to me that a particular domestic car has that reliability, and I’ll scratch that factor off as a basis for deciding between it and another Civic.
> Now, if you take your buying power as shaper of your world seriously, it’s completely valid to value the Detroit 3 but prefer to endorse GM’s US manufacturing of a model you’re considering over Ford’s decision to locate production in a NAFTA country.
It’s not only valid, it makes more sense. If our goal is the preservation of the D3 – in the US, then Fusion makes no sense.
“Rewarding GM for Malibu’s domestic production is a legitimate narrowing of the agenda to objectively shop the Detroit 3. But if you like Fusion better than Malibu, it’s contribution to keeping Ford in the game trumps assembled in the US Camry. …”
Even if I agreed with that statement, Malibu still trumps the Fusion, and the differences between the cars are not “actionable”, especially considering the goal of having a healthy and varied economy in the US.
“If Malibu is better than both, problem solved.”
That’s what I’m saying. No one considering the Fusion can genuinely be taking the socio-economic factors to heart.
Question – would it be a smart move for the D3 to get smaller intentionally, then re-grow?
There are several scenarios for this, but all have a major flaw: it’s a grow-or-die business. The Brits tried this. Isuzu is seeing the reality. Even Porsche came to this conclusion in the early 1990s, which drove them into the SUV segment and soon, sedans. BMW is the classic profile of a company that should be able to limit its size, particularly since it is family-controlled. But no. Sub-compact to executive sedan to SUVs, they are still striving for growth through model expansion.
It’s very dangerous trying to get bigger by shrinking first. Shrinking your way to success has a poor history.
If you didn’t mind losing these companies in their present form, and we got down to Jeep, Corvette, Mustang, Cadillac and Ford/GMC trucks as the remaining defensible discrete brands along with tiny operations like Panoz Motors, that’s better than nothing but not nearly the same as the full-spectrum companies we have today.
Phil
I freely confess a complete inability to tell, merely by looking, whether or not an automatic transmission will go out at 30K or run flawlessly for 250K (assuming required maintenance of course). Equally, getting up close doesn’t really tell me if the head gaskets are going to blow at at 50K or 100K. (Is there a way to tell?)
Well, you can’t. But historical data doesn’t tell you anything about this either for two reasons. First, every maker delivers lemons and second, GM and Ford have new platform cars with new transmissions and new engines, all made to a higher standard than perfectly durable engines and transmissions they made among their offerings in the past. A blown head gasket at 50K isn’t a common concern. At 100K, it may not even be the manufacturer’s fault and still it’s not likely to happen. At what mileage are you prepared to take responsibility for your vehicle and how you drive/maintain it?
I was happy with the reliability of my ‘87 Civic. Prove to me that a particular domestic car has that reliability, and I’ll scratch that factor off as a basis for deciding between it and another Civic.
Nearly any new car today is better executed against reliability risk than a good-for-its-day 1987 Honda. All of my American cars, ever, would match it. *Your* ’87 Honda might have been perfect. Matching an ’87 Honda’s reliability is not an impediment to buying a competitive American car.
Phil
RLJ676:
“-The quality gap hasn’t changed.
Again, this is pretty hard to still really believe if you are informed. There are many competitive domestics that beat or exceed imports.”
I’m not sure I’ve read anyone say that the gap hasn’t changed. Even I, the poster-boy Import Bigot, can tell you that I know the gap has been narrowed. But I think those of us with enough discernment can tell that it still exists.
But this whole “many competitive domestics that beat or exceed imports” claim still seems pretty thin. We’ve got the Fusion, CTS, Aura (which apparently has had disappointing reliability so far) and the as-of-yet not on the streets Malibu. Got anything else? ‘Cause that list isn’t terribly impressive.
Dynamic 88: “There is simply no reason to take Phil seriously, and then go about the process of choosing in a half-assed manner. Either we make supporting domestic industry part of our buying decission, or we don’t. If we do, we immediately reject American brand names produced in other countries in favor of Ameican brand names produced in America.”
Produced in America should not only include assembly—-but also parts. How American is a Lincoln MKX assembled in Oakville Ontario with 95% US Parts ?
If our goal is the preservation of the D3 – in the US, then Fusion makes no sense.
Fusion is a Ford product with US engineering included in its development and 50% US content. If Ford is the Detroit 3 company someone feels inclined to support with a purchase of competitive product, then Fusion contributes to that goal. Taurus, Mustang or a truck even more. But Fusion beats a transplant for serving that objective.
No one considering the Fusion can genuinely be taking the socio-economic factors to heart.
NAFTA production isn’t the same loss as shipping production off the continent or outside of NAFTA. Border jobs indirectly reduce our border problems and further integrate NAFTA economies. But if Malibu is your choice over Fusion and both cars meet your needs and criteria for acceptance, then leverage and advantage clearly rests with Malibu.
Phil
“At what mileage are you prepared to take responsibility for your vehicle and how you drive/maintain it?”
150K
“Nearly any new car today is better executed against reliability risk than a good-for-its-day 1987 Honda. All of my American cars, ever, would match it. *Your* ‘87 Honda might have been perfect. Matching an ‘87 Honda’s reliability is not an impediment to buying a competitive American car.”
How do we know this? Several American cars that my freinds/family have owned havn’t been as reliable, so it seems our personal anectdotal experiences cancel each other out. So that I’m not misuderstood, I’m not claiming most new American cars aren’t as reliable as an ’87 Civic. I’m just saying that if I were considering a particular new American (made) car, how would I know it’s as good as my ’87 Civic? Particularly if backward looking data isn’t all that useful ?
My ’87 Civic wasn’t perfect. A windshield wiper motor went out a year after the warranty expired. I’ve never had a car have a wiper motor go out – except that car. An accident totaled it before we could determine how many miles the engine/transaxle would go with only routine maintenance. It was close to 150k when that happened.
“Fusion is a Ford product with US engineering included in its development and 50% US content. If Ford is the Detroit 3 company someone feels inclined to support with a purchase of competitive product, then Fusion contributes to that goal. Taurus, Mustang or a truck even more. But Fusion beats a transplant for serving that objective.”
My objective isn’t to keep Ford in business, but rather, America.
An Accord, built in the US, and with higher than 50% American content obviously beats the Fusion, for that goal. You obviously care more about the survival of the D3 than you do about the well being of America.
“NAFTA production isn’t the same loss as shipping production off the continent or outside of NAFTA….”
No, but it’s a lot more loss than keeping the production in the US. Again, if one is serious about this stuff, American brand names aren’t the focus – American made is the focus.
“Produced in America should not only include assembly—-but also parts. How American is a Lincoln MKX assembled in Oakville Ontario with 95% US Parts ?”
Not real clear is it? IMO, the MKX would be more “American” than the Fusion, but then, so would Accord.
My objective isn’t to keep Ford in business, but rather, America.
An Accord, built in the US, and with higher than 50% American content obviously beats the Fusion, for that goal. You obviously care more about the survival of the D3 than you do about the well being of America.
In the context of no existential threat to the Detroit 3 I might agree with you, but that’s not reality. Keeping Ford in business is more contributory to keeping the US in business than is bolstering a transplant factory by purchasing its output. The D3 as healthy competitive ongoing domestic companies have more economic leverage than does a transplant factory as a domestic agent for a foreign concern, even if the US content is higher on a specific transplant model. That’s reality. You might feel more emotionally attracted to the transplant’s US assembly employment, but there’s less leverage in supporting that than in keeping Ford in business.
American brand names aren’t the focus – American made is the focus.
Between GM and Ford and Chrysler models, domestic manufacturing wins on this count, model for model. But if the choice is between NAFTA built Detroit 3 production and transplants, advantage goes to the domestic company. We get the luxury of prioritizing domestic production of all types when the existential threat to the Detroit 3 has passed. Perhaps in 3 to 5 years, we’ll get there.
Why do people resent Mexican production while I’ve yet to hear any objection about Canadian assembly?
How do we know this? Several American cars that my friends/family have owned haven’t been as reliable, so it seems our personal anecdotal experiences cancel each other out. So that I’m not misunderstood, I’m not claiming most new American cars aren’t as reliable as an ‘87 Civic. I’m just saying that if I were considering a particular new American (made) car, how would I know it’s as good as my ‘87 Civic? Particularly if backward looking data isn’t all that useful ?
You don’t “know” anything about the reliability of the specific car you elect to buy. Not the model, I mean *the car*. Sample-to-sample inconsistency introduces uncertainty. But you do know experientially and empirically that over the past 20 years average quality has vastly improved for all makes, import and domestic. You will reason your way to an assumption of risk no matter what you buy. Backward looking data tells you little or nothing empirical about new platform cars from anyone. But 20 years of progress has lifted all boats. Even today’s Fiats are vastly improved compared to circa 1987, as are known reliability offenders like Jeep CJs (now Wrangler) and Chevy Cavaliers (now Cobalt). If you seriously worry about a new car not matching your ’87 Honda’s reliability, you’ll seriously fret about everything.
I don’t consider 150K miles a serious answer to the question of at what mileage you’re willing to take responsibility for your car. You can get higher mileage out of a car, as I have too. But getting it and accepting no responsibility for the effects of your ownership until beyond 150K on the odo is not a reasonable assumption as a consumer.
Phil
IMO, the MKX would be more “American” than the Fusion, but then, so would Accord.
IF you were in the unlikely situation of cross-shopping a Lincoln MKX and a Ford Fusion, since both are NAFTA assembled, the higher domestic content Lincoln wins on economic leverage. But since the Accord purchase supports a company HQ’d elsewhere, it’s in last place for this purpose.
Phil
RLJ676 :
After 20+ pages of back and forth I still can’t see what some of you think you are disproving? I see where some are spiteful towards the Big 3, but holding a grudge doesn’t make your points more valid as they seem to act.
Here are the points of contention as far as I can tell.
– Import bigots don’t exist.
Since logically speaking, it is impossible to prove that something does not in fact exist, you are attacking a straw man. I think it has been well established that people will make rational economic decisions and that the Detroit avoiders tend to have good reasons for doing so. To call rational consumers bigots is simply an incorrect use of the word. You can define a word however you like, but that doesn’t make it correct.
-The quality gap hasn’t changed.
Again, this is pretty hard to still really believe if you are informed. There are many competitive domestics that beat or exceed imports.
The list of competitive products is disappointingly short. Even when a product is deemed competitive in quality, it usually lags behind the competition in many other factors. The fact that domestic nameplates continue to dominate the least reliable lists speaks volumes.
-Last is that the success of the Big 3 does not benefit the country, and a better country doesn’t benefit everyone in it.
Again, this is hard to understand how you argue against? To claim otherwise blows my mind. If any of them went under it would have consequences that would impact a great portion of the country. Further, there would be NO motivation for the transplants to continue to build here, leading to a further loss of manuf jobs in the long run as they move production to exploit cheaper labor/ exchange factors.
This is not true at all, the reasons for the transplants to build factories here are Tariffs and the weak dollar, not the big 2.5. Those factors won’t disappear with the death of the big 2.5. If you look at the reality of the situation, Ford is offshoring its jobs to Mexico and Canada as fast as it can.(Nationalized healthcare in Canada=lower costs) Chrysler plans to import Chinese-built subcompact cars into the American market. In fact, all three automakers are looking to shrink their US manufacturing base and import cars from China.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/25/ford-contemplating-exporting-vehicles-from-china/
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=6056
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/business/worldbusiness/29cnd-auto.html?pagewanted=all
The only recent expansion in US auto manufacturing has been from so called transplants. Your statements are heavy on rhetoric and short on substance. They are simply not based on reality.
The D3 as healthy competitive ongoing domestic companies have more economic leverage than does a transplant factory as a domestic agent for a foreign concern, even if the US content is higher on a specific transplant model. That’s reality.
That’s not true at all, the economic leverage of a domestic manufacturing job is the same as a transplant one. I have proven this with the reports linked to 100s of posts ago. The only thing buying from these companies will do is allow them to shift production to China.
GM announces new $250M green car research center “in China, with China, for China”
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/29/gm-announces-new-250m-green-car-research-center-in-china-with/
Ford contemplating exporting vehicles from China
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/25/ford-contemplating-exporting-vehicles-from-china/
Chrysler’s plans to import Chinese-built subcompact cars into the American market has hit a few snags.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=6056
The only people expanding US production are the transplants.
“Why do people resent Mexican production while I’ve yet to hear any objection about Canadian assembly?”
Because Canadian production was in place before NAFTA and Canadian workers don’t come cheap enough to pose a threat to the future of American labor. Also because Ontario has closer and more important economic ties to Michigan than does Mexico.
I’d rather have something made in the US as oppossed to Canada, and if I take your socio-economic argument seriously, that means I have to research the place of production of every car I’m considering. Unfortunately the media speaks little of cars made in Canada. We must rely on the UAW/CAW website to tell us this info.
“In the context of no existential threat to the Detroit 3 I might agree with you, but that’s not reality. Keeping Ford in business is more contributory to keeping the US in business than is a bolstering a transplant factory by purchasing its output. The D3 as healthy competitive ongoing domestic companies have more economic leverage than does a transplant factory as a domestic agent for a foreign concern, even if the US content is higher on a specific transplant model. That’s reality. You might feel more emotionally attracted to the transplant’s US assembly employment, but there’s less leverage in supporting that than in keeping Ford in business.”
Even if the threat is as dire as you think, it’s still wrong, based on the socio-economic factors, to spend your money on the model built in Mexico vs the model built in Ohio. If you buy a Fusion you tell Ford one of two things – either A) you aren’t paying attention to where a car is made, and Ford can get the “scoio-economic” buyer just by slaping on the blue oval, or B) you know it’s made in Mexico, but you don’t care about the socio-economic decline caused by moving production to Mexico.
And of course if you accept the decline resulting from moving jobs to Mexico, then there is no longer any serious reason to reject a transplant, as the transplants create more jobs in this country.
If we take socio-economic matters seriously, as you’ve advocated, it creates an imperative to buy American made. A willingness to support Mexican made products indicates that one is not all that serious about the socio-economic factors. There is no pressure to buy Maquiladora products as there are plenty of domestically produced alternatives.
“If you seriously worry about a new car not matching your ‘87 Honda’s reliability, you’ll seriously fret about everything.”
I don’t worry about it. I’m just pointing out that your system of buying a car seems to be “faith based”. You claim American cars, which historically have a higher incidence of repair, are as reliable as the transplants. You reject backward looking data as being a sound basis for assessing reliability of new platforms. I guess I’m asking an epistemolgical question – how do we “know” what’s reliable? If past performance of a company isn’t an indicator of present reliability, then what are the indicators, or are there any ? I guess I may as well buy a VW as a Civic, since there is no way compare their reliability. (I don’t think I will)
My other reason for bringing up an ’87 Civic is actually in support of your thesis – mine was so reliable that I’d still be happy with that level of reliability today. If we assume (and according to your many posts, that’s all we’re doing -assuming) that pretty much all 2007s are more reliable than an ’87 Civic, then I have little to worry about. This I can accept. The odds are pretty good that if I buy domestic, I won’t get burned.
But most import buyers aren’t going to settle for ’87 reliability when they can have a higher level of reliability. I’m sure if I wanted to dig out some stats, we’d find that sample to sample variation is smaller among some import/transplants than it is in any of the D3. Even though sample to sample variance has been improved, it’s still more likely I’ll get a lemon from the D3 than from Toyohondisan, simply because their sample to sample variance is smaller.
“I don’t consider 150K miles a serious answer to the question of at what mileage you’re willing to take responsibility for your car. You can get higher mileage out of a car, as I have too. But getting it and accepting no responsibility for the effects of your ownership until beyond 150K on the odo is not a reasonable assumption as a consumer.”
Take as you like, but it’s a serious answer. I see no reason not to expect a car to be trouble free for 150K. With the exception of a wiper motor on my ’87 Civic, all my Hondas have done this for me. (I’m not talking about scheduled maintenance ) This is what many Honda owners have become accostomed to. My wife and I tend to keep cars about 10 years, which may be longer than average, but for me, this is a serious answer to your question.
Phil: “I don’t consider 150K miles a serious answer to the question of at what mileage you’re willing to take responsibility for your car.”
Here’s part of your problem – again. You seem to think whether or not your consider something “reasonable” validates the opinions of others.
You couldn’t be more mistaken.
However, if that Dynamic88’s answer bothers you, you could have asked the question differently… How long do you expect major components to operate trouble-free? Minor components?
I expect the engine, transmission and differential to last 250K miles without incident (except the clutch – those go 120K miles). The A/C, heat, blower motors, wiper motors, radiator should probably go about as far but I’d be less annoyed with a failure.
Non-essentials can start giving me trouble at lower mileages without incurring my wrath but I expect the entire car to work perfectly and, actually, to look the same, at 100K miles and the more cars I own that work perfectly at 100K miles and up, the higher the mileage expectation for perfect operation goes. Guess what? My Toyotas are raising the bar.
Cars that routinely do better than this are favored. Cars that do worse don’t get bought again. I loved my Volvos but I don’t buy them any more.
Canadian production was in place before NAFTA and Canadian workers don’t come cheap enough to pose a threat to the future of American labor. Also because Ontario has closer and more important economic ties to Michigan than does Mexico.
The economic intimacy you imply between Michigan and Ontario is rapidly being woven between Mexico and the southern states as well as Michigan. For the decades the US dollar was strong, in fact Canadian labor was cheap enough to siphon off some work from Americans. Parity is a recent phenomenon. NAFTA is NAFTA is NAFTA. If you don’t object to Canadian production, you can’t object to Mexican production and be fair.
I’d rather have something made in the US as opposed to Canada, and if I take your socio-economic argument seriously, that means I have to research the place of production of every car I’m considering.
Fair enough. You can take it to that level, but place of production is subordinate to company producing. A transplant company only emerges as a top leverage source in the context of the Detroit 3 sinking. But for maximum economic leverage, find the best US-made vehcile that meets your requirements, from a US HQ company.
Even if the threat is as dire as you think, it’s still wrong, based on the socio-economic factors, to spend your money on the model built in Mexico vs the model built in Ohio. If you buy a Fusion you tell Ford one of two things – either A) you aren’t paying attention to where a car is made, and Ford can get the “scoio-economic” buyer just by slaping on the blue oval, or B) you know it’s made in Mexico, but you don’t care about the socio-economic decline caused by moving production to Mexico.
On economic leverage, Malibu trumps Fusion, but I don’t object to Mexican production for Fusion. Mexican production benefits the US given the reality of a porous border and Mexico’s problems being our problems too. NAFTA production still has job leverage projected back into the US both in the form of supply chain and other precedent and antecedent jobs, and support of domestic HQ jobs. Look, some people will take the domestic economic leverage case far enough to torque their vehicle selection in the direction of the social context and away from their direct needs — i.e. buy a pickup from Ford or GM if they can’t find a car they like from US brand US production. That’s fine with me, but I don’t think people have to warp their vehicle requirements to participate in this buying rubric. If Fusion emerges as a shopper’s top choice over Camry or Accord, their leverage is well placed.
I’m just pointing out that your system of buying a car seems to be “faith based”.
No, it’s not faith based. It’s both rational and intuitive. Even back in the early ’80s when most cars from any source were crap, I found I could evaluate individual products for a good sense of their design and assembly. I’ve never gone wrong. However, I had to not only drive the cars, but also get under them, into the engine bay, get the car on a lift if possible, looking for key design, assembly and build indicators.
Sure, in a long-lived platform, ownership data has some value. The 1984 Corvette was a totally new car from the tires up. It had a number of teething problems that were obsessively documented by the car’s enthusiast community. Year by year, GM tackled bugs and refined the car. By the time I bought a 1996 version – last year for that platform – the problems, resolutions and evolution associated with the C4 were richly documented and everything had moved to the web. And still, 13 years of continuous refinement had made most earlier problems moot concern. A few basic issues remained and it was easy to learn what risks I might be taking on. The car was much cheaper to maintain than equivalent performance Porsches of the same vintage and proved thoroughly reliable. When the C5 was introduced, it was again an all-new car with even an update to the small block. C4 knowledge told you nothing, but the engineering and build improvements in the C5 over the C4 were huge. Just knowing what they were was more than enough to intuit forward what to expect, if you had C4 experience.
The aggregated statistics on ownership are interesting and informative to a degree, but they are less useful and insightful than data-driven types give them credit for. My low weighting of ownership data doesn’t mean I haven’t found compensating ways to make an informed decision. It ain’t faith, it’s knowledge and informed intuition.
You claim American cars, which historically have a higher incidence of repair, are as reliable as the transplants.
I’ve said that today, now, in 2007, there are domestic models for which the quality gap is either closed or close enough not to be an actionable difference, and that your risk of a lemon from anyone is higher.
If past performance of a company isn’t an indicator of present reliability, then what are the indicators, or are there any ? I guess I may as well buy a VW as a Civic, since there is no way compare their reliability. (I don’t think I will)
I owned one Volkswagen once, a 1988 Jetta Carat with the 8V 4cyl. It was a bulletproof car. Never cost me a dime over routine maintenance and I drove the snot out of that car. Around that time, quite by chance all of my siblings owned VWs too, similarly with no notable problems. I have relatives who still buy only Volkswagens and see no trouble. No one I know who has a VW has any confidence in the “data” that suggests cars from the brand are trouble. There is no way for you to use market data to *know* what your personal experience will be, in, say, a top 50 quality listing of today’s cars. You just get feel-good numbers as “facts.”
But most import buyers aren’t going to settle for ‘87 reliability when they can have a higher level of reliability.
No one is, despite my own experience with late ’80s cars, American and import, that could not have been more reliable no matter when they were made.
it’s still more likely I’ll get a lemon from the D3 than from Toyohondisan, simply because their sample to sample variance is smaller.
While it’s nice for the import buyer to think so, I see no actual real-world experience that indicates this is true.
I see no reason not to expect a car to be trouble free for 150K. With the exception of a wiper motor on my ‘87 Civic, all my Hondas have done this for me.
And so have all my Detroit 3 cars I’ve kept that long. I still don’t consider 150K miles to be the manufacturer’s sole responsibility as a business proposition, and I’ve never even had a wiper motor failure.
Phil
the economic leverage of a domestic manufacturing job is the same as a transplant one. I have proven this with the reports linked to 100s of posts ago.
You posited, not proved. There is a mass of conflicting data on this point. You chose yours, I chose mine. Transplant jobs have less leverage. It’s necessitated by the lack of HQ jobs in their leverage, and the less penetrating domestic supply chain.
The only people expanding US production are the transplants.
This is only linked to market share gains, and those gains are not commensurately replacing domestic production lost by the D3. And still, transplant presence is dwarfed by the Detroit 3’s domestic production.
Here’s part of your problem – again. You seem to think whether or not your consider something “reasonable” validates the opinions of others.
You couldn’t be more mistaken.
It’s not a problem for me. I don’t think any automobile owner is fair to any manufacturer, foreign or domestic, to consider the first 150K miles solely the responsibility of the carmaker.
Non-essentials can start giving me trouble at lower mileages without incurring my wrath but I expect the entire car to work perfectly and, actually, to look the same, at 100K miles and the more cars I own that work perfectly at 100K miles and up, the higher the mileage expectation for perfect operation goes. Guess what? My Toyotas are raising the bar.
On this we agree and I haven’t had to own any Toyotas to meet or beat this standard.
Phil
Once again, HQ jobs are mentioned. Why do I care about whether Wagoner, Lutz, or Nardelli get their cut? Especially having seen what they’ve done with it in the past.
I care more about the assembly line workers, the welders, etc. So a Camry made in Ohio or wherever its made makes a lot more sense to me than buying a Fusion made in Mexico or something made in Ontario. If I want to support the American economy in my car purchase, I’d rather have it go to the parts suppliers and the workers.
Phil on the 150K mile mark… “It’s not a problem for me. I don’t think any automobile owner is fair to any manufacturer, foreign or domestic, to consider the first 150K miles solely the responsibility of the carmaker.”
Whether or not it’s a problem for you is immaterial. Some of us have found manufacturers that raise the bar.
Phil wrote: “The 1984 Corvette was a totally new car from the tires up. It had a number of teething problems that were obsessively documented by the car’s enthusiast community. Year by year, GM tackled bugs and refined the car. By the time I bought a 1996 version – last year for that platform – the problems, resolutions and evolution associated with the C4 were richly documented and everything had moved to the web. And still, 13 years of continuous refinement had made most earlier problems moot concern.”
And I just get a kick out of that… A normal Chevy is in the vicinity of $5-$7/lb. A Corvette goes for $10-$15/lb. For that price, you think I’ll wait 13 years for GM to work the bugs out of the car? Did they retrofit all those first-year Corvettes for people? For double the price of a regular car, they’re selling junk. Junk at a standard price is hard enough to accept but trouble for double?
Do you think that’s the goal at Toyondissan? Bug-free premium product in a dozen years or so? Go back and look, again, at how Lexus stacks up. Or the Prius. The all-new-for-2004’s that actually shippped in 2004 are still one of the most reliable cars on the road.
Why would I buy a Volt? Try to remember, my automobile purchase isn’t about saving Toyota or GM or whatever, it’s about getting me to work or play.
matt “Once again, HQ jobs are mentioned. Why do I care about whether Wagoner, Lutz, or Nardelli get their cut? Especially having seen what they’ve done with it in the past.
I care more about the assembly line workers, the welders, etc. So a Camry made in Ohio or wherever its made makes a lot more sense to me than buying a Fusion made in Mexico or something made in Ontario. If I want to support the American economy in my car purchase, I’d rather have it go to the parts suppliers and the workers.”
Well this is an absurd statement. The 3 top guys don’t meet your standards (I’m sure you could do better), so the other 100K salaried employees can all suffer. Oh, and since they all live in the same city owning homes, what do you think happens when the bills quit getting payed and the housing collapses. I’m sure this wouldn’t affect you at all, just as the sub-prime collapse has no impact on the country.
As for all of this BS that the Fusion is not more American than the Accord, you couldn’t be more wrong. Every job other than manufacturing is in the US, and most of those are better (higher paying, eductation based) jobs than manufacturing. Further, it’s profits ensure the survival of a company who is contractually obligated to the UAW to maintain production volumes in this country. Building a few out of country doesn’t equate to a “fleeing” as some of you try and characterize it.
Also, some of the largest stockholders of the big 3 include many retirement funds of things like teachers, your parents, probably you. They go under there are repercussions throughout the country.
As to the building in China, you have to build there to sell there, so if the capacity is there you would be greatly amiss to not capitalize and export. Great links to articles of the big 3 doing it, they must be the only ones?
Again, all that I’m seeing here is the “import bigots” rationalizing their choice. That’s fine, but to then extrapolate these feelings towards “the market” is more rediculous than saying 1 million bigots could consider American.
Dynamic 88
“This seems like a good place for an aside – so here goes. Question – would it be a smart move for the D3 to get smaller intentionally, then re-grow? It’s apparent they havn’t the cash to make competitive vehicles in all catagories. It’s equally apparent they havn’t the will to be competitive in all catagories (the deficiency in small cars has been conceeded). Would it make sense to concentrate on fewer market segments, putting all resources into being the best in class and then regrow (re-entering market segments) with newly burnished reputations?”
This is actually exactly what is happening. All of the buyouts last year to reduce size were because of this. Withdrawing from fleet markets, withdrawing from other (minivan, etc) markets. This is exactly what is happening right now. I can vouch at least one of the big three is in this mode whole-heartedly.
Dynamic “It’s not only valid, it makes more sense. If our goal is the preservation of the D3 – in the US, then Fusion makes no sense”
Please explain again how that Camcord purchase supports the D3? I know the Fusion helps Ford, can’t see how something from not Ford would more?
This point really “gets to me”. This is just rationalization of “well really my toyota is more American”, but it isn’t true. Those profits support less jobs here, and end up elsewhere. That is the fact. The claims people have “proven otherwise” are just rediculous. If someone can prove that Toyota has more jobs in the US than Ford, I might be swayed. That isn’t the case, so this argument carries no weight at all.
I hear what you are saying but I just can’t agree. If you look at this site or consumer reports or basically any other car review site, the imports are always at the top for reliability and many other ratings.
I’m no import fan. In fact I’ve never owned an import but I have to say that I can’t stay loyal to domestics anymore. I’ve never owned a domestic that didn’t have more than a fair share of problems. I’m talking about sports cars and SUV’s. Guess what, there’s no domestic SUV on this or any other site that comes even in the top 5 and that can be said about sports cars. I love the Z06 but it’s got major problems. I drive a Cobra and I can’t tell you how much I love it, but it’s also held together with hope and chewing gum.
Besides any of the above points, have you seen how ugly most of the domestic cars are? I mean, have you even looked at an Uplander or any other GM product?
I would call the Uplander uncompetitive to say the least, but consider the Lambda’s to be as good or better than anything they compete agains. The Acadia looks better to me everytime I see one.
Well this is an absurd statement. The 3 top guys don’t meet your standards (I’m sure you could do better), so the other 100K salaried employees can all suffer. Oh, and since they all live in the same city owning homes, what do you think happens when the bills quit getting payed and the housing collapses. I’m sure this wouldn’t affect you at all, just as the sub-prime collapse has no impact on the country.
To be honest, from what I’ve seen from the D3, yes. I do think I could do better, as could a lot of people that frequent this website. I’m no economist or CEO, but I know that a rebadged Daewoo isn’t ‘An American Revolution.’
And its interesting that you bring up the sub-prime mortgages. I will fully admit that my grasp of economics isn’t the best, but from my view, it looks like banks and mortgage companies were giving out loans that they knew couldn’t be paid back in most cases. But it put money in the coffers right now.
I see alot from Detroit where they think in quarters, and not long term. Not good. Maybe they don’t have a choice right now, but they did. And instead of planning ahead, they planned for right now.
Once again, HQ jobs are mentioned. Why do I care about whether Wagoner, Lutz, or Nardelli get their cut? Especially having seen what they’ve done with it in the past.
My empathy is also with the builders, more than the managers. But objectively, the HQ jobs have high average value, high economic leverage, and there’s a lot more to HQ than the very top layer of CEO plus his direct reports. They’re in fact the least of it.
Whether or not it’s a problem for you is immaterial. Some of us have found manufacturers that raise the bar.
Well, my personal experience with domestic vehicles has matched what you’re claiming you want or get from imports. Regardless, I don’t think 150K miles rests solely with the maker. Rentals prove that anything can be prematurely run into the ground, regardless where it’s made. The owner’s role kicks in sooner than 150K.
A normal Chevy is in the vicinity of $5-$7/lb. A Corvette goes for $10-$15/lb. For that price, you think I’ll wait 13 years for GM to work the bugs out of the car? Did they retrofit all those first-year Corvettes for people? For double the price of a regular car, they’re selling junk. Junk at a standard price is hard enough to accept but trouble for double?
This is not the experience people have with Corvettes today. In the context of 1984, when all cars were buggier, the first C4s seemed less unusual for their bugs than it sounds describing it today. Should they have been better? Sure. But what you miss is that the car was not merely debugged and refined over those 13 years, its performance was also seriously boosted and fuel economy improved as power rose from 200hp to and underrated 330hp.
Do you think that’s the goal at Toyondissan? Bug-free premium product in a dozen years or so? Go back and look, again, at how Lexus stacks up. Or the Prius. The all-new-for-2004’s that actually shippped in 2004 are still one of the most reliable cars on the road.
In 1984, Toyota wasn’t shipping bug-free cars either. Today’s GM is not Roger Smith’s GM of 25 years ago. It is in all ways a better organization for its output. And by the way, I wasn’t buying any GM cars in the 1980s because Roger Smith’s organization wasn’t meeting my standards for business practices. When the company and its products improved, I engaged.
Phil
Matt
“And its interesting that you bring up the sub-prime mortgages. I will fully admit that my grasp of economics isn’t the best, but from my view, it looks like banks and mortgage companies were giving out loans that they knew couldn’t be paid back in most cases. But it put money in the coffers right now.
I see alot from Detroit where they think in quarters, and not long term. Not good. Maybe they don’t have a choice right now, but they did. And instead of planning ahead, they planned for right now.”
That is what happened with the sub-prime deal, and now “everyone” pays the price for that. The loss of the domestic auto industry would be much worse though I think.
As for the aveowoo or whatever, yeah, that is a cheap car. That is meant to be a cheap car. So, aveo=economical, Z06=American revolution.
Again I can only knowingly speak for one of the big 3 for certain, but everything is about long term success. There won’t be any gains until 09 or later because of this mentality. Despite what all the Detroit bashers on here want to say, things ARE different. There are outsiders being hired in to head things. That is most certainly a departure.
“it’s still more likely I’ll get a lemon from the D3 than from Toyohondisan, simply because their sample to sample variance is smaller.”
Phil Ressler:
“While it’s nice for the import buyer to think so, I see no actual real-world experience that indicates this is true.”
Only because you’re wearing a blindfold.
Guys, Dr. Phil knows all. If he says that VW is inherently as reliable as the Japanese imports, then it is so. If he says that there has never been an appreciable gap between imports and domestics, then it is so. If he thinks that 12 years was a reasonable time frame for GM to get the C4 Corvette (mostly) bug-free, then it is.
You can’t argue with Dr. Phil. Detroit rules. Their products are wonderful – reliability is just as assured with any of their vehicles as compared to any other company. Those of us avoiding domestics are just unreasonable, because all of Dr. Phil’s domestics have run for 150k+ with no problems – therefore, all of the common domestic issues are really just overblown “stories” (Taurus transmissions, GM 4-cylinder headgaskets, Ford 3.8L V6 headgaskets, et al).
“While it’s nice for the import buyer to think so, I see no actual real-world experience that indicates this is true.”
Only because you’re wearing a blindfold.
Actually no. I’m buying Detroit 3 cars with my own money and having the same experience import buyers are claiming is their exclusive domain.
Understand all that’s implied by my comment. I’m not denying data that says defect incidence is on average higher for the Detroit 3 than it is for the best imports. But that’s a market abstract that also says the difference is progressively narrower or overcome by some models. I’m literal when I say my real-world experience — what I see directly in my ownership — counters the market data and demonstrates that with careful selection it has been possible to drive trouble-free domestic cars not just now, but for 25 years.
Phil
“I’m literal when I say my real-world experience — what I see directly in my ownership — counters the market data and demonstrates that with careful selection it has been possible to drive trouble-free domestic cars not just now, but for 25 years.”
I could care less about your real-world ownership. My real-world ownership says otherwise. My parent’s real world ownership says otherwise. Both of my brother’s real world ownership says otherwise. Many of my friends’ real world ownership says otherwise.
If by “careful selection” you’re referring to GM taking 12 years to get the C4 “right”, then yes, that is “careful selection”. I’m not that patient. I think having to wait even 3 years for that process to take place is ridiculous.
“I could care less about your real-world ownership. My real-world ownership says otherwise. My parent’s real world ownership says otherwise. Both of my brother’s real world ownership says otherwise. Many of my friends’ real world ownership says otherwise”
This is clearly the thinking of a self-important hypocrite. Another person’s experiences are meaningless, yours are to be extrapolated to the whole market. Personal anecdotes aren’t data, oh except for yours?
And again you are referring to a C4 vette. That is relevant to 2007 how?
Phil Ressler: Even the build quality on the new generation Ford and GM products across the board demonstrates that the backward-looking data has questionable relevance to current platform products.
A vehicle can be beautifully built, with great fit-and-finish both inside and out, and still be unreliable.
VW has proven that one far too often for its own good.
Calling data “backward-looking” doesn’t make it less relevant or accurate. We ONLY have backward-looking data, because we can’t judge the reliability of new vehicles until they have been in service for tens of thousands of miles all over over the country.
Phil Ressler: It’s very dangerous trying to get bigger by shrinking first. Shrinking your way to success has a poor history.
Like it or not, that is what GM and Ford are doing with their buyouts and plant closures.
Phil Ressler: In the context of 1984, when all cars were buggier, the first C4s seemed less unusual for their bugs than it sounds describing it today.
Actually, no, they were pretty bad even for that time. Those cars were riddled with problems that were completely unacceptable for that price range, even for that time.
Phil Ressler: Regardless, I don’t think 150K miles rests solely with the maker. Rentals prove that anything can be prematurely run into the ground, regardless where it’s made. The owner’s role kicks in sooner than 150K.
If you are talking about normal maintenance – yes, the owner does bear responsibility. That is why the owner’s manuals of Hondas and Toyotas come with maintenance schedules that smart people do not treat as mere suggestions.
But people are saying that they expect a car to go 150,000 miles without a major component failure caused by defects or cheap parts (as long as the owner follows the maintenance schedule). That is an entirely different standard, and, unfortunately, the domestics (and the Europeans) have been much less likely to meet that goal than the class leaders.
RLJ676: Fusion is in my opinion a much better choice than camcord, and I believe this is backed by 3rd party choices as well but I’m sure they are meaningless. Quality is better according to these sources, along with styling, AWD, value etc. Basically the Fusion challenge, while hokey as being ran “through” C&D and R&T, is real data.
Better? No, wouldn’t go that far. A VIABLE alternative? Yes. The styling is better than that of either the Accord or Camry, in my opinion, the reliability appears to be just as good, and the ride-and-handling combination is sportier. But the Accord and Camry also have their strengths, too.
RLJ676: I also like the Aura and the new Malibu looks pretty good, and is getting good reviews for materials, craftmanship, etc.
Don’t know about the Malibu, and I still haven’t seen any in-depth road tests (the car officially debuts tomorrow).
The Aura has been a disappointment from a price and workmanship standpoint. The interior, in particular, has too many cheap bits and the dash isn’t all that well-assembled.
Plus, if we believe the truedelta.com results, it has not displayed top-notch reliability.
RLJ676: As for the aveowoo or whatever, yeah, that is a cheap car. That is meant to be a cheap car. So, aveo=economical, Z06=American revolution.
Chevrolet has included the Aveo in the “American Revolution” ads, and the tagline is featured at the bottom of Aveo advertisements. It is fair to ask just how revolutionary – let alone how American – the Aveo really is when Chevrolet itself is adverstising it under that tagline.
In both cases, the answer is “not much.”
Chevrolet isn’t limiting the “American Revolution” campaign to the Corvette and Z06.
RLJ676: Again I can only knowingly speak for one of the big 3 for certain, but everything is about long term success. There won’t be any gains until 09 or later because of this mentality.
I’m guessing that you must work for Ford, because it is the only American company that I see making behind-the-scenes changes that focus on long-term gains (as reflected in the Consumer Reports survey results, which even the magazine said appear to be regular, consistent and spread relatively evenly throughout the lineup). Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong…
If by “careful selection” you’re referring to GM taking 12 years to get the C4 “right”, then yes, that is “careful selection”. I’m not that patient. I think having to wait even 3 years for that process to take place is ridiculous.
Getting it right the first time is the best way. I wasn’t waiting 13 years for the C4 to improve. I hadn’t considered buying one until I did, and when I considered it, found it to be solid. Which it was, in practice. And that was more than 10 years ago. Careful selection means simply, buy what’s good and avoid what’s not. Import or domestic, it works for me.
Phil
“Careful selection means simply, buy what’s good and avoid what’s not. Import or domestic, it works for me.”
Like I said, this guy knows all. If all car buyers were as sagacious as Mr. Ressler, then the Big 3 wouldn’t be in dire straits today. It is our fault guys, I was wrong.
A vehicle can be beautifully built, with great fit-and-finish both inside and out, and still be unreliable.
It can be, but really getting into the car’s design and construction can be a better indicator than incomplete abstract data.
Calling data “backward-looking” doesn’t make it less relevant or accurate. We ONLY have backward-looking data, because we can’t judge the reliability of new vehicles until they have been in service for tens of thousands of miles all over over the country.
Backward looking data is irrelevant to platform changes or new-from-the-tires-up cars. It also fails to capture progressive improvements made to current existing platform cars in the market across multiple model years.
Chevrolet has included the Aveo in the “American Revolution” ads, and the tagline is featured at the bottom of Aveo advertisements. It is fair to ask just how revolutionary – let alone how American – the Aveo really is when Chevrolet itself is adverstising it under that tagline.
“American Revolution” is a Chevrolet tagline, not an Aveo tagline. The corporate marketing, in this case is the Chevrolet brand communications. Aveo is a product, and its product marketing should position it within the Chevrolet product constellation. Don’t attach the corporate or brand marketing to the product. Chevy/GM can do a better job of segregating the two while drawing the relationship between the brand emotion and the product specifics.
Phil
geeber
“Better? No, wouldn’t go that far. A VIABLE alternative? Yes. The styling is better than that of either the Accord or Camry, in my opinion, the reliability appears to be just as good, and the ride-and-handling combination is sportier. But the Accord and Camry also have their strengths, too.”
I clarified my better with it was my opinion, but viable alternative is all that needs to be thought for it to be in the group for consideration. Judging by your statement though, you aren’t the “import bigot” who’s dismissing the car because it sports the blue oval.
geeber “The Aura has been a disappointment from a price and workmanship standpoint. The interior, in particular, has too many cheap bits and the dash isn’t all that well-assembled. ”
I have seen some of these reports, but it won “car of the year” last year somehow, and I’m pretty sure I saw it win an interior award somewhere. It shows that there’s two sides to every story, but I’d recommend sitting in one before deciding the interior is crummy.
geeber “I’m guessing that you must work for Ford, because it is the only American company that I see making behind-the-scenes changes that focus on long-term gains (as reflected in the Consumer Reports survey results, which even the magazine said appear to be regular, consistent and spread relatively evenly throughout the lineup). Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong… ”
That guess would make sense, as the results are most definetly appearant. The internal measures on quality most certainly coincide with CR and JDP findings, which make the gap non-existant or statistically insignifigant. However, this point seems lost on many people, and based on the bias I’ve read in here you just can’t easily convince people even when the data is there.
Phil: “Backward-looking data…”
No. This is why we track sex-offenders. They may or may not be changed people and we’re going to keep an eye on them for a good long while.
Does Detroit have the PROCESSES and PRIORITIES in place to get superb quality? We don’t know and using past history is a satisfactory way of judging whether or not they get your trust. PROVEN reliability takes time to PROVE. There are no shortcuts and they should have whipped the crap gaskets out of those engines as soon as they realized there was a problem – which should have been damned quick. Nope, ten years – maybe more of that. Forget it.
Wait – here’s an idea… goes back to something someone else said… Publish warranty actuals costs. If the new cars are good, warranty costs should be falling very fast.
Of course, if the cars were everything you seem to think they are, a longer warranty would be just the ticket – and no real cost to Detroit. I don’t see that happening.
Phil: ““American Revolution” is a Chevrolet tagline, not an Aveo tagline.”
Good grief! You’re going to quibble about this, too??!!
It’s simple, it’s “An American Revolution” ad, which sets certain expectations and it includes a cheeeep POS that’s built in Korea. It’s neither American nor Revolutionary. It’s like those “Made in the USA” signs that Wal*Mart used to randomly place in their stores… bogus! GM *could* have left it out of the ad but they didn’t. Do their own ad people not understand the Aveo is foreign?
The criticism’s fair. Get a clue!
Phil Ressler: It can be, but really getting into the car’s design and construction can be a better indicator than incomplete abstract data.
I’ve seen too many beautifully built cars fall apart at 50,000 miles to hold build quality in higher esteem than systematic surveys collected from owners who are actually using the vehicles.
Phil Ressler: “American Revolution” is a Chevrolet tagline, not an Aveo tagline. The corporate marketing, in this case is the Chevrolet brand communications. Aveo is a product, and its product marketing should position it within the Chevrolet product constellation. Don’t attach the corporate or brand marketing to the product. Chevy/GM can do a better job of segregating the two while drawing the relationship between the brand emotion and the product specifics.
The tagline is used in Aveo ads, and the Aveo has appeared in ads touting the Chevrolet brand as an “American Revolution,” so it’s fair to ask whether it lives up to that billing. Chevrolet wants us to consider its lineup as an American Revolution, so we have to ask whether each product is supporting that message.
In the Aveo’s case, the answer is “no.”
RLJ676: Judging by your statement though, you aren’t the “import bigot” who’s dismissing the car because it sports the blue oval.
We have a 2003 Accord EX sedan (four cylinder) and 2005 Focus SE sedan, and are happy with both so far (84,000 miles and 53,000 miles, respectively).
At this point, we would consider a new Ford. But we would also consider a new Honda, too.
RLJ676: It shows that there’s two sides to every story, but I’d recommend sitting in one before deciding the interior is crummy.
I’ve sat in Auras at the Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., auto shows.
I didn’t call the interior “crummy.” It was just a disappointment. Given the hype surrounding the car (including the North American Car of the Year Award), I expected better. GM moved forward two steps when it needed to make twice that many to really impress me as an Accord owner.
RLJ676: That guess would make sense, as the results are most definetly appearant. The internal measures on quality most certainly coincide with CR and JDP findings, which make the gap non-existant or statistically insignifigant. However, this point seems lost on many people, and based on the bias I’ve read in here you just can’t easily convince people even when the data is there.
In that case, I look forward to the revamped 2009 Fusion and the upcoming Flex. Now if Ford could produce a Lincoln with the presence, style and elegance of the 1961 Continental, instead of giving Fords different grilles and dashboards and calling them Lincolns…
kixstart “Wait – here’s an idea… goes back to something someone else said… Publish warranty actuals costs. If the new cars are good, warranty costs should be falling very fast”
Whatever the reasons are for not publishing these I’m not sure, but I’m “pretty sure” these numbers have made extremely large improvements for some of the domestics. A look at some of the first half earnings could provide some insight into this improvement even from last year.
geeber “In that case, I look forward to the revamped 2009 Fusion and the upcoming Flex. Now if Ford could produce a Lincoln with the presence, style and elegance of the 1961 Continental, instead of giving Fords different grilles and dashboards and calling them Lincolns… ”
The Flex and Fusion will both be very nice, and improvements over current products. Further, the MKX is the last new Lincoln to launch as “badge engineering”. The MKS will have nothing in common with the other D cars other than platform base, and that will be the future trend.
Geeber “We have a 2003 Accord EX sedan (four cylinder) and 2005 Focus SE sedan, and are happy with both so far (84,000 miles and 53,000 miles, respectively).
At this point, we would consider a new Ford. But we would also consider a new Honda, too. ”
You clearly aren’t at all the “import bigots” Phil has hoped will consider domestics, but your head to head experience should provide a valid opinion for some of these people.
RLJ676 –
With respect to Lincoln specifically, I doubt I’m alone in my disappointment that they had a superb start on re-establishing Lincoln as a premium car in the LS, then proceeded to do virtually nothing with the car except discount it as the years went by. This car, and the people who built it, deserved better.
My partner and I recently walked by a late 80’s (panther-based) Lincoln and he said “Remember when these things actually had presence? The 60’s Continental was more iconic than even the Cadillacs of the same vintage, yet Ford has yet to pony up a car with the same charisma.
And on the Cadillac side, we have the announcement that after a winning season Cadillac is pulling out of racing again. As Peter DeLorenzo put it, this doesn’t do much for Cadillac’s street cred against BMW, despite the fact that the new CTS is a damned good car.
RLJ676: You clearly aren’t at all the “import bigots” Phil has hoped will consider domestics, but your head to head experience should provide a valid opinion for some of these people.
Let me explain how we now have a Focus in the driveway.
When my wife and I were dating, she was driving a 1999 Chevrolet Cavalier sedan.
By 60,000 miles, the air conditioning compressor was shot. This happened to a friend’s 2000 Cavalier, too, so I’m thinking that this was defect that conveniently happened (convenient for GM, anyway) out of warranty.
It also had the cheapest, most uncomfortable interior of any car I’ve ridden in over the last 15 years.
At 113,000 miles, her Cavalier’s engine blew a cylinder. It needed a new engine. At that time, she had just bought a house and was teaching school. She did not need that expense (typical quote was $3,000).
This happened in the fall of 2004, which is not that long ago. So it can’t be dismissed as the ancient past.
From your perspective, this story had a reasonably happy ending. She bought a new Focus.
Do you know the main reason WHY she bought that Focus?
Because the Consumer Reports surveys showed that that car’s quality had dramatically improved since the first two years of production! (In other words, the type of evidence that is dismissed throughout this thread by the author of the opinion piece!)
BUT…this could have easily gone the other way, and another customer probably would have been lost to Detroit for life.
And, no she wasn’t willing to take a chance on a Cobalt. Why give business to a company that basically punched her right in the wallet when she could least afford to absorb such a blow?
Sorry, but avoiding GM wasn’t irrational behavior.
Ford burned a lot of people, too (3.8 V-6 head gaskets, and front-wheel-drive automatic transmissions, for starters). That sort of thing stays in your mind for a long time.
I like our Focus, and would be willing to give Ford another shot when it comes time to buy a new car, but I understand why people who have been burned in the past by GM, Ford and Chrysler shop exclusively at certain dealerships, and why people are still skeptical of Detroit’s claim of improved quality.
edgett “With respect to Lincoln specifically, I doubt I’m alone in my disappointment that they had a superb start on re-establishing Lincoln as a premium car in the LS, then proceeded to do virtually nothing with the car except discount it as the years went by. This car, and the people who built it, deserved better.”
Agreed, but a strong plan is in place to restore Lincoln’s relevance pulling on cue’s from both the past (60’s conti), and the future (MKR concept). That’s really all I’ll add on this though. These cars will be worth considering compared to the competition, and will exceed what the MKZ and moreso MKX have started. Best yet, while rebuilding the brand the value will be hard to beat with an import.
In the US I’d suggest very few BMW/Caddy/etc customers give a second thought to racing. As a marketing tool to that base here I just really doubt it was providing a return on the investment.
Geeber “And, no she wasn’t willing to take a chance on a Cobalt. Why give business to a company that basically punched her right in the wallet when she could least afford to absorb such a blow?
Sorry, but avoiding GM wasn’t irrational behavior.”
Agreed, but avoiding all domestics because of this would have been. Also, avoiding GM for life could be if all data indicates that it becomes the “quality leader.” It happens out of “spite” and that is hard to overcome, but it may not be rational.
I do not disagree with everyone’s comments regarding Lincoln’s need to reclaim past gradeur….but I think they are off to a good start and they are getting the BASICS corrected first.
That said, last year when my wife and I had enough of our BMW X5’s reliability issues—we searched for alternatives. She was partial to the MDX and RX350—I asked her to consider the Lincoln MKX and Acadia. So we went shoppping and looked at all of the above and went with the MKX. It provided the luxury, size, and practicality she wanted—-and the looks that both of us liked right down to the ’60’s Continental inspired grill. We could care less that there is a family resemblance to the Edge from a profile perspective—there is enough differentiation to make the Lincoln much cooler looking and elegant vs the Edge.
We have both been very happy with the vehicle—and every first year quality survey (CR, JD Power, Karesh) suggest we will have good reliability + the dealership experience has been excellent. In other words Lincoln is getting the BASICS right. They are also working beyond the basics with more differentiad (from Ford) offerings such as the MKS and MKR.
I mention the BASICS becuase I think that RIGHT NOW Lincoln is implementing the Lexus strategy. For review—MOST (not all) Lexus vehicles are and have been rebadged Toyota’s—-with addtional luxury features, slightly modified sheet metal, extended warranty, and a better dealership experience. Sound eerily simlar to what Lincoln is doing now ? Why is the Lincoln strategy so bad when the Lexus strategy is hailed ?
I think the answer lies in those that relish the past (nothing wrong with nostalgia) and also some of the “import bigot” mentality could also be at work here. Said another way—my wife’s choice came down to the Lexus RX 350 vs. the Lincoln MKX. While her “inner snob-dum” said Lexus—she simply could not find a rational product based reason to pick it over the Lincoln. She did not let the “import bigot” mentality get the best of her.
umterp85:
“I mention the BASICS becuase I think that RIGHT NOW Lincoln is implementing the Lexus strategy. For review—MOST (not all) Lexus vehicles are and have been rebadged Toyota’s—-with addtional luxury features, slightly modified sheet metal, extended warranty, and a better dealership experience. Sound eerily simlar to what Lincoln is doing now ? Why is the Lincoln strategy so bad when the Lexus strategy is hailed ?”
Going a bit off-topic – there is a slight difference to the “Lexus” strategy (could also be called the Japanese-luxury strategy) and Lincoln’s rebadging. Aside from platform sharing, Lexus has only one (non-SUV) vehicle in their lineup right now that is simply a rebadged Toyota in the US market (Camry = ES series). Infiniti has done much the same (Maxima = now defunct I series, QX4 = Pathfinder, QX56 = Armada).
Most of the Lexus and Infiniti lineups ARE rebadged Toyotas and Nissans – but they are not available in the US (G20 = Nissan Primera, G35 = Nissan Skyline, Infiniti M = Nissan Fuga, Lexus IS = Toyota Altezza, Lexus GS = Toyota Aristo, etc, etc). Acura is the only premium-Japanese brand without a model with a down-market equivalent in the US…although Canada gets an Acura-badged Civic and the TSX is a Euro-Accord.
My point is that Licoln’s entire current lineup is just a practice in rebadging (MKX = Edge, MKZ = Fusion, Navigator = Expedition, Mark LT = F150, Town Car = gussied up Crown Vic). Lexus currently has one such example as does Infiniti (QX56) and Acura has none. Mercury also shares all the above listed cars (sans F150) plus others.
But, that said, glad you’re enjoying the MKX.
“Fair enough. You can take it to that level, but place of production is subordinate to company producing. A transplant company only emerges as a top leverage source in the context of the Detroit 3 sinking. But for maximum economic leverage, find the best US-made vehcile that meets your requirements, from a US HQ company.”
I have to conclude you are not serious about saving the manufacturing jobs you spoke of in your editorial. Max. leverage is buying a US BUILT car, from a US HQ company. Obvously a car not built here does not have the same leverage.
Next in line is a car built here, even if it’s not a US brand.
3rd comes Maquiladora built cars (and you can throw Canadian built units in there too) and,
Last, pure imports.
If we really believe our buying decissions have positive or detrimental effects on the economy, then we should maximize leverage, and that would not include buying non-US built cars, regardless of their brand name.
Macca: I believe that in their earlier years…the level of rebadged Toyota’s was much higher (I could be mistaken on this )…probably for reasons of scale and quality assurance. My point is that I think Lincoln is in the same position that Lexus was in the early ’90’s and are executing a similar strategy….re-building the brand from the ground up.
Aspirationally—-5 years from now I think Lincoln will be a line of 4-5 vehicles (MKZ, MKS, MKR, MKX, Navigator) that will be highly differentiated (content and style) from both their Ford cousins and competition. I hope this happens because I do think that they are getting the basics / tablestakes right.
Unbelievably—the very first post on this marathon string from DWFORD read:
“So true, so true. The bias against the US manufacturers is unbelievable, even from the consumers who do come in the lot. There are those willing to give another chance. At my dealership, the Lincoln MKX is doing a great job at getting import buyers to switch back”
……and so the MKX did the same job with me and my wife. While a re-badge job to some—we simply think it is a terrific vehicle as do some ex-import owners as per the above.
As an aside—Acura does have the Euro-Accord TSX in the US
You’ll have to excuse that sentence construction regarding the TSX – I know it’s in the US (I shopped them recently – nice little cars). I was just saying that the TSX does not have a Honda equivalent in the US…since the US Accord is different from the international version.
And I hear you with Lincoln’s progress, and hopefully they’ll get the chance to live out that plan to differentiate themselves from Ford. Seems like they may have some winners down the road in addition to their lineup now.
“I have to conclude you are not serious about saving the manufacturing jobs you spoke of in your editorial. Max. leverage is buying a US BUILT car, from a US HQ company. Obvously a car not built here does not have the same leverage.
Next in line is a car built here, even if it’s not a US brand.
3rd comes Maquiladora built cars (and you can throw Canadian built units in there too) and,”
This simply isn’t true. There are more jobs than manufacturer, and you are supporting a whole company regardless of where that ONE model was made. Until you show me a transplant with more jobs in this country all together, a transplant DOES NOT beat a domestic nameplate.
Phil,
I guess RF wants more people to contribute to this thread, so here is my opinion. For the record: I used to drive GM, now drive Toyota. I live in California, where it’s been clear for a while that besides Toyota and Honda we don’t need much else.
Here are 10 reasons why Detroit doesn’t look too good:
1. Brands: you have strong brands and weak brands, reflecting decades of history. Detroit brands are weak, Japanese are strong. Simple.
2. Technology: Compare Cadillac to Lexus and Cadillac looks embarrassingly low-tech.
3. Fuel economy: Toyota Prius 10 year anniversary; Detroit still gas guzzling.
4. Reliability: You need a stellar 10 year reliability record to count. Maybe someday Detroit will have that?
5. Quality: take any component in a car, compare the Detroit version with the Japanese version and see which works better. Detroit doesn’t score well.
6. Honesty: you have to consistently treat customers well. Detroit doesn’t do that.
7. Dealers: Toyota dealers are giant enterprises. Detroit dealers can’t compete.
8. Patriotism: favoring domestics for patriotic reasons is not a good idea. It only gives Detroit an excuse to be slacking.
9. Transplants: in various regions of the US transplants are the home team, not Detroit.
10. Corporate strength. Who has the money to make investments?
Life is tough, isn’t it?
Now, Detroit, when you’re done crying, remember: there is still room to survive. Toyota is seriously overworked right now, so you have a sliver of an opportunity to reinvent yourself. Don’t wait too long…
This simply isn’t true. There are more jobs than manufacturer, and you are supporting a whole company regardless of where that ONE model was made. Until you show me a transplant with more jobs in this country all together, a transplant DOES NOT beat a domestic nameplate.
More empty assertions. Would you like to provide some evidence? Perhaps an economic impact study from a reputable source?
No. This is why we track sex-offenders. They may or may not be changed people and we’re going to keep an eye on them for a good long while.
Different debate, but why do we track sex offenders and not other criminals? It’s another form of double jeopardy and creates at least as many problems as it solves. These data dependencies are really often feel-good exercises that are irrelevant to the results you’re trying to achieve.
Does Detroit have the PROCESSES and PRIORITIES in place to get superb quality? We don’t know and using past history is a satisfactory way of judging whether or not they get your trust. PROVEN reliability takes time to PROVE. There are no shortcuts and they should have whipped the crap gaskets out of those engines as soon as they realized there was a problem – which should have been damned quick. Nope, ten years – maybe more of that. Forget it.
Backward looking data tells you nothing about an improving organization’s output, nor one that, like Toyota, is degrading in real time.
Wait – here’s an idea… goes back to something someone else said… Publish warranty actuals costs. If the new cars are good, warranty costs should be falling very fast.
An idea that is superficially good but which in practice is likely to incentivize dealers and manufacturers to resist warranty claims.
Phil: ““American Revolution” is a Chevrolet tagline, not an Aveo tagline.”
Good grief! You’re going to quibble about this, too??!!
It’s not a quibble. Messaging is strategic and Chevy is screwing up their message discipline with insufficient segregation of brand marketing from product marketing and vice-versa. The “American Revolution” identifier is useful at a Chevy level and can accommodate a foreign-sourced product under its umbrella, but only if the message hierarchy is assimilated by the consumer. They have to make it assimilable. This is basic marketing that it appears neither they understand, nor you. You have a good reason not to; they don’t. The two messages are reconcilable.
Phil
I have to conclude you are not serious about saving the manufacturing jobs you spoke of in your editorial. Max. leverage is buying a US BUILT car, from a US HQ company. Obvously a car not built here does not have the same leverage.
Then you haven’t understood my reference to a relevant time horizon that makes buying from the Detroit 3 a first priority, *now.*. Look, I agree, on Malibu, go for it. It is maximum leverage. But if a customer likes Fusion better and is choosing Fusion over a transplant, that’s the near-term leverage. If we get to a point of having healthy competitive domestic companies, then we can think about whether a transplant model trumps an offshored model from a US brand. But we’re not there yet.
Next in line is a car built here, even if it’s not a US brand.
3rd comes Maquiladora built cars (and you can throw Canadian built units in there too) and,”
It’s the reverse. The domestic companies have more economic leverage and the agenda is to make sure their competitive products get evaluated and hopefully bought in sufficient numbers to ensure they have the cash to complete their reforms. You are too exclusively focused on assembly labor as the sole measure of economic leverage.
More empty assertions.
You’re kidding, right? Last count, GM has 82 domestic production plants alone and is US headquartered. Even without counting Ford and Chrysler, one company dwarfs all the transplants combined in employment and leverage.
Phil
Here are 10 reasons why Detroit doesn’t look too good:
1. Brands: you have strong brands and weak brands, reflecting decades of history. Detroit brands are weak, Japanese are strong. Simple.
This varies by demographics, psychographics, region and cultural factors. Overall, it’s fair to say the Detroit 3 are on the defensive.
2. Technology: Compare Cadillac to Lexus and Cadillac looks embarrassingly low-tech.
On the other hand, Lexus looks obtuse and their technology integration is sometimes inferior to Cadillac’s. Cadillac looks straighforward and sensible by comparison.
3. Fuel economy: Toyota Prius 10 year anniversary; Detroit still gas guzzling.
One model selling in a relative niche. In most sectors you can meet import fuel economy with domestic alternatives, and in some sectors (large trucks) exceed them. Our annual sales composition even today shows the US market to not be fuel-economy driven as more than a secondary factor by the great middle of the market. Fuel is too cheap for any small differentials to drive the buying decision for more than a subset of the market.
4. Reliability: You need a stellar 10 year reliability record to count. Maybe someday Detroit will have that?
It’s been available on a model-specific basis for years and evidence is emerging that reliability is trend-positive across the Detroit 3’s lines. If you need 10 years to take the plunge that is the same as saying you aren’t willing to include the larger social context in your buying decision. Which is your right, but that’s the actual declarative effect.
5. Quality: take any component in a car, compare the Detroit version with the Japanese version and see which works better. Detroit doesn’t score well.
Any component? No, I don’t agree.
6. Honesty: you have to consistently treat customers well. Detroit doesn’t do that.
Blanket statement that is personally unproven by my experience and many others. Fact is, every automaker has burned customers via arrogance, aloofness and dismissal at some time or other.
7. Dealers: Toyota dealers are giant enterprises. Detroit dealers can’t compete.
Where I live, each of the Detroit 3 can match Toyota dealers for scale.
8. Patriotism: favoring domestics for patriotic reasons is not a good idea. It only gives Detroit an excuse to be slacking.
No one here, least of all me, has proposed patriotism as a reason to buy.
9. Transplants: in various regions of the US transplants are the home team, not Detroit.
That might be perception, but if you’re thinking critically about the American economy as a whole, this would be the wrong conclusion to draw.
10. Corporate strength. Who has the money to make investments?
Toyota has serious advantage now. Consumers can choose to help GM and Ford restore competitive financials.
Now, Detroit, when you’re done crying, remember: there is still room to survive. Toyota is seriously overworked right now, so you have a sliver of an opportunity to reinvent yourself. Don’t wait too long…
Correct. That’s exactly what they are, to varying degrees and varying rates of progress, undertaking.
Phil
KBW “More empty assertions. Would you like to provide some evidence? Perhaps an economic impact study from a reputable source? ”
Hoping something isn’t true doesn’t make it that way as you seem to think. A domestic manufturer has WAY MORE JOBS in the US. You can not assert otherwise. My premise is the vehicle purchase supports the whole company. Although Labor is costly, it is only a small portion of what you pay. The rest supports everything else. So, unless you don’t continue to be so dense as to not get this and think some “study” can prove transplants benefit more, I’ll be waiting for your evidence.
Let me simplify. You don’t buy a fusion, and Ford fails, how many jobs are lost (not mentioning stockholders, stakeholders, etc) in this country? Now you don’t buy Camry in this country, and Toyota falls, how many American jobs are lost? There’s more than manuf, and even if that was all you looked at, Ford supports far more manuf jobs here than Toyota, regardless of where one model is built.
If you want to rationalize a transplant purchase, pick a different technique.
“This simply isn’t true. There are more jobs than manufacturer, and you are supporting a whole company regardless of where that ONE model was made. Until you show me a transplant with more jobs in this country all together, a transplant DOES NOT beat a domestic nameplate.”
Sure it’s ture. Buying an Accord, made in Ohio, with 82% NA content (e.g. extending deeper into the domestic supplier network) is better for America than buying a Fusion, made in Mexico, with 50% NA content.
If Ford only sold the Fusion, and was relying on the sales of that one model to save the company, then it might make sense to buy one hoping to keep Ford alive, but that’s not the case. You can support Ford (or GM or Chrysler) w/o rewarding them for offshoring jobs.
Taking Phil’s advocacy to the logical conclusion, we should buy those models that are best for the US economy, and that’s not Maquiladora vehicles.
And let’s not pretend there are no HQ jobs in the US at Honda/Toyota.
“You’re kidding, right? Last count, GM has 82 domestic production plants alone and is US headquartered. Even without counting Ford and Chrysler, one company dwarfs all the transplants combined in employment and leverage.”
So their strong enough to compete with Toyohondisan then.
“Hoping something isn’t true doesn’t make it that way as you seem to think. A domestic manufturer has WAY MORE JOBS in the US. You can not assert otherwise. … ”
No one is asserting otherwise, and it’s beside the point. WAY more AMERICAN jobs are involved in making an Accord than in making a Fusion. That’s why I said, several hundred posts ago, that this has to be looked at model by model.
Better yet, if you take Phil’s dire predictions of a 3-5 year timeline seriously, and you also agree with him we should keep the jobs at home (production jobs too, not just HQ jobs) then buying an American car, built in America is really the only logical thing to do. Just ignore the pure import, the Maquiladora, and the trasnplant and go right for maximum leverage. After all, if Phil is right, the D3 won’t be here in 3-5 years unless we maximize leverage.
It is strange that I’m advocating a stronger version of Phil’s thesis than Phil is. Almost makes me think he doesn’t really believe in what he’s saying.
Dynamic88, you guys seem to forget about all of the imports NOT built in this company. The cheap labor, exchange rates, etc help keep those companies in the black. A small portion of transplants are built here, a small portion of domestics are “imported.” To keep asserting that a transplant model built here benefits the country as a whole more than domestics is just wrong. There’s more than one model at stake here. If there weren’t as many imports coming in utilizing lower wages, socialized healthcare, weak yen, than Ford wouldn’t be pressured financially into building in Mexico. So when the transplants are playing on a level playing feild and they build ALL MODELS sold here in the US than try to make this point.
Funny how you will associate quality issues across brands as it suits your whim, but each individual model must be evaluated for assembly plant. Get real.
As for not believe the timeline. How long do you think a company can lose billions for?
“Dynamic88, you guys seem to forget about all of the imports NOT built in this company. … ”
Havn’t forgotten at all, and most of what Iv’e bought over the years has been built here.
” … The cheap labor, exchange rates, etc help keep those companies in the black. A small portion of transplants are built here, a small portion of domestics are “imported.” To keep asserting that a transplant model built here benefits the country as a whole more than domestics is just wrong. … ”
Prove it. I’ve given you my reasons for thinking that with some models, the X vs Y question doesn’t automatically default to the American named car.
“… There’s more than one model at stake here. …”
Precisely my point. There are plenty of made in the US models to choose from so why keep encouraging people to use less than maximum leverage and buy a Maquiladora car?
“… If there weren’t as many imports coming in utilizing lower wages, socialized healthcare, weak yen, than Ford wouldn’t be pressured financially into building in Mexico. … ”
Absolute blaoney! Ford isn’t pressured into producing in Mexico they want to produce in Mexico. They’d like to build in Bangladesh if there were some sort of NAFTA-like agreement so that import duties didn’t cancel out their labor savings. Ford still produces cars here, so obviously it can be done. You want to support Ford, then there is no reason at all not to buy something built here.
“… So when the transplants are playing on a level playing feild and they build ALL MODELS sold here in the US than try to make this point. ”
I don’t have to wait for a level field for all vehicles sold all over the world. All I have to do is look at the field for vehicles sold in the US. Accord is built here, and has higher NA parts content. Fusion is built elsewhere and has lower NA parts content. If you’re happy with someone buying a Fusion, you should be equally (or more) happy with them buying an Accord.
“…Funny how you will associate quality issues across brands as it suits your whim, but each individual model must be evaluated for assembly plant. Get real. …”
What’s funny about it? I don’t have any problem with looking at quality issues model by model, but it’s a lot of work to do that much research. But by all means, feel free. Judging quality by brand name is a convienient, abeit less accurate, way to make a decission.
On the economic effects, it’s obvious that buying an American car built in America yeilds maximum advantage. Buying a pure import yeilds minimum advantage. In between the extremes, it’s not really clear. Different models are made in different places, and have different NA contnet. How else are we going to make an educated decission except looking at it model by model?
This is one aspect of Phil’s editorial that just wasn’t given a lot of thought up front. No shame in that. It doesn’t negate his central point, and it doesn’t cast Phil in a bad light. No one can see every angle and every possibility. If they could, there’d have been no point at all in continuing this discussion for 800+ posts. But rather than admit that in one or two cases, a transplant could be more economically beneficial to our economy than a maquiladora car, Phil and you both insist that it’s all about the name on the fender.
You and Phil insist that buying the American brand name is the default position. This puts you in the challenging position of convincing others that an Aveo is better for this country’s economy than a Civic made in Ohio, just because the Aveo is wearing a bowtie. I’m sure that goes over well in the lunch room at the domestic automaker you work for, but it doesn’t really fly with people who are thinking seriously about the situation.
“As for not believe the timeline. How long do you think a company can lose billions for?”
No idea. The D3 seem to be able to chug on and on doing it. But if the situation is as desperate as you believe, then encouraging people to buy Maquiladora cars is only hastening the D3’s demise. You should be encouraging only American cars built in America – e.g. what Phil calls maximum leverage.
If you’re fine with the Maquiladora purchase, then you must not beleive the situation is all that urgent.
A domestic manufturer has WAY MORE JOBS in the US.
Is “WAY MORE JOBS” some fancy technical term used in the investor relations department? Because from here, it seems like a meaningless superlative, and it really doesn’t prove your argument.
All things being equal, large companies generally hire more people than do smaller companies. If Toyota gets larger, it will probably hire more people. If Honda grows, it will probably hire more people.
What’s interesting is that the American automakers are firing loads of people in the US, and hiring more in places such as Mexico and China. The trend is fairly clear that this is what will happen to any profits earned by the Big 2.8.
I suppose that we should be upset with Toyota, Honda, etc. for being more efficient producers that can build the same volume with fewer people. But at least we know that they actually like to hire Americans, as they keep building facilities here.
I can tell you that Rick Wagoner doesn’t want to hire Americans, or for that matter, even Europeans. GM’s plan to offshore small car production to Asia — it’s one reason that it bought Daewoo. Cars such as the Corsa that were built in Europe will be built in Asia during future production runs.
So let’s remember — if you buy a Malibu, GM is going to reinvest whatever it can into an Asian factory so that the next GM car you buy comes from there. Pretty ironic, when you figure that the Honda you buy from Ohio or Ontario will encourage the construction of another plant in the US or Canada because companies such as Honda like being close to their best markets as opposed to Detroit that would prefer to be closer to cheaper labor.
Offshoring is alive and well in Detroit, they are doing it WAY MORE than they used to and seem intent on doing WAY MORE of it in the future. I’m waiting for the day that the engineering work ends up in India, because this same internet we are using now makes it easy and cheap to communicate over long distances. Hell, they may off shore the back office work, too…for example, the functions of the Treasury Department.
RLJ676: “Funny how you will associate quality issues across brands as it suits your whim, but each individual model must be evaluated for assembly plant. Get real.”
Who’s going to evaluate for each assembly plant? I’m certainly not going to do that; what a waste of time that is for the consumer. Detroit *should* be doing that, carefully, benchmarking their best practices but I have to wonder if they do. You know, there’s really no good reason that initial quality (i.e., are all the right pieces in all the right places and tightened down to spec?) should be any different between Buick and Chevrolet. Yet, a pronounced difference exists. This is an argument that GM doesn’t have a decent quality ethic or process. If they did, why not drive it across all plants?
And, in any event, why would I trouble myself to worry about quality issues between different plants or models? Why would I even know what plants produce what cars? Why would I care? That’s time-consuming BS. Much easier to just buy a BRAND that’s got a good rep for quality. If not Toyota, well, Honda’s looking good. A friend has an I4/automatic Accord. Nice… very nice. Smooth and quick enough. I’ve recently ridden in older Accords… they’re holding up VERY well.
Yep, Toyota may be unseated as the quality leader. But by Detroit? That’s not looking promising.
PCH101: “I’m waiting for the day that the engineering work ends up in India, because this same internet we are using now makes it easy and cheap to communicate over long distances.”
I have no doubt it’s happening as we speak. And if my experience with off-shored IT projects is any guide, I strongly advise against buying a car engineered offshore.
Dynamic88: “Taking Phil’s advocacy to the logical conclusion, we should buy those models that are best for the US economy, and that’s not Maquiladora vehicles.”
Phil’s arguments look to be constructed to encourage us to buy whatever’s best for Detroit’s stockholders.
Phil: “blah blah Mexico vs Canada blah blah”.
Why am I not having a cow over jobs shifted to Canada? It’s a high-wage country. Shifting jobs there doesn’t break down the working class.
Ford’s using Mexico to make US workers equally miserable to the Mexicans.
Buying an Accord, made in Ohio, with 82% NA content (e.g. extending deeper into the domestic supplier network) is better for America than buying a Fusion, made in Mexico, with 50% NA content.
I know you want to believe this, but today it’s just not true. Keeping Ford in business is much better than supporting transplant assembly labor, though the latter is better than buying an import built completely elsewhere. Maybe your preference will move up a notch in economic leverage later, once the future of the Detroit 3 is secured. What is true is that buying a Malibu will have more economic leverage that favors US interests than buying Fusion, so if you prefer Malibu over Fusion, have at it.
If Ford only sold the Fusion, and was relying on the sales of that one model to save the company, then it might make sense to buy one hoping to keep Ford alive, but that’s not the case. You can support Ford (or GM or Chrysler) w/o rewarding them for offshoring jobs.
Yes. Put another way, if you want to do business with Ford but don’t want to reward shipping jobs to other NAFTA countries, buy a Taurus. Ford is splitting the mainstream sedan market anyway, so you take something either slightly small or slightly large.
So their strong enough to compete with Toyohondisan then.
Toyota/Honda/Nissan are not competing with the Detroit 3 via exclusively US production. Intent is to see the Detroit 3 on a firm footing shortly.
Better yet, if you take Phil’s dire predictions of a 3-5 year timeline seriously, and you also agree with him we should keep the jobs at home (production jobs too, not just HQ jobs) then buying an American car, built in America is really the only logical thing to do. Just ignore the pure import, the Maquiladora, and the trasnplant and go right for maximum leverage. After all, if Phil is right, the D3 won’t be here in 3-5 years unless we maximize leverage.
It is strange that I’m advocating a stronger version of Phil’s thesis than Phil is. Almost makes me think he doesn’t really believe in what he’s saying.
I take a mitigated view of this position to give a larger part of the market a path to participate, enlarge choices that still help the Detroit 3, and to further distance this advocacy from being incorrectly inferred as a patriotism appeal.
This is one aspect of Phil’s editorial that just wasn’t given a lot of thought up front. No shame in that. It doesn’t negate his central point, and it doesn’t cast Phil in a bad light. No one can see every angle and every possibility. If they could, there’d have been no point at all in continuing this discussion for 800+ posts. But rather than admit that in one or two cases, a transplant could be more economically beneficial to our economy than a maquiladora car, Phil and you both insist that it’s all about the name on the fender.
I’ve given this issue a lot of thought and investigation for many years. But a fuller discussion of my thinking was outside the scope of an 800 word editorial.
You and Phil insist that buying the American brand name is the default position. This puts you in the challenging position of convincing others that an Aveo is better for this country’s economy than a Civic made in Ohio, just because the Aveo is wearing a bowtie. I’m sure that goes over well in the lunch room at the domestic automaker you work for, but it doesn’t really fly with people who are thinking seriously about the situation.
It is perfectly in line with people thinking seriously about the near-term situation, which is completed reforms at the Detroit 3. Buying a Honda anything does nothing for the Detroit 3, weakens them, and for this agenda that transplant factory is less important. Get the Detroit 3 on a stable footing, and then we can revisit the ranking of economic leverage by purchase type.
If you’re fine with the Maquiladora purchase, then you must not believe the situation is all that urgent.
There is no conflict at all between Mexican production and improving the financial strength of the Detroit 3. If these companies survive and prosper, their superior per-job and per-car economic leverage will be preserved, and they will be in better shape for investing in and expanding US production. It’s the time horizon that affects priorities.
All things being equal, large companies generally hire more people than do smaller companies. If Toyota gets larger, it will probably hire more people. If Honda grows, it will probably hire more people.
Just not so much here.
What’s interesting is that the American automakers are firing loads of people in the US, and hiring more in places such as Mexico and China. The trend is fairly clear that this is what will happen to any profits earned by the Big 2.8.
The move to Mexico has slowed. China is a completely different issue. These are global companies and China is a market of scalable opportunity. To be players there, they must invest in Chinese manufacturing. Now, I don’t think GM should be selling better Buicks in China than in the US, but the Chinese production isn’t in conflict with US interests. How much that Chinese production will be used to export cars to the US, displacing American production is a separate issue. However, you can bet that a weak GM will move jobs to China or elsewhere much faster than will a strong GM.
But at least we know that they actually like to hire Americans, as they keep building facilities here.
Slowly.
I can tell you that Rick Wagoner doesn’t want to hire Americans, or for that matter, even Europeans. GM’s plan to offshore small car production to Asia — it’s one reason that it bought Daewoo. Cars such as the Corsa that were built in Europe will be built in Asia during future production runs.
And you will see Toyota, Honda and VW do this too.
So let’s remember — if you buy a Malibu, GM is going to reinvest whatever it can into an Asian factory so that the next GM car you buy comes from there.
This is baldly false. GM is investing in American plants too. Their global production plans are model, sector, and market-specific.
Offshoring is alive and well in Detroit, they are doing it WAY MORE than they used to and seem intent on doing WAY MORE of it in the future. I’m waiting for the day that the engineering work ends up in India, because this same internet we are using now makes it easy and cheap to communicate over long distances. Hell, they may off shore the back office work, too…for example, the functions of the Treasury Department.
Offshoring is alive and well globally. The stronger GM, Ford and Chrysler are, the more robust their investments in US production will be.
I have no doubt it’s happening as we speak. And if my experience with off-shored IT projects is any guide, I strongly advise against buying a car engineered offshore.
As a software industry veteran, I generally concur.
Phil’s arguments look to be constructed to encourage us to buy whatever’s best for Detroit’s stockholders.
These are public companies so stockholders benefit from any success they have. However, my interest in Detroit 3 stockholders is merely incidental as consequence to the larger socio-economic advantage of recovering the strength of these companies.
Why am I not having a cow over jobs shifted to Canada? It’s a high-wage country. Shifting jobs there doesn’t break down the working class.
A job shipped is a job shipped. But creating jobs and wealth along the Mexican side of our border arguably has much more value to the US than shoring up the Canadian economy, at least for the forseeable future.
Phil
The stronger GM, Ford and Chrysler are, the more robust their investments in US production will be.
Neither GM, Ford nor Chrysler have announced any plans for expansion of US capacity. The cornerstone of their turnaround plans it to reduce production in the US. All future capacity is slated to be installed in low wage countries. These companies are public corporations, their first duty is to the shareholder. There is no reason to believe they will expand production in the US when all the data points in the other direction.
Neither GM, Ford nor Chrysler have announced any plans for expansion of US capacity. The cornerstone of their turnaround plans it to reduce production in the US. All future capacity is slated to be installed in low wage countries. These companies are public corporations, their first duty is to the shareholder. There is no reason to believe they will expand production in the US when all the data points in the other direction.
Not sure about Chrysler, but GM and Ford are investing in updating American plants, which will also improve productivity at those sites. Certainly, if they stay weak, they will offshore faster than if they are strong and see market share climbing here in the US. They will not satisfy increasing demand exclusively from outside the US. On the other hand, since both are having success in markets outside North America, they can be expected to localize production closer to or in those markets, particularly China. I fully expect them to expand production in Asia, even moving into Indonesia and Vietnam. But most of this will not be at the expense of American labor. The key to expanding US production is expanding NAFTA market share.
The fact that GM and Ford are public companies isn’t unique to them. Their shareholder responsibility is shared by their competitors.
Phil
The whole “leverage” charade debate is rather interesting. Not because Mr. Ressler’s arguments are accurate (they aren’t) or proven (ditto), but because he can’t seem to remember what he wrote in the first place.
Here’s the original passage of the article:
We need a full-spectrum economy, not one divided between wealthy and struggling.
Manufacturing jobs are the bridge. As the US Department of Commerce reported in March, 2007:“Auto manufacturing remains one of the economy’s best paying industries. Production workers’ average hourly earnings were projected to reach $30.02 (excluding benefits) in 2006. Wages were 79 percent greater than the national average for all manufacturing industries.”
They also note that reductions in employment by GM, Ford and Chrysler will not be made up by transplant hiring. Beyond that, transplant sales do not support the tens of thousands of domestic high-salary headquarters jobs that a Detroit 3 purchase does today.
Read closely — the entirety of his argument is focused on employment. Yet when pushed, he flips a 180:
You might feel more emotionally attracted to the transplant’s US assembly employment, but there’s less leverage in supporting that than in keeping Ford in business.
I guess “leverage” must be defined as “whatever Ressler can say that might convince you to buy a Big 2.8 vehicle.” Because it obviously isn’t attached to providing high-wage employment, as the editorial originally opined.
(Isn’t it funny how when someone else mentions employment, it’s dismissed as an “emotional” argument. Yet the author’s data free rebuttals that contradict the original editorial are allegedly rational and beyond reproach. Hmmm…
Once again, Mr. Ressler, I would ask you to try to develop an editorial position and actually stick with it. It seems that you are in search of rebuttals, rather than reality. If you care about jobs, then defend jobs. If you care about the stockholders, then defend them, instead.
Speaking of stockholders, here are the major stockholders (read: beneficiary of the profits) of Honda. They sound pretty “furrin” to me:
Dodge & Cox Inc
FMR Corporation (Fidelity Management & Research Corp)
Wellington Management Company, LLP
Greenhaven Associates, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Renaissance Technologies Corp
AXA
National City Corporation
Blackrock Investment Management LLC
Adage Capital Partners GP, L.L.C.
The whole “leverage” charade debate is rather interesting. Not because Mr. Ressler’s arguments are accurate (they aren’t) or proven (ditto), but because he can’t seem to remember what he wrote in the first place.
I’ll leave it to you to clarify whether you lack reading comprehension or are a habitual misrepresenter of others’ ideas.
Read closely — the entirety of his argument is focused on employment. Yet when pushed, he flips a 180:
You might feel more emotionally attracted to the transplant’s US assembly employment, but there’s less leverage in supporting that than in keeping Ford in business.
False. The only inconsistency here is that you left out the great middle of discussion that links a paragraph from the editorial with a later, separate and only related discussion about ranking of economic leverage between domestics, transplants, NAFTA production and imports.
The original editorial, by citing that lost Detroit 3 manufacturing jobs will not be made up by increases in transplant jobs, makes clear that the survival and revival of Ford, GM and Chrysler is the first order priority to retain their premier manufacturing, supply chain and HQ leverage.
The follow-on comment pertained to a claim by another commenter hundreds of posts later that buying an Ohio-assembled Accord is better for the US economy than buying a Mexican-assembled Fusion. My answer is no. Since the first priority is to remove the existential threat to the Detroit 3, economic advantage goes to the Ford Fusion purchase at least *for the time horizon I’ve identified as critical*. There is no inconsistency with the editorial in this position.
I guess “leverage” must be defined as “whatever Ressler can say that might convince you to buy a Big 2.8 vehicle.” Because it obviously isn’t attached to providing high-wage employment, as the editorial originally opined.
If you took the time to understand the more intricate second discussion you’d see you’re wrong.
Isn’t it funny how when someone else mentions employment, it’s dismissed as an “emotional” argument. Yet the author’s data free rebuttals that contradict the original editorial are allegedly rational and beyond reproach.
Again, you’re misrepresenting what was written. I didn’t write that the poster cited was mounting an “emotional argument.” I offered that I understand why he’s emotionally attracted to the idea of placing higher value on transplant labor than NAFTA production. These are two different characterizations. Yours is a distortion of what I wrote. The data on this has been covered several times.
The transplants have less employment leverage, and certainly there is no employment leverage in the demise of any of the Detroit 3, so their persistence has first priority. There is vastly more employment to protect extant in the Detroit 3 than there is in transplant labor.
Once again, Mr. Ressler, I would ask you to try to develop an editorial position and actually stick with it.
I have. You seem unable to follow the nuance and intricacies of a ~900 comment thread that weaves many subjects simultaneously. Or you choose to misrepresent my thinking. Only you know which.
If you care about jobs, then defend jobs. If you care about the stockholders, then defend them, instead.
Stockholders haven’t been any part of my advocacy here. They have been given no attention whatsoever by me. Consistently, jobs have been a common theme through my communications.
Speaking of stockholders, here are the major stockholders (read: beneficiary of the profits) of Honda. They sound pretty “furrin” to me: (citation of various American financial entities)
Yes, public companies have global shareholders. This is completely irrelevant to the themes of this thread.
Phil
Re: 3-5 year time line
If you’ll forgive the sports analogy, if Phil is right, we are watching a basketball game, rather than a baseball game.
In baseball, the winner and looser are usually separated by just a few runs, and w/o time limits, it’s always possible to tie the game in the 9th then go on to win in extra innings. (Or, by Japanese rules, tie the game and call it good at that point).
In basketball, of course there’s the clock. And while it’s possible to tie up the game and then go into overtime, the likelihood of that diminishes when the point spread is large, and the the buzzer is about to go off. If the 3-5 year window for survival is accurate, then it’s analogous to the home team being down 14 points with 2 minutes left to play. Technically the game isn’t over until the buzzer sounds, but practically, the game is over.
So, if the D3 only have 3-5 years to turn things around, then game is pretty much over.
One can easily predict the mass suffering this would (will?) cause. However, what’s more interesting (and frankly more useful) to consider is the tremedous opportunity this would create. Currently, the D3 collectively sell half the light vehicles sold in the US. That means in the next 3-5 years we will see Toyohondissanundaiaru (NYSE: THNHS) take the other half of the market.
Immagine ToyoHon ramping up to double/tripple their current production. What tremendous opportunity. Immagine Hyundai becoming the 4th largest producer in the US – in just 3-5 years. Boy how’d I’d like to be a sales and marketing exec during that kind of growth.
And think of the dealer opportunities. ToyHon will need to at least double the number of dealers (and still end up with fewer than GM has now) to sell the other half of the market.
Of course, SE Michigan will be no place you’d want to live, but for the rest of the US, this is one hell of an opportunity.
Personally, I think I’ll buy more Honda stock.
Toyohondissanundaiaru (NYSE: THNHS)
Ha! Thanks for the laugh.
I am 61 years old and have owned Chevrolets, Buicks, Oldsmobiles, and various Chevy trucks since I was in high school in the 1960’s. Each and every one was reliable, last a very long time, and was safe. Myself and my family has driven some such as a 1996 Suburban over 370,000 miles and that involved weekend work in a ranching business. It towed, hauled and ran in four wheel drive over rough terrain that many others never encounter.
I never saw the lack of quality in American vehicles that other mention. I have saved many thousands during my life time with my General Motors products. All that I have owned have been the larger models and all have been driven at least over 200,000 miles. Gas mileage is nothing to brag about, but the toughness and the longivity seem to off set it. My newest suburban is a 2001 Z-71 4 x 4 and it has 200,000 miles on it. It stills runs and looks new. My neighborhood and my friends all driven the American vehicles and I know of none that have been a problem even those of other manufactueres.
Marvin
dynamic “Immagine ToyoHon ramping up to double/tripple their current production. What tremendous opportunity. Immagine Hyundai becoming the 4th largest producer in the US – in just 3-5 years. Boy how’d I’d like to be a sales and marketing exec during that kind of growth.”
Do you honestly think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell in this case that this production would occur in the US? A small percent would as they maximize current capacity, but outside of that I would foresee NO investment in this country. There is no advantage to it now. The reason the plants are here now was the patriotic driven anti-import view of the 80’s. They knew building a few plants here would go a long way to convince some they are “as American” as the big 3. Judging by the naive views of some on here they accomplished that. With the domestic competition gone, they will be free to exploit lower laber, and the weak yen. The last estimate I heard was the weak yen was making $2g’s per imported vehicle. (I’m not searching for a study, prove it otherwise if you think there is no benefit to the exchange)
So, overall, the point of a Mexican built Fusion keeping Ford alive more so than any transplant and therefore benefiting more is the only reasonable answer.
From the “a picture is worth a thousand words department” (or a thousand posts). Go to todays Detroit News online and see the article on the Chrysler job cuts that were announced. There is a picture of a bunch of contract workers packing their boxes into a trunk. Of a Lexus.
Nice try, Mr. Ressler. The only problem is that your editorial is what it is, so anyone can go back and read it.
Once again — the entirety of your economic argument rests on US employment. Yet you then favor a Mexican-built Fusion over an American-built Honda, Toyota, etc.
It’s quite obvious that a car built in Ohio is going to provide more US employment than will a Mexican-built one, no matter who built it. And since your argument is built on what you like to call “leverage,” which is the multiplier effect of a dollar entering the economy, then you ought to know better, as where the “leverage” actually comes from is how the dollars earned in a community end up benefiting others in and around it.
Last I checked, when a worker spends a dollar in his community, the economic benefit derived from that multiplier effect is the same, no matter who paid him that dollar. And anyone who can read a financial statement can see that the automotive industry is a low-margin business. Easily 90% or more of the revenues that these companies earn is burned on “expenses”, which are defined as non-capital items such as parts and labor (in that order.)
So if you want “maximum leverage”, as you claim to want, then you will obviously derive most of it from wherever the cars and its parts are built. Buy a Fusion, and the labor AND a substantial part of the parts content are local, which in this case is Mexico. That’s terrific for the people of Hermosillo who provide housing, operate shops and restaurants, etc. and for those who ship products to be sold there, and it’s good for the Mexican authorities who can tax it. But the benefits to the US are obviously peripheral at best.
“Profits” are what little remains after the expenses have been paid — for Toyota, that’s about $0.08 of every dollar of revenue. We know that Detroit wants to offshore out of high-wage countries. I know that you’re fond of ignoring history, so take heart because this time, you won’t have to — this is happening right now, as we speak.
If you’ve worked in the software business, then you should already know firsthand that US businesses don’t offshore because they are losing money, but because they want to make more of it. They want the arbitrage benefit of lower labor costs, in order to increase profits.
If Detroit turns around, it will increase its offshoring, not decrease it, because the profits will give them the money to pay for more of it. The last time that they were profitable, you might recall that they used their profits to go on an offshore spending spree, buying or investing in foreign businesses such as Saab, Volvo, Aston Martin, Jaguar, FIAT, etc. All kinds of offshored jobs.
The transplant record is different, because their business philosophy is different. Low labor costs are not the uber-priority for them that it is for Detroit — they also want product quality and market proximity, which means building with a stable plant and a well-trained work force near your best customers. If you really care about employment, as you initially claimed, then that’s where your job growth will come from.
If I accept Phil’s premise, that I should subordinate other factors in my purchasing decisions to the necessity of keeping Detroit alive, where does it all end?
I guess I should not ride the bus, as the sale of a single bus shared among many people doesn’t maximize revenue for Detroit the way a large number of individual car purchases would. And forget repairing that car when it breaks down; just scrap it and buy a new one!
Once again — the entirety of your economic argument rests on US employment. Yet you then favor a Mexican-built Fusion over an American-built Honda, Toyota, etc.
It’s actually a case for sustaining a mix of employment that includes a robust manufacturing sector in the US economy. The transplant employment is dwarfed by Detroit 3 employment. The leverage is in retaining the Detroit 3 as successful entities. Only in the context of losing these companies does transplant employment then rise to the top in considering the social context of a purchase. Until then, transplant employment is a lower wrung on the economic leverage ladder.
It’s quite obvious that a car built in Ohio is going to provide more US employment than will a Mexican-built one, no matter who built it.
Not if you’re thinking critically and holistically about the problem.
as where the “leverage” actually comes from is how the dollars earned in a community end up benefiting others in and around it.
My text also clearly comes down on the side of subordinating the microeconomics to the macroeconomics. The US needs these companies even if a given town feels insulated from their well being.
“Profits” are what little remains after the expenses have been paid — for Toyota, that’s about $0.08 of every dollar of revenue. We know that Detroit wants to offshore out of high-wage countries. I know that you’re fond of ignoring history, so take heart because this time, you won’t have to — this is happening right now, as we speak.
If these companies are weak they will offshore much faster than if they have strong North American performance.
If you’ve worked in the software business, then you should already know firsthand that US businesses don’t offshore because they are losing money, but because they want to make more of it. They want the arbitrage benefit of lower labor costs, in order to increase profits.
The software business has entirely different economics. But money-losing or investment stage software companies offshore very much to lose money more slowly than they otherwise would, and to reduce their fund-raising requirements before sustainability. Software companies also offshore to leverage a global talent pool of dispersed intellectual resources.
If Detroit turns around, it will increase its offshoring, not decrease it, because the profits will give them the money to pay for more of it. The last time that they were profitable, you might recall that they used their profits to go on an offshore spending spree, buying or investing in foreign businesses such as Saab, Volvo, Aston Martin, Jaguar, FIAT, etc. All kinds of offshored jobs.
That’s called industry consolidation, a normal phenomenon in every economic sector.
The transplant record is different, because their business philosophy is different. Low labor costs are not the uber-priority for them that it is for Detroit — they also want product quality and market proximity, which means building with a stable plant and a well-trained work force near your best customers. If you really care about employment, as you initially claimed, then that’s where your job growth will come from.
Other companies operate on the same economic drivers. Transplants are built because they benefit the profit picture of the companies that build the plants. There’s no altruism. Market proximity is driven by corporate greed too. The Detroit 3 benefit from market proximity and a well-trained work force near their best customers just the same. The greatest auto industry job growth for the US will come from a resurgent Detroit 3. Transplants will not commensurately compensate for the destruction of the Detroit automakers. You’re twisting yourself in knots selling an illusion otherwise.
Phil
PCH
“It’s quite obvious that a car built in Ohio is going to provide more US employment than will a Mexican-built one, no matter who built it. And since your argument is built on what you like to call “leverage,” which is the multiplier effect of a dollar entering the economy, then you ought to know better, as where the “leverage” actually comes from is how the dollars earned in a community end up benefiting others in and around it. ”
There is a much bigger picture than the few thousand people in an individual plant to consider. The Fusion is built in a plant of a few thousand, but is supported by 30K salaried people in the US, and a company which employs many more manufacturing jobs in the US, not to mention dealer jobs, etc. Until you show how Toyota or Honda have more JOBS IN THE US, supporting there domestic products does not have greater impact than supporting a Mexican built Ford. This relates to the problem being a short time horizon. I know this is hard to grasp for some of you as obvious by your constant misrepresenting/blatant lack of reading comprehension.
In the future, when/if the Big 3 are healthy, than your point makes more sense to argue on a vehicle by vehicle basis. But RIGHT NOW there is a chance of domestics falling, and that will be prevented more so with a Fusion than anything built in this country by a transplant. It’s very simple, and some people’s need to argue/rationalize appearantly overrides logic.
That was a lovely dance, Mr. Ressler. But nobody’s playing any music.
Not if you’re thinking critically and holistically about the problem.
This is your standard answer for everything — anyone who views the world differently from Mr. Ressler doesn’t view the world “critically” or “holistically”.
That’s not really a rebuttal, it merely translates into “I can’t form a cogent response, so I will claim that my opponent hasn’t thought about it.”
The facts are what they are. When Detroit was making money, it was offshoring. Now that Detroit isn’t making money, it is also offshoring. They will offshore, regardless of what happens.
If Americans continue to shift their purchases toward transplants, then the net change will be that the paychecks of those building the cars will come from someone else. As plants become more efficient, the volumes will be built with fewer people per unit produced, but that’s true no matter which company is doing the building.
It’s ironic that when it comes to reliability data, you reject it as looking rearwards, yet you use historical employment ratios as the basis of your argument for this, when anyone who views this “critically” or “holistically” knows that “increased productivity” translates into “fewer jobs required per unit of production.” The writing is on the wall — Detroit wants fewer employees in the US. I’m wondering what one of our posters here will do if the back office finance stuff of his employer ends up overseas, just because it’s cheaper over there.
PCH “The facts are what they are. When Detroit was making money, it was offshoring. Now that Detroit isn’t making money, it is also offshoring. They will offshore, regardless of what happens”
Are you concerned with manuf jobs, or other? Please read any of the news on the UAW contracts. Those jobs are garaunteed, and the production plans are laid out in them? How exactly do they offshore all of this? I will now play the card you guys have been. Where is the PROOF of this offshoring? Where is the STUDY showing all of this future offshoring. Please quit making yourself out to be an industry expert when you are just stating an opinion, and a questionable one at that.
Where is the PROOF of this offshoring?
It’s in their financial statements!
And it’s in the newspaper. Take a look and find out how Rick Wagoner blew $4 billion on his botched deal with FIAT. You know, that Italian automaker.
Mergers and offshoring are two different things. Further, is it offshoring to build in China when that is the only way to sell in China? No.
Offshoring is shipping US jobs overseas, not expanding in foreign markets.
Further, is it offshoring to build in China when that is the only way to sell in China?
Of course, it is. Instead of hiring Americans and exporting the product, they are building in China, with the eventual goal of shipping it back to us.
The money blown on the FIAT deal could have been invested into American plant and equipment, but it wasn’t. GM sees its future in other markets such as Latin America, not here.
And I would hope that I wouldn’t have to provide a link to show you that Hermosillo, Mexico is in, well, Mexico!
RLJ676: Are you concerned with manuf jobs, or other? Please read any of the news on the UAW contracts. Those jobs are garaunteed, and the production plans are laid out in them? How exactly do they offshore all of this?
GM signed the contracts after it had downsized its blue-collar workforce. The job guaranties apply to a smaller number of blue-collar workers.
Ford has done the same thing, and also has announced several plant closures in conjunction with the buyouts of blue-collar workers. It has offered to take six plants off the “slated-to-be-closed” list in exchange for more concessions from the UAW.
Also note that Ford’s upcoming B-car is likely to be sourced from either Brazil or Mexico.
The bottom line is that GM and Ford have been shedding both blue-collar and white-collar jobs in this country.
Part of this is because they were overstaffed.
But part of it is because they are also establishing low-cost production bases outside of the U.S., and have been trying to import vehicles produced in those areas to the U.S. whenever they can (i.e., the “American Revolution,” made-in-Korea, Chevrolet Aveo).
As for the whole “are the transplants really good for America” argument – I’m all for foreign companies setting up manufacturing facilities in this country. We benefit from their expertise, customers benefit from the extra competition, and the states and municipalities benefit from having plants located in those areas.
Indeed, if we look forward instead of backward (since we shouldn’t like “backward-looking” anything on this thread), we find that Honda and Toyota are becoming like Ford and GM in Europe, and this is a good thing.
PCH"Of course, it is. Instead of hiring Americans and exporting the product, they are building in China, with the eventual goal of shipping it back to us." You think that Chinese built cars to America is a bigger future market than Chinese built cars sold to Chinese? You are aware of the size of China, since your such a geography expert? And you're aware that it is rapidly developing no? Further, China has a 25% tariff on imported autos. So I'm sure that would make US built compacts which they demand quite competitive? The big three aren't as interested in replacing US jobs with foreign as you think. They have to build in other markets to be competitive there. But I know, your beloved transplants EXPORT so much from the US huh?
Pch101, you might as well give up. It’s obvious that Mr. Ressler and RLJ676 have been backed into a corner – like you said, their main rebuttal to most of your comments is that simply you’re ignorant to the “facts” that they know better.
Obviously, they use whatever ‘evidence’ fits their view – looking to the past is relevant for some arguments, but of course rubbish for others. This isn’t really a debate. I’d sure like to hear their spin when they’re proven wrong in the not-so-distant future.
RLJ, I’m not the one who claims to be concerned about offshoring — you do.
There’s no hypocrisy on my part, because I don’t object to it. But since you claim to care, it should concern you that the Big 2.8 are very busy offshoring as much as they can, as fast as they can. It will take them awhile, but they are clearly working on it.
Again, I wish that you guys would just be honest and admit that you only really care about the fate of three particular companies, and that you don’t really care about the consumer or the country.
In your case, your concerns are entirely self-serving because they employ you. Which brings me back to my former question: What has your company done this week to improve product quality and customer satisfaction? Anything?
I’ve been watching this thread for a long time. Quite frankly I am very surprised that it still goes on. Anyway, I noticed a few points that I wanted to comment on, so forgive me for the shotgun effect.
I’ll start with the major source of controversy, the 80% of import buyers who don’t consider domestic branded vehicles. Based on percentages through end of September 2007, this is 6.1 million consumers per year. Based on Phil’s 1 million number, that means he believes 1 out of 6 would choose to buy a domestic branded vehicle based ONLY on current and future potentially competitive products. Is this number too high or too low? Depends on who you ask. The import supporters believe this number to be lower, the domestic supporters believe this is accurate or higher.
Whether products are competitive or not depends on who you ask. Import supporters say sales statistics and reliability studies support that the domestics have not yet caught up in cars, which make up 47.1% of the market. Of that 47.1%, 62.3% are sold by import nameplates. Toyota sells more cars than all of the GM divisions combined including Saab. In fact, just Camry, Corolla, Accord, and Civic account for 20.9% of the car market, which is 9.8% of the total light vehicle market. Toyota sells more Camrys and Corollas than Ford sells all of its cars combined including Lincoln, Mercury, and Volvo.
source data: http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
Now, our good friend Phil said the Prius is part of a relatively small niche. It is by far the best selling Hybrid, which you could a small niche. However, it is the 5th most selling mid size car behind the Camry, Accord, Altima, and Impala. It beats the next best mid size, the Ford Fusion by the entirety of ALL Saab models sold so far this year. The Prius is also the 8th best selling car and 14th best selling light vehicle overall this year. Some small niche car, isn’t it?
RLJ676 is trying to prove that buying a Ford Fusion built in Mexico is better than buying an import nameplate built here by saying it supports more white collar Ford workers and therefore overall workers than the transplants. I would suggest totaling the white collar employees for all of the domestic nameplates and divide the blue collar workforce by this number to show the blue collar to white collar ratio, so we can compare. If I had to guess, I would say there is at least 5 (probably closer to 10) blue collar workers for every white collar worker.
Geeber “As for the whole “are the transplants really good for America” argument – I’m all for foreign companies setting up manufacturing facilities in this country. We benefit from their expertise, customers benefit from the extra competition, and the states and municipalities benefit from having plants located in those areas.”
Agreed, it is definitely preferential to a pure import. However, to claim that buying one of those select models is more beneficial than a Big 3 product helping ensure their existance is ludicrous. There isn’t any risk of toyota or honda going under, so those jobs are not even at risk.
I’d say they will be in the long run though if there’s not true domestics producing here. The transplants have no agreements keeping jobs here, and can move them at will. Why produce here if no one else is, your labor costs will be uncompetitive for sure?
IC Turbo “RLJ676 is trying to prove that buying a Ford Fusion built in Mexico is better than buying an import nameplate built here by saying it supports more white collar Ford workers and therefore overall workers than the transplants. I would suggest totaling the white collar employees for all of the domestic nameplates and divide the blue collar workforce by this number to show the blue collar to white collar ratio, so we can compare. If I had to guess, I would say there is at least 5 (probably closer to 10) blue collar workers for every white collar worker”
My point is it supports an entire company at risk of going under. This company employs more Americans of all kinds than individual transplants. Buying a Fusion helps support this company (all white and blue collar) preventing them from falling and all of those jobs being lost, the same as buying a Volvo, LR, Jag, or Mazda helps contribute to this end goal in reality. As a matter of fact, as SHORT term survival is the key some of these are “better” choices to ensure Ford’s survival as they are higher margin. Ford’s survival in turn ensures the American jobs in this discussion.
Once Ford’s (Big three’s) fate is secure, than the debate over American built becomes central to the American jobs question.
Agreed, it is definitely preferential to a pure import. However, to claim that buying one of those select models is more beneficial than a Big 3 product helping ensure their existance is ludicrous. There isn’t any risk of toyota or honda going under, so those jobs are not even at risk.
You are attacking a strawman here. No one claimed that buying a transplant would help save the big 3.
I’d say they will be in the long run though if there’s not true domestics producing here. The transplants have no agreements keeping jobs here, and can move them at will. Why produce here if no one else is, your labor costs will be uncompetitive for sure?
One word will keep them there, and that word is tariffs. As long as those remain in place, there will be a massive incentive to keep the plants here. Besides, the transplant factories here are some of the most efficient in the world, and their capital costs are already sunk. It would be exceedingly foolish to just abandon them. Compare these plants with the aging UAW dominated plants of the domestics and you can see why the domestics would want to ditch their current US facilities.
kbw “You are attacking a strawman here. No one claimed that buying a transplant would help save the big 3.”
Actually, as the entire point we are arguing IS to consider your purchase a chance to save the Big 3, and people keep bringing up these transplants as “better” choices for American jobs, it is not a stawman at all. The fact that some have poor reading comprehension skills and keep claiming absurd things make this their argument. I agree, this should be a “strawman” as nobody should argue some of the points they are.
kbw “One word will keep them there, and that word is tariffs. As long as those remain in place, there will be a massive incentive to keep the plants here. Besides, the transplant factories here are some of the most efficient in the world, and their capital costs are already sunk. It would be exceedingly foolish to just abandon them. Compare these plants with the aging UAW dominated plants of the domestics and you can see why the domestics would want to ditch their current US facilities. ”
All I can find is a 2.5% tariff on autos. If you know of better, as would be assumed by your comment above, please share. I know there is larger on trucks, but those aren’t even built elsewhere really. So you think that the labor disadvantage is less than 2.5%? Wrong. Exchange benefits alone are far more signifigant than this.
However, many countries we’d like to export to have huge tarriffs, helping create the massive trade defecit. The transplants have no concerns with this though, as they can produce globally and import export at will and get a free pass from you people.
This is your standard answer for everything — anyone who views the world differently from Mr. Ressler doesn’t view the world “critically” or “holistically”.
When I say this, it is usually because the opponent is temporally and locally restricted in his or her thinking. As is the case with your position here.
The facts are what they are. When Detroit was making money, it was offshoring. Now that Detroit isn’t making money, it is also offshoring. They will offshore, regardless of what happens.
When the Detroit 3 were making money, in the context of higher market share and higher fixed costs than they have now, combined with an assault on their declining market share by companies not carrying the same fixed costs, there were good business reasons for taking advantage of NAFTA with respect to locating some production. In some cases there will continue to be good reason for it, just as Japanese and Korean companies have good reasons to offshore a minority of their production. But in a context of rising market share and newer, reduced fixed costs, the business drivers for locating production change. A number of American companies that outsourced for business reasons over the past ten years have concluded it’s better to return home and “outsource” to Arkansas, Idaho, West Virginia, for example. You don’t know what Detroit’s management will see as sensible as the context for their decisions changes. One thing is for sure: if these companies fail, the total number of US automotive manufacturing and attendant jobs will fall dramatically.
It’s ironic that when it comes to reliability data, you reject it as looking rearwards, yet you use historical employment ratios as the basis of your argument for this, when anyone who views this “critically” or “holistically” knows that “increased productivity” translates into “fewer jobs required per unit of production.” The writing is on the wall — Detroit wants fewer employees in the US. I’m wondering what one of our posters here will do if the back office finance stuff of his employer ends up overseas, just because it’s cheaper over there.
You’re making unrelated comparisons. The reliability data that I place less priority on than you is downgraded because of wholesale platform changes and the data’s irrelevance to an improving company’s manufacturing. The job leverage advantage to domestically owned manufacturing, on the other hand, continues on a stable vector. Productivity increases will reduce the units of labor needed to boost output against rising demand if market share rises, but it doesn’t mean present jobs will fall if market share declines don’t require it.
The money blown on the FIAT deal could have been invested into American plant and equipment, but it wasn’t.
This is true, but that error has been committed, the money is gone, and it has no bearing on this forward-looking discussion.
GM signed the contracts after it had downsized its blue-collar workforce. The job guaranties apply to a smaller number of blue-collar workers.
Well, let’s be honest — there shouldn’t be job guarantees.
Ford has done the same thing, and also has announced several plant closures in conjunction with the buyouts of blue-collar workers. It has offered to take six plants off the “slated-to-be-closed” list in exchange for more concessions from the UAW.
Also note that Ford’s upcoming B-car is likely to be sourced from either Brazil or Mexico.
The bottom line is that GM and Ford have been shedding both blue-collar and white-collar jobs in this country.
Part of this is because they were overstaffed.
But part of it is because they are also establishing low-cost production bases outside of the U.S., and have been trying to import vehicles produced in those areas to the U.S. whenever they can (i.e., the “American Revolution,” made-in-Korea, Chevrolet Aveo).
But let’s not forget the number one driver of the job-shedding you cite: falling market share at home.
As for the whole “are the transplants really good for America” argument – I’m all for foreign companies setting up manufacturing facilities in this country. We benefit from their expertise, customers benefit from the extra competition, and the states and municipalities benefit from having plants located in those areas.
Indeed, if we look forward instead of backward (since we shouldn’t like “backward-looking” anything on this thread), we find that Honda and Toyota are becoming like Ford and GM in Europe, and this is a good thing.
It’s a good thing if people are buying imported cars. A better development would be rising demand for competitive domestic vehicles driving rising domestic market share. There will and should always be an import market. And if some of that import production is here, that’s good. But when import share becomes an existential threat to the domestics — all of them simultaneously — then the net effect will be dramatically negative. Open-minded consideration of Detroit’s competitive offerings are the key to finding balance so a long-term equilibrium can be found.
Phil
Again, I wish that you guys would just be honest and admit that you only really care about the fate of three particular companies, and that you don’t really care about the consumer or the country.
The persistence of the Detroit 3 as sustaining domestic manufacturers is elemental to my concern for the country. The consumer’s interests are addressed in my advocacy of open-minded consideration and evaluation of competitive Detroit 3 products. There is no way the consumer loses in this proposition. He retains free will, has no interference by regulation, and can still choose an import or transplant if he genuinely doesn’t agree he can find a competitive domestic vehicle, or isn’t willing to factor the larger social context into his decision.
One word will keep them there, and that word is tariffs. As long as those remain in place, there will be a massive incentive to keep the plants here. Besides, the transplant factories here are some of the most efficient in the world, and their capital costs are already sunk. It would be exceedingly foolish to just abandon them. Compare these plants with the aging UAW dominated plants of the domestics and you can see why the domestics would want to ditch their current US facilities.
Correct on an effect of tariffs. I also wouldn’t expect transplant factories to be abandoned unless the economics or ability to maintain quality of output changes. Note the short life of Vokswagen’s Pennsylvania operation in the 1980s. On the last point, The Detroit 3 are investing in modernization of many aging domestic plants.
Now, our good friend Phil said the Prius is part of a relatively small niche. It is by far the best selling Hybrid, which you could a small niche. However, it is the 5th most selling mid size car behind the Camry, Accord, Altima, and Impala. It beats the next best mid size, the Ford Fusion by the entirety of ALL Saab models sold so far this year. The Prius is also the 8th best selling car and 14th best selling light vehicle overall this year. Some small niche car, isn’t it?
Prius’ sales volume looks impressive when viewed as a sales ranking in its category, but no single model has the consolidated volume that used to occur in cars, e.g. when GM sold about a million Impalas or Cutlasses annually. Now the market is much more fragmented, so more modest sales look like hits when presented in Billboard chart form. The Prius is certainly successful, but in the context of our total car market, it is a small player not embraced by the vast majority. Even recently truncated demand for all categories of trucks, or single truck models like F150, dwarf it. However, Prius has a bullet next to its listing.
I would suggest totaling the white collar employees for all of the domestic nameplates and divide the blue collar workforce by this number to show the blue collar to white collar ratio, so we can compare. If I had to guess, I would say there is at least 5 (probably closer to 10) blue collar workers for every white collar worker.
It’s possible to find out, but let’s say you’re right. The average economic value of the non-assembly, non-manufacturing jobs is higher so the impact ratio is less skewed to the blue collar population. Both are important in understanding the total economic leverage sustained by retaining these companies.
Phil
Maybe late to the party, but IMHO:
The author made a poor comparison of Caddy XLS to MB SL.
I mean, how many XLS’s can GM sell in one year? And is it MB that grabbed all the market share from GM?
If you really want to make a valid point, please tell me that your friend really liked the superb quality of a Chevy Aveo, but bought a Honda Fit instead due to peer pressure.
“… Buying a Fusion helps support this company (all white and blue collar) preventing them from falling and all of those jobs being lost, the same as buying a Volvo, LR, Jag, or Mazda helps contribute to this end goal in reality. As a matter of fact, as SHORT term survival is the key some of these are “better” choices to ensure Ford’s survival as they are higher margin. Ford’s survival in turn ensures the American jobs in this discussion.”
Let me see if I have this straight. Import bigots are not supporting the American economy much, even when we buy transplant products made in the USA. However, if we really wanted to save Ford, we’d do best to go out and buy imported cars – the right kind of imported cars – really high margin imported cars, built by foreign companies that happen to be owned by Ford. The net result of this increased demand for English and Swedish made cars would be more work in America.
dyanamic “Let me see if I have this straight. Import bigots are not supporting the American economy much, even when we buy transplant products made in the USA. However, if we really wanted to save Ford, we’d do best to go out and buy imported cars – the right kind of imported cars – really high margin imported cars, built by foreign companies that happen to be owned by Ford. The net result of this increased demand for English and Swedish made cars would be more work in America. ”
Basically, yes, this would help keep Ford in business, so that the current and future jobs would exist. Of course it’s “odd” but it is definitely true. Any profitable vehicle sold by Ford helps prevent them from shuttering the doors in the short term. This isn’t that complicated.
Let me see if I have this straight. Import bigots are not supporting the American economy much, even when we buy transplant products made in the USA. However, if we really wanted to save Ford, we’d do best to go out and buy imported cars – the right kind of imported cars – really high margin imported cars, built by foreign companies that happen to be owned by Ford. The net result of this increased demand for English and Swedish made cars would be more work in America.
I know it’s easy to make a clear point obtuse when you want to obfuscate a simple proposition, and that appears to be what you’re doing. But that doesn’t make your step-through correct.
Ford’s employment in the US is much larger than transplant employment, and if Ford fails, net automotive sector employment will fall. Transplants will not nearly replace them. So, through the period of vulnerability when Ford’s existence is threatened, that Fusion purchase supports the sustenance of many more US manufacturing jobs than does directly buying a transplant produced vehicle. However, if you want to do business with Ford *AND* drive the most economic leverage toward my objective, then buy a Taurus or its stablemate, a Lincoln, a truck instead of a Fusion, Volvo or Jaguar.
Let’s get past the point of existential threat to the Detroit 3 and then we can re-evaluate the model-by-model rankings for domestic economic leverage in the context of the US companies no longer having their viability under serious threat. But in the meantime, US jobs are protected by any purchase that supports the survival of the Detroit 3, even though the economic leverage varies by specific model. Transplant sales might look good to, say, Marysville, Ohio, but for national value are inferior to keeping Ford in business, in the case of Fusion.
Rather than twisting your logic, look at Malibu or Taurus as your competitor to a Honda or Toyota 4 door family sedan. You have alternatives for any level of economic leverage you want to use your purchase to drive, including none.
Phil
The increased demand for Swedish and English built cars would keep Ford in business as an importer of Swedish and English cars.
If we’re interested in keeping Ford in business as an American prducer of cars, then Jag, Volvo, and Fusion, all hurt the cause. Fortunately, Ford still builds some cars here.
If I’m to take your editorial seriously, (and I did at first, but subsequent posts are making it more difficult) then buying an American produced car is really the only logical choice. If there is really only 3-5 years to save these companies, then only maximum leverage will do.
Ford’s employment in the US is much larger than transplant employment, and if Ford fails, net automotive sector employment will fall. Transplants will not nearly replace them. So, through the period of vulnerability when Ford’s existence is threatened, that Fusion purchase supports the sustenance of many more US manufacturing jobs than does directly buying a transplant produced vehicle.
In the short term that might be true, but Ford’s plans are clear and their long term plans involve cutting US production. The unions make it far too expensive for them to continue. Those jobs are ultimately unsustainable.
I think it’s time to stop pretending that Toyota and Honda are foreign companies. Most of what they sell here is made here, and though they still import some of their models, so do the D3.
Production, sales, marketing, some design work, warranty/service oversight, dealerships and pretty much anything else you can think of is here in the USA. The only thing making it’s way back to Japan is a few cents profit on each dollar.
Dynamic, that’s your opinion but it’s wrong. We’re not talking leverage for short term sustainability, we’re talking revenue. Two different things.
KBW “In the short term that might be true, but Ford’s plans are clear and their long term plans involve cutting US production. The unions make it far too expensive for them to continue. Those jobs are ultimately unsustainable”
The cuts are likely to be less than originally thought depending on UAW concessions, and will still leave the vast majority of domestic production in the US. Ford’s plans are to leverage global platforms. Things built here will be exported, while importing select models. The net is US manufacturing will only be decreased to align with volumes, not to “offshore” as the anti-Detroit crowd here keeps saying.
Jobs will continually be garaunteed here with the UAW, and very few white collar jobs are being offshored. The downsizing is to match volumes, which are down for all of the reasons discussed here.
I think it’s time to stop pretending that Toyota and Honda are foreign companies.
It would be pretense to see them as anything other than foreign. These are large foreign companies with US operations included in their assets.
Production, sales, marketing, some design work, warranty/service oversight, dealerships and pretty much anything else you can think of is here in the USA. The only thing making it’s way back to Japan is a few cents profit on each dollar.
The margin for manufacturers is more than you give them credit for, and pre-profit dollars support their home operations. Some years, most of Toyota’s profit is generated from sales in the United States.
There is more assembly than production. The executive layer is outside the US. Dealerships are domestic mostly, but they’d be in business with someone else if they weren’t in business with Toyota since US new vehicle demand is relatively stable. Design and engineering is somewhat distributed but highest value jobs in these functions lies elsewhere. Plus, these companies are still shipping in many of their highest-value, highest-leverage components.
They are more US integrated than in the past but are a long way from being American companies.
Phil
Perhaps I should just summarize what I’ve learned from the offshoring discussion:
-Since we care about employment, we should care about employment. Well, that is, except if its provided by someone other than The Holy Trinity (yes, they are holy), in which case we don’t care about it. In that case, we want to import the car, because it will help the companies that are going to save America by hiring people outside of America, while the others who hire Americans are killing us. For it is better for American employment if Americans employ non-Americans than it is if non-Americans employ Americans.
-Meanwhile, the countless acquisitions of foreign car makers by American car makers was an innocent “error”, a mere slip up that couldn’t possibly betray a greater business plan at work. (Rick went down the hall to buy a bag of chips out of the vending machine, and ended up with Daewoo by “mistake.”) That’s just water under the bridge, even though the current CEO put the plan together.
-So on the whole, history and current trends don’t count, unless they provide a glimmer of hope for a brighter future. No point in remembering all of the broken promises or overt efforts to ship jobs abroad and mistakes, because those don’t correlate with the message of the editorial.
Or something like that. Feel free to let me know if I’ve missed anything.
-Since we care about employment, we should care about employment. Well, that is, except if its provided by someone other than The Holy Trinity (yes, they are holy), in which case we don’t care about it.
You must know you’re blatantly misstating my position here. In the economic impact order, transplants are behind both domestically-owned domestic production and NAFTA production, but ahead of a pure import. Mentioning Daewoo, the Aveo seems to be your sticking point. I noted a long time back that small cars are a remaining weakness on the Detroit side, and sub-compacts like the Aveo aren’t where the numbers or the leverage are. Aveo sales aren’t threatening current US jobs, nor are they making Korea rich. If GM figures out how to build a competitive sub-compact here in the US with American labor at US wages, and they still ship production to Korea, then we can complain. They can’t build Aveo here now at the price the market will pay for that class of car. This whole sub-debate was triggered by the Fusion vs. Accord question raised by another poster. In which case, you have Malibu or Taurus to be pure. Jobs are not justification for an Accord or Camry sale. If you consider economic leverage an actionable factor in a car-buying decision, you have better domestic choices in that vehicle class. If you don’t, you won’t bother.
In that case, we want to import the car, because it will help the companies that are going to save America by hiring people outside of America, while the others who hire Americans are killing us.
No, in that case and only if the customer prefers the actual car in question, we want to support the survivability of the Detroit company that employs a much larger domestic manufacturing force than the transplants, at least until the American company in question is out of danger of collapse.
-Meanwhile, the countless acquisitions of foreign car makers by American car makers was an innocent “error”, a mere slip up that couldn’t possibly betray a greater business plan at work.
My reference to an error was made regarding Fiat, a company GM did *not* buy. If they had bought it, it would have been to strengthen their position largely in Europe and to gain small car experience lacking on the home front. Daewoo? I never brought it up.
-No point in remembering all of the broken promises or overt efforts to ship jobs abroad and mistakes, because those don’t correlate with the message of the editorial.
Holding back because some perceived promises were broken in the past does not advance your goal. Global companies shift jobs or purchase smaller rivals. Local buying from domestic companies under pressure mitigates that flight. As a global company, it makes sense for GM to have some Asian mainland production, so they do in both China and Korea. Will some of those cars come our way? Will cars made in the US today be made elsewhere in the future? It’s possible, and much more likely if these companies are weak than if they are strong and competing effectively with local North American manufacturing.
Meanwhile, please remember the past. It is reference for watchdogging what materializes next. Nevertheless, running a multi-hundred-billion-dollar global corporation involves operating complexity and trade-offs that ensure someone is unhappy with most decisions. Dumb as some of management’s decisions seem superficially, I suspect anyone here would find themselves making some decisions that are difficult to explain to an ADD constituency for comprehension and acceptance. We’re not going to get everything we want. Going to the beginning, there are 360 degrees of blame. The companies and their management, labor, and consumers all have to accept their contribution and revise their behavior accordingly *if* they’re interested in putting the Detroit 3 on a lasting footing.
Phil
If I’m to take your editorial seriously, (and I did at first, but subsequent posts are making it more difficult) then buying an American produced car is really the only logical choice.
An American-produced car from an American company. You have plenty of choice to keep to the formula.
Phil
Mr. Ressler, I understood your position. What I was explaining, more that just a bit sarcastically, is that your position is wholly illogical, internally inconsistent, and generally doesn’t make any sense.
Please believe when I tell you that I comprehend perfectly what you are trying to say. (Honestly, it’s not that tough to understand — excuse me for pointing out that this Holy Trinity defense is all over the internet, and it isn’t the most nuanced or sophisticated of constructs.) The problem is that you don’t even understand the contradictory nature of your own argument. Which is problematic, given that it is your argument and I’m not going to make it for you.
Once again — your editorial argued for employment in the homeland. Since then, you have shifted to employment-by-domestics-irrespective-of-location argument. Which is fine, but it’s a different argument than the one with which you started. You should choose one position and stick with it, instead of choosing a position designed to rebut a particular poster. Every once in awhile, it might serve you to actually cede a bit of ground to your opponents, particularly given that they often make more sense.
The only consistency that you’ve exhibited throughout this thread is a tendency to cheerlead for the domestics, irrespective of what they do or the abundance of troublesome information (read: facts) that turn your argument into mincemeat. Which, again, is fine, but for the fact that it isn’t supported by real-world data, nor is it internally consistent with what you originally said.
This whole thing is rather circular because you have a tendency to ignore data and factual information, and to elevate the value of your anecdotes above all else, including other peoples’ anecdotes. While it’s entertaining, the only thing that I’ve learned here is that if Detroit is operated under this same mindset that you’ve exhibited here (and I believe that it is) that I should become a domestic avoider, after all, which — believe it or not — I had not been until now.
I understood your position…..your position is wholly illogical, internally inconsistent, and generally doesn’t make any sense.
I see. Well, you must not understand, else you wouldn’t think it illogical, inconsistent or lacking sense! Seriously, the argument is none of those things. You have now a long series of posts that flesh out my position and it is absolutely consistent as I’ve expanded on the original text in response to commentary. I don’t doubt you disagree with me. You think I’m wrong. I think you’re wrong. That’s probably not a gap to be bridged.
excuse me for pointing out that this Holy Trinity defense is all over the internet
If so, I’m not aware of it. You are confusing someone else’s argument with mine. There isn’t and won’t be enough transplant employment to replace that lost through the destruction of the Detroit 3 as viable companies.
your editorial argued for employment in the homeland. Since then, you have shifted to employment-by-domestics-irrespective-of-location argument.
You claim a shift where none occurred. The original editorial is clearly aimed at preserving Detroit 3 domestic employment for its macroeconomic social benefit. Explicitly, I quote the Commerce Department’s caution that transplant jobs will not replace those lost by the Detroit 3, so obviously I prioritize transplants beneath purchasing that keeps the Detroit 3 in business. Might that include some NAFTA assembly over transplants? Absolutely. Does a Korean AVEO subcompact dilute my commitment? No. That Aveo isn’t going to be built here anyway, nor are its import competitors. You’re reaching for a counter-argument that’s empty.
NAFTA production came up as a point of debate on a single car: Fusion. The simple question was: which does more good, Fusion or Camry/Accord. Camry/Accord employs relatively few, supports a Japanese corporation and its ecosystem employment and does nothing to support Ford, a much larger domestic employer. Such a shopper has other domestically-produced Ford and GM alternatives that have more leverage still, which I clearly stated. The assembly of Fusion in NAFTA Mexico benefits Ford which supports the viability of their US labor. When the existential crisis for Ford has passed, we can discuss whether a new ranking for economic leverage, Fusion/Camry/Accord, is warranted. For now, the leverage order stands as I’ve described. And still, the buyer is free to ignore or violate that.
The only consistency that you’ve exhibited throughout this thread is a tendency to cheerlead for the domestics, irrespective of what they do or the abundance of troublesome information (read: facts) that turn your argument into mincemeat. Which, again, is fine, but for the fact that it isn’t supported by real-world data, nor is it internally consistent with what you originally said.
Look elsewhere for a cheerleader. The case I’m making is fueled by consumer self-interest for looking past prior egregious mistakes. However, to show what’s possible, I’ve pointed out that my strategy of choosing from competitive American vehicles for most of the last 25 years paid off with “import quality” ownership experiences. It’s always been possible to buy American and get reliability, durability and performance if you are selective. Now it’s easier than ever. I’ve asked people to reject poor models and consider, evaluate, buy competitive ones. You’ve generally cited data that pertains to some subset of the market, and then extrapolated it to all. When you have cited pertinent data, we’ve had a straightforward discussion but you weren’t convincing. I’ve resisted that ploy of impertinence and will continue to do so.
I’ve also said many times that criticisms for the Detroit 3 are a different subject and have hinted at some of mine here. However, *this* text addressed a consumer dysfunction that collides with social benefit which is within the reach of individual consumers to mitigate. That’s the scope of what I’m discussing here.
The sins of the Detroit 3 are a legitimate topic. However, the history of those mistakes has no bearing on my case. I am explicitly telling Americans it’s in their self-interest to dump their grudge. No amount of historical citation of past deficiencies changes that point of view. It was already considered by me — and rejected as impertinent — before I committed to this position.
This whole thing is rather circular because you have a tendency to ignore data
I place limited value on data that is tangential to the original argument. You keep wanting to “prove” that because some people act on incomplete reliability data and backward-looking performance when judging new platform cars, somehow my case for a change of behavior is invalidated. Sorry, no. Unfortunately, you have been citing data that has no bearing on what I think you should do going forward. Your data is interesting in some cases, even useful in a different discussion, but most of it has been impertinent to the topic.
the only thing that I’ve learned here is that if Detroit is operated under this same mindset that you’ve exhibited here (and I believe that it is) that I should become a domestic avoider
Once again, this editorial and thread tells you nothing about my operating advice for the Detroit 3. You only know what I, as one citizen to another, believe American consumers can and should do to use their purchasing power to shape their economy and by extension, social environment. This little automotive discussion is just a start. Overall, I think American consumers woefully under-utilize this secondary “vote” that is present in all their buying activities. Conscious or not, your purchases have consequences. You may as well aim for the consequences you want.
Every once in awhile, it might serve you to actually cede a bit of ground to your opponents
Aw, I’m a pushover when people are making sense and sticking to the issues outlined. Impertinence, distortion and misrepresentation, however, win scant accommodation.
Phil
“Dynamic, that’s your opinion but it’s wrong. We’re not talking leverage for short term sustainability, we’re talking revenue. Two different things.”
No, we’re talking about the total macroeconomic effect of buying a particular make/model of car.
It’s not enough for Ford to have revenue, Ford also needs a healthy American economy and a surviving middle class that can buy new cars. The best way to ensure this, even in the short run of 3-5 years, is to get people to buy Amercian built, American cars.
PCH spoke of the multiplier effect. It’s very powerful, and very necessary to get as much of the effect working as possible. Hypothetically, if all Taurus buyers switched to Volvo, it might mean higher short term profits for Ford, but it would idle the Taurus plant. Idle a couple more plants because people decided to buy Jag, Range Rover, etc., and the effect is very much like Ford going out of business. In turn, people who don’t work for Ford loose jobs because former Ford employees aren’t buying goods and services – a negative multiplier effect. Now these people don’t buy Fords, or Volvos. We can’t maximize the macroeconomic advantages of Ford surviving, by having it survive as an importer.
If you want to argue that job guarantees will keep the ideled worker’s paychecks coming, then that is money Ford must spend, even though it derives no benefit from it. That would pretty much negate the higher revenues of Jag, Volvo, RR, etc.
You have now placed yourself in the positon of arguing that what’s best for the American economy is buying a pure import (Jag/vovlo) because the revenues are higher.
On the whole, it would have been better for Phil and you to admit that it’s just possible (I didn’t even demand agreement, just the possibility) that one or two transplant models made in the US and deeply penetrating the supply chain, might benefit the macroeconomics of the country more than buying one or two models made outside the US, sold with domestic badges, and having 50% or less NA content. Instead, you end up making an argument that is logically inconsistant with the editorial and encouraging consumers to buy pure imports. We’ve moved from a very reasonable question about the macroeconomics of CamCord vs Fusion, to you and Phil advocating maquiladora, Korean, English, and Swedish cars.
Dynamic “You have now placed yourself in the positon of arguing that what’s best for the American economy is buying a pure import (Jag/vovlo) because the revenues are higher.”
You are again twisting my statement. These are better than a transplant/lower margin Ford for Ford’s short term survival, and generally more profitable. I am not advocating all purchases be of Ford owned Jag/LR. This should be easily inferred that the fusion/taurus shopper won’t suddenly be a Range Rover/XK buyer. It amazes me the depths you guys will go to “prove a point” that is irrelevant and out of context.
dynamic “On the whole, it would have been better for Phil and you to admit that it’s just possible (I didn’t even demand agreement, just the possibility) that one or two transplant models made in the US and deeply penetrating the supply chain, might benefit the macroeconomics of the country more than buying one or two models made outside the US, sold with domestic badges, and having 50% or less NA content. Instead, you end up making an argument that is logically inconsistant with the editorial and encouraging consumers to buy pure imports. We’ve moved from a very reasonable question about the macroeconomics of CamCord vs Fusion, to you and Phil advocating maquiladora, Korean, English, and Swedish cars. ”
This shows a further lack of understanding of the concept at hand. In the short term there is a risk of the Big 3 going under, costing the country hundreds of thousands of jobs. Buying anything that benefits their financial situation right now benefits the country. Once they are solidly in the black, than you are right, and there IS a discussion on fusion vs transplant, etc. Right now, that is irrelevant, as transplants aren’t about to fold and those jobs aren’t dissapearing. This has been stated many times before, so I don’t expect you to grasp this simple concept now.
PCH “The only consistency that you’ve exhibited throughout this thread is a tendency to cheerlead for the domestics, irrespective of what they do or the abundance of troublesome information (read: facts) that turn your argument into mincemeat. Which, again, is fine, but for the fact that it isn’t supported by real-world data, nor is it internally consistent with what you originally said.”
Your arragonce in your ability to “win” is mindblowing. You basically create strawmant arguments, and barely cover them with any logic. This is followed with a declaration of “victory”. This is an opinion article, and most things are stated with clarifiers that make them essentially impossible to prove against. All that’s really debatable is the quantity once a single instance has been proven. Four or so people on a thread with a similar anti-detroit mindset that blurs their ability to comprehend does not make “mincemeat” of much. For someone who is so fact based, I don’t believe you have brought anything to the table to actually “prove” your points.
OK, now we have RLJ returning to the “I can say anything because it’s an opinion” defense.
Sorry, but no. Although it is an editorial, it is an editorial based upon misrepresentations of fact. Those have been corrected again and again, and your repetition of the claims of product equality and buyer irrationality have been thoroughly disproven. And a hint for next time — if you are going to drop a faux statistic such as the “one million bigot” figure, then be prepared to back it up.
In any case, this goes back to yet another question: Why should anyone in America want to buy a vehicle from someone who has no concern for their satisfaction? Can you imagine what it would be like to deal with someone such as Mr. Ressler or RLJ here in dealing with something such as a design defect or a warranty claim?
As consumers, most of us don’t want to be on the receiving end of this sort of denial, we just want results. I see displayed here a mentality that is committed to alibis, so is it any wonder that these manufacturers have the problems that they have today?
These companies will not thrive over the long run until this defeatist, customer-is-always-wrong mentality is thoroughly purged from the system. That transformation must begin with upper management, as they set the agenda and communicate the vision to those below, but many of these managers are lifers who don’t know any other way to do business, leaving us with old dogs who can’t and won’t learn new tricks.
I think that this article makes clear that this process of change may be hopeless, as the mentality of excuse making may be too deeply held to eliminate very easily. They would rather whine than win, a mindset that doesn’t bode well for the long-term prospects of the products bearing their badges.
PCH “Sorry, but no. Although it is an editorial, it is an editorial based upon misrepresentations of fact. Those have been corrected again and again, and your repetition of the claims of product equality and buyer irrationality have been thoroughly disproven. And a hint for next time — if you are going to drop a faux statistic such as the “one million bigot” figure, then be prepared to back it up.”
An editorial opinion is NOT a statistic. I never read this as there ARE 1 MILLION for sure. I can believe your comprehension skills led you to read it that way.
pch “In any case, this goes back to yet another question: Why should anyone in America want to buy a vehicle from someone who has no concern for their satisfaction? Can you imagine what it would be like to deal with someone such as Mr. Ressler or RLJ here in dealing with something such as a design defect or a warranty claim? ”
Where the hell have you come to the conclusion that we, the big 3, or anyone doesn’t care about customer satisfaction. Half of the entire argument is many of the cars are much improved, the customer WILL BE satisfied if choosing a competitive one. Again, you prove you either can’t get a concept, or choose to twist it for your agenda.
Similarly, how can you extrapolate Phil’s opinion as an outsider, or the beliefs of one employee (not in marketing), to be the “mentality/attitude” of the big three (beside the fact you can’t even accurately understand those opinions). This is just more of your inability to draw a logical conclusion, as has been the case for 900+ posts.
Last, I can only imagine the pain of the service technician/salesperson of any company working with someone so pompous and convinced they know everything while being unable to peice together the simplest concepts.
RLJ676 I’m not arguing against the editorial but I just don’t think that it realistically takes into account the reality of how consumers think and make purchasing decisions.
in my opinion, the best experts on how and why people buy Toyotas, Hondas and non domestic brands would be the actual buyers of Toyotas and Hondas rather than an employee of Ford.
You use statements that people hold a “grudge” or are “spiteful” for not considering a domestic brand. Is that really true?
Do you know of any Ford truck buyers who love their trucks? I know several that will only buy Ford trucks and won’t even look at another truck. Can you understand that kind of product satisfaction? I do. Why is there such an inability to understand the same holds true for Toyota and Honda?
Is a Ford truck owner, who is happy with his truck and has always been pleased with his past Ford truck purchases spiteful or holding a grudge if he doesn’t look at a Toyota Tundra?
Is it realistic to think that he will look at a Toyota Tundra if he has owned nothing but Ford trucks for say the last 10 to 15 years and has always been pleased with his purchase? Why would a satisfied repeat customer for an import brand be any different than a satisfied Ford truck customer?
Somehow because Detroit is against the ropes its suppose to make things different in the eyes of consumers. Did it make any difference in England when their domestic industry went down? Did it change any consumer behavior for clothing purchases or consumer electronics?
I’ve never known one person to think of Michelin in terms as a French company and Goodyear as an American company even though they are.
I don’t doubt for one second that the domestics employ many more Americans than the transplants. But guess what? That’s not what drives most consumers. Did the fact that IBM employed more people than Dell ever matter to computer customers?
Like it or not cars are purchased on the basis of what the cars are, not on the basis of national economics. When Chrysler was in trouble in the early 80s did a lot of Ford and GM customers switch to Chrysler because it would hurt the US if Chrysler went under?
I just don’t think that fact that the domestic industry is in trouble is going to change any consumer behavior. Its an unrealistic expectation. A satisfied long term Toyota or Honda customer is as likely to shop a Ford, as is the Ford truck buyer to look at a Tundra.
Unlike many on this forum, I actually like the current Cobalt, Impala and the HHR. I like them a lot. But I won’t buy one because I don’t trust their long term durability. That’s my reason.
Sherman “You use statements that people hold a “grudge” or are “spiteful” for not considering a domestic brand. Is that really true?”
I’ve used those statements regarding people acting that way. I agree that this is not the motivation of many import buyers, only some. Like a person who brings up an 85 Aerostar’s issues in 2007 as an important point of reference for them.
Sherman “I just don’t think that fact that the domestic industry is in trouble is going to change any consumer behavior. Its an unrealistic expectation. A satisfied long term Toyota or Honda customer is as likely to shop a Ford, as is the Ford truck buyer to look at a Tundra.”
I can see this point, but hopefully some of these people who aren’t just import fans but domestic avoiders because of quality issues will “broaden their horizons” and consider some of the competitive domestic offerings which are just as good or better. Some of them might feel they are helping the companies/country as well. Despite the small sample on there, some people do want to root for the home team. Although that was a risky buy in the past, now it isn’t the same situation.
It’s not enough for Ford to have revenue, Ford also needs a healthy American economy and a surviving middle class that can buy new cars. The best way to ensure this, even in the short run of 3-5 years, is to get people to buy American built, American cars.
So you’re hung up on the Fusion. It shouldn’t send you down a wormhole. Ford’s US employment dwarfs the transplants’, so their ability to sell cars is more affected by their own survival than by the continuing employment of the transplants. Their ability to sell cars is more affected by GM and Chrysler’s health than by the employment of the transplants. So in the fine rankings of economic leverage of an automotive purchase, Fusion beats Camry/Accord but also Ford benefits more from a Malibu purchase than a transplant purchase. Would I prefer that Fusions be built in the US? Yes. Especially since GM can build Malibu here, US production of Fusion should be economically feasible. You want to penalize Ford for Mexican assembly of the Fusion? Buy a Taurus, Malibu, Impala, but a transplant purchase isn’t on point.
Looked at another way, let’s suppose for the moment that Ford begins a march regaining the 10 points of market share they’ve lost over the last 7 or 8 years and GM grinds their way back to 35% market share. The imports would pay the price, and it’s likely the transplant footprint would shrink. Ford and GM would add more jobs than the transplants would lose. But if the reverse happens and transplants further erode Ford and GM’s market share, their will be a net job loss as the transplants add fewer new workers than the domestics fire.
if all Taurus buyers switched to Volvo, it might mean higher short term profits for Ford, but it would idle the Taurus plant.
Yes but the two are not cost-similar so this switch is not in the cards. However, it’s true that a Volvo purchase is not as beneficial as a NAFTA Ford. The acquired overseas marques owned by the domestics offer relatively little economic leverage for Americans. It’s better for our economy for you to buy a Volvo S80 over a competing BMW, Audi or Mercedes, for example, but whether you buy an S80 or a Jaguar is neutral. Better still to buy a Cadillac or Lincoln, on this scale.
On the whole, it would have been better for Phil and you to admit that it’s just possible (I didn’t even demand agreement, just the possibility) that one or two transplant models made in the US and deeply penetrating the supply chain, might benefit the macroeconomics of the country more than buying one or two models made outside the US, sold with domestic badges, and having 50% or less NA content. Instead, you end up making an argument that is logically inconsistant with the editorial and encouraging consumers to buy pure imports.
Fusion is the stone in your shoe. Fusion has enough domestic content and is NAFTA built, so its domestic economic and social leverage is considerable and add revenue to Ford, so it wins on impact during the period of time Ford is vulnerable to extinction. Get past that point and we can reconsider.
However, a Volvo purchase is likely to yield less economic leverage than an equivalent transplant purchase, but I’m not sure what that equivalent transplant purchase would be. Acura and Lexus are built in Japan. If a cost-equivalent transplant Camry/Accord and EU-made Volvo were a buyer’s choices, the Volvo likely loses on this count.
We’ve moved from a very reasonable question about the macroeconomics of CamCord vs Fusion, to you and Phil advocating maquiladora, Korean, English, and Swedish cars.
NAFTA is fine with me; the whole scheme benefits us on balance and domestic production has rushed to Mexico. I haven’t advocated Korean, English and Swedish cars as having more economic leverage for Americans than domestics.
Phil
NAFTA is fine with me; the whole scheme benefits us on balance and domestic production has rushed to Mexico. I haven’t advocated Korean, English and Swedish cars as having more economic leverage for Americans than domestics.
A bug at TTAC is preventing an edit above, but there’s a typo. This should read:
NAFTA is fine with me; the whole scheme benefits us on balance and domestic production *hasn’t* rushed to Mexico. I haven’t advocated Korean, English and Swedish cars as having more economic leverage for Americans than domestics.
I’ll add that the Aveo, which competes with Fit and Yaris, has no US-produced equivalents. If you’re buying a sub-compact, everything is imported today.
Phil
Phil – I appreciate that you want to do something positive for the U.S. economy, and supporting U.S. manufacturers is one means to do so. However, without risking anything, without worrying about reliability, everyone on this list can probably make a more positive impact on our economy. Write to your senators and congressional representatives and tell them without mincing words that the budget shortfall is their responsibility, be they republican, democrat or whatever. The U.S. economy has been made significantly weaker by six years of willful credit card spending by the entire government, and our descendants will pay for this with lowered opportunities, reduced investment in our economy (due to infrastructure degradation) and diminished competitiveness of our companies as education continues to suffer cuts to feed the debt.
Real action on government spending will do far more good for our overall economy than if everyone went out and bought a Taurus, Malibu, Impala or Chrysler 300. Don’t let yourself get sucked into the idea that one party or the other is “responsible” – it is the responsibility of all of us to realize first class leadership, and we have failed to do so.
Steve
I’m not arguing against the editorial but I just don’t think that it realistically takes into account the reality of how consumers think and make purchasing decisions.
I’m asking for a change in the behavior of a substantial subset of the market. I recognize reality. It just doesn’t discourage me from seeking change.
Is it realistic to think that he will look at a Toyota Tundra if he has owned nothing but Ford trucks for say the last 10 to 15 years and has always been pleased with his purchase? Why would a satisfied repeat customer for an import brand be any different than a satisfied Ford truck customer?
The situation is not equivalent. The satisfied serial Ford truck owner has no other economic self interest in considering a Tundra. But a Tundra owner has a larger social context for switching to Ford, GM or Dodge even if he is happy with his Toyota.
If Americans want to use their purchasing power to shape their world, then we have to accept the domestic loyalist’s behavior as beneficial at large even if it is behavior that if role-reversed we’d want to change. The ultimate goal is to get the Detroit 3 through their reform, back on their feet as sustaining companies, and achieve a balanced market where domestic automakers get considered and evaluated on an equal footing for what they are offering now and going forward. At some point, past is past.
Somehow because Detroit is against the ropes its suppose to make things different in the eyes of consumers. Did it make any difference in England when their domestic industry went down? Did it change any consumer behavior for clothing purchases or consumer electronics?
I’ll put it this way: it’s beneficial to Americans to use their consumption patterns to shape their world. So, yes, the existential threat to the Detroit 3 “make things different in the eyes of consumers.” The question is, what do they want to do about it? Something? Nothing? Truth is, whatever you do (or don’t) is a choice of preferred consequences. Did it make any difference in England when their domestic carmaking industry tanked? Sure. That’s a country with a rising tide of social disorder in part driven by too little opportunity squarely where the blue collar middle class needs it, and a sharpening divide between well-off and stagnant. The loss of manufacturing jobs has played a role. I’m close enough to England via family to have a window into it. I don’t think anyone in the UK doubts that if that country had retained a robust automotive industry, the country would be measurably stronger for it.
In consumer electronics and clothing, no — domestic declines did not change consumer behavior. Consumers forfeited consumer electronics just as much as management of the domestic companies did. Clothing….I see evidence that some people make an effort to find and buy domestic production.
I’ve never known one person to think of Michelin in terms as a French company and Goodyear as an American company even though they are.
Really? Most people I know understand the nationality of both companies. Some people care and that influences their buying decisions, others don’t, but not out of unawareness.
I don’t doubt for one second that the domestics employ many more Americans than the transplants. But guess what? That’s not what drives most consumers. Did the fact that IBM employed more people than Dell ever matter to computer customers?
I know that making conscious use of purchasing power isn’t a strong point of American consumers, but accepting prevailing behavior as uninfluenceable isn’t the position one takes if investing time in writing an editorial. It’s all about changing something. And, btw, Dell began by assembling in the US. The biggest single value components of a PC were in the Intel CPU and the software shipped, regardless where it’s assembled even today.
Like it or not cars are purchased on the basis of what the cars are, not on the basis of national economics. When Chrysler was in trouble in the early 80s did a lot of Ford and GM customers switch to Chrysler because it would hurt the US if Chrysler went under?
Some did.
I just don’t think that fact that the domestic industry is in trouble is going to change any consumer behavior. Its an unrealistic expectation. A satisfied long term Toyota or Honda customer is as likely to shop a Ford, as is the Ford truck buyer to look at a Tundra.
The world makes progress chipping away at unrealistic expectations until they become the new norm.
Unlike many on this forum, I actually like the current Cobalt, Impala and the HHR. I like them a lot. But I won’t buy one because I don’t trust their long term durability. That’s my reason.
I need a utility vehicle. I have zero fear of an HHR SS with the 2.0L turbo Ecotech. The rest of the car is all proven bits, simple and tough. An Impala SS with a 5.3L small block would give me no fear of not getting to work or having to drive through an unfamiliar city at 2am. Both will easily serve as 10 year cars. Don’t see why a Cobalt won’t be maintainable for a decade either.
Phil
RLJ676 “You have now placed yourself in the positon of arguing that what’s best for the American economy is buying a pure import (Jag/vovlo) because the revenues are higher.” – Dynamic88 “You are again twisting my statement. These are better than a transplant/lower margin Ford for Ford’s short term survival, and generally more profitable. I am not advocating all purchases be of Ford owned Jag/LR. This should be easily inferred that the fusion/taurus shopper won’t suddenly be a Range Rover/XK buyer. It amazes me the depths you guys will go to “prove a point” that is irrelevant and out of context.” -RLJ676 Let’s see what you said. “My point is it supports an entire company at risk of going under. This company employs more Americans of all kinds than individual transplants. Buying a Fusion helps support this company (all white and blue collar) preventing them from falling and all of those jobs being lost, the same as buying a Volvo, LR, Jag, or Mazda helps contribute to this end goal in reality. As a matter of fact, as SHORT term survival is the key some of these are “better” choices to ensure Ford’s survival as they are higher margin. Ford’s survival in turn ensures the American jobs in this discussion.” -RLJ676 So, you’ve said that Jag/Volvo are the “better” choices to ensure Ford’s survival, and that Ford’s survival ensures American jobs. How then have I twisted your meaning? IOW, you’ve said what’s best for the American economy is to buy pure imports. Of course it isn’t just about revenues, but we’ve been over that already.
Phil,
I’d like to comend you for writting and defending the editorial. It’s been a good, albeit repetitive, discussion.
I respectfully disagree with you about the macroeconomics of maquiladora vs transplant. I don’t mind people disagreeing, when they have a cogent argument, and you do. It just doesn’t happen to be convincing, to me.
The Chevy dealer called to say the ’08 Malibu is on the showroom floor. I’ll be taking a look at it next week. I said this several hudred post ago, but it’s worth repeating (what isn’t on this thread?) I don’t know anyone else who could have got me to go into a chevy dealer.
edgett (Steve):
Your point on government spending is a good one on the subject of improving the US economy. However, both parties have been equally culpable on deficit spending contributing to the national debt, so there is no shelter for anyone on the political spectrum. But deficit spending isn’t the first order threat. We heard the same warning during the then-huge Reagan defense deficits and yet by the end of the 1990s we had sustained the longest economic boom in our history, we found our way to a roughly balanced budget, and the national debt was wrestled down to sustainable proportions. During WWII, many people were so concerned about the proportionately record mountainous debt that had accumulated by 1945 as to be sure the post-war years would see return of the prior Depression. The opposite happened, in part thanks to families back home saving great piles of soldier and factory pay. Plus the speed with which our newly vast manufacturing capacity turned back to its intended purpose. Almost overnight, fear of depression collapsed and fear of inflation unleashed by sudden volcanic demand, emerged. We didn’t get either catastrophe.
On government deficit spending, proportion matters, but we’ve always grown our way to managing our debt and as a result it has never imposed the drag on our economy that pessimists projected.
The other deficit and debt that people worry about is the trade deficit and the negative balance of our net accounts with the rest of the world. Around 1982, the US went from the world’s largest creditor to its largest debtor in the span of, if I recall correctly, about 3 years. That was projected to be catastrophic, but the US’ investment climate brought a large swing of those dollars back home. We also had a stated and unstated bi-partisan federal policy to use our open markets as a driver for spreading economic success and wealth further into the far corners of the world. After WWII, we used both direct aid (e.g. Marshall Plan) and the power of our open markets to fuel the reconstruction of both allies and opponents from the war. We used our market as an instrument for progress in the Cold War, to contribute to the building of a bulwark against the Soviet Union. And we’ve used our market to create common interest between ourselves and other countries that otherwise could be less aligned, or hostile. This talent-dispersed, hyper-competitive world is the world we aimed to get when Harry Truman’s administration was designing the new world. They viewed economic success as a mitigator of political strife and a bulwark against war. Just as we used mortgage tax deductions to pull more people into home ownership so they’d feel a personal stake in the country and its systems, we purposely used our economic power to give people in other countries a personal stake in international stability. No more Nazi Germanies.
Now we have to work very hard at finding our next advantages while competing in the present sectors where we have capability, assets and strength. Our ability to retain broad spectrum economic opportunity and to keep more of our consumer spending at home makes buying from the Detroit 3 and other US manufacturers in other sectors a more immediately compelling economic lever than getting government spending into line with receipts in the next 3 – 5 years. I agree about communicating a mandate to your representatives regarding responsible federal spending and revenue. But the other deficit is something we can all help to manage with decisions we are making now — daily, weekly, monthly, annually, regardless how slow our Congress is to respond on the federal side.
Phil
The Chevy dealer called to say the ‘08 Malibu is on the showroom floor. I’ll be taking a look at it next week.
Come back and tell us what you think of it.
I respectfully disagree with you about the macroeconomics of maquiladora vs transplant. I don’t mind people disagreeing, when they have a cogent argument, and you do. It just doesn’t happen to be convincing, to me.
Fair enough. It’s a hinge point on a single car, and in the layers of options between pure domestic and pure import, real differences in economic leverage have to be discerned through a murky haze.
Phil
An editorial opinion is NOT a statistic.
I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean. What I do know is that the editorial attempts to “prove” its point by citing this alleged statistic:
I’m convinced that if a million import bigots dropped their bias against domestic iron and truly reconsidered what constitutes meaningful difference in a car comparison, they’d make the right choice.
That’s a clear statement that: (a) there is such a thing as an “import bigot,” and (b) there are at least one million of these people.
So that’s an allegation of fact that requires defending. As is the case with everything else in this piece, facts are apparently too troublesome for the author to bother with, so no support is offered to support this claim.
It’s one thing to offer an opinion, it’s quite another to make up data out of thin air in order to “prove” it. If Mr. Ressler can’t prove the existence of these “bigots” (and he hasn’t), then his claims that comprise two-thirds of the article’s verbage are ultimately hollow and meaningless.
What Mr. Ressler is trying to argue is that people don’t buy domestics because of their “irrational behavior.” (If only these crazy folks knew better…)
Unfortunately for Mr. Ressler, the data suggests that consumers who avoid domestics are quite rational, based upon objective criteria (i.e. reliability history) that are validated by credible third-party research sources, as well as due to their personal tastes. That research finding, which has been measured in numerous research studies since the 1970’s, blows this “one million” statement out of the water. That explains why the only rebuttal we seem to be getting here is: It’s true ’cuz I said so.
I have had enough business and academic training to know that if that there is anyone who is being biased or irrational here, it’s someone who would recommend a Malibu before the car has even been released. But I guess these emotional, irrational demands are A-OK when they are made on behalf of the home team…
RLJ676:
“…Like a person who brings up an 85 Aerostar’s issues in 2007 as an important point of reference for them…”
For someone who claims OTHERS have such a hard time comprehending the details of this discussion, YOU seem to be having some difficulties of your own.
The POINT of the 1986 Aerostar was that it was the 2nd in a line of five (5) Fords that left my family (my parents) stranded. The newest of those 5 vehicles is now 14 years old. But at the end of this line of cars, my father, a DEVOUT Ford-loyalist, finally got fed up and bought a Nissan Maxima. He’s now a Nissan/Infiniti loyalist – and 4 problem-free purchases later, his ties are as strong as ever.
I’m not saying that an ’86 Aerostar is indicative of quality for the ’08 Fusion. What you seem to have trouble grasping is the idea that those crap-on-wheels Fords ruined the brand loyalty of both my father and his car-crazy son (me).
I see nothing in the Ford (or other Domestics’) lineups that comes close to swaying either of us away from our current brand loyalty. No amount of whining or complaining from a Ford employee (RLJ676) will change that. Like someone else said earlier – ironic that the factor that made Detroit so successful (brand loyalty) is now partially responsible for their downfall. Get it now?
So that’s an allegation of fact that requires defending. As is the case with everything else in this piece, facts are apparently too troublesome for the author to bother with, so no support is offered to support this claim.
Indeed, only 4% of new car buyers would definitely not consider a domestic product. And I’m willing to bet most of them have very good reasons for doing so. The fact of the matter is, more consumers consider American cars than vehicles from any other origin. The fact that they are not buying is indicative of a problem with the product, not the consumer.
What Mr. Ressler is trying to argue is that people don’t buy domestics because of their “irrational behavior.” (If only these crazy folks knew better…)
Some people, and enough to matter. Irrational, by the way, is not correlated to “crazy.” One has nothing to do with the other.
Unfortunately for Mr. Ressler, the data suggests that consumers who avoid domestics are quite rational, based upon objective criteria (i.e. reliability history) that are validated by credible third-party research sources, as well as due to their personal tastes. That research finding, which has been measured in numerous research studies since the 1970’s, blows this “one million” statement out of the water. That explains why the only rebuttal we seem to be getting here is: It’s true ’cuz I said so.
The data you cite is irrelevant to the idea that 1,000,000 import bigots could switch. Reliability history says nothing about new platform cars, or companies in which quality initiatives are ascendant, just as when the Japanese were improving their prior poor record did not predict future results when they were improving too. Further, survey research that relies on answers to questions, rather than objective observation of behavior, only tells you what people want you to believe about why they do what they do. And further still, if people had originally rational reasons for leaving the Detroit automakers, but their behavior persists against evidence of change, then they have become import bigots. You can ascribe this to loyalty but nevertheless you have a large group of people who won’t consider a domestic vehicle for reason of outdated perception.
I have had enough business and academic training to know that if that there is anyone who is being biased or irrational here, it’s someone who would recommend a Malibu before the car has even been released. But I guess these emotional, irrational demands are A-OK when they are made on behalf of the home team…
Except I haven’t recommended a Malibu yet.
Indeed, only 4% of new car buyers would definitely not consider a domestic product.
There’s a lot of uncorrelated data on this subject, but I haven’t seen any source quote this figure. Even TTAC reported a much higher figure. So while I consider this estimate silly-low, it still represents on average about 640,000 people annually. Even by your anemic measure it only takes two years to have a shot at switching 1,000,000 import bigots to the Detroit 3’s products. You can see that it’s not difficult at all to envision the existence of sufficient import bigots and my goal.
And I’m willing to bet most of them have very good reasons for doing so.
Most bigots of any kind are certain they have good reasons for their behavior.
The fact that they are not buying is indicative of a problem with the product, not the consumer.
You seem unable or unwilling to grasp that there has been both a product and consumer problem, and *here* we are addressing the latter.
Phil
So the failure of Detroit hinges on the fact that a tiny portion of the market won’t consider their products? This is an laughable proposition. The Asian makers seem to do just fine with an even larger number people who won’t consider them for truly bigoted reasons, reasons that cannot be overcome no matter how good of a car they make.
You seem unable or unwilling to grasp that there has been both a product and consumer problem, and *here* we are addressing the latter.
And what most people are claiming here is that the problem lies not with the consumer but with the producer. The data shows that the overwhelmingly vast majority of consumers do consider Detroit when buying a new car.
The fact that they are not selling speaks volumes about the competitiveness of their products.
So the failure of Detroit hinges on the fact that a tiny portion of the market won’t consider their products?
No, just pointing out that even your dubiously small citation of import bigotry supports my case. Remember, even that small percentage is a large population when added up over sequential years in which only a portion of the population is buying new cars. The 1,000,000 number was chosen for its clarity, and it represents a margin that can remove existential threat. As you know, I see that market segment of import bigots as much larger, but even your scant number suffices.
The data shows that the overwhelmingly vast majority of consumers do consider Detroit when buying a new car. The fact that they are not selling speaks volumes about the competitiveness of their products.
And your data is uncorroborated by most data that attempts to measure this. Even if I accept your data, however, any anemia in support of new competitive Detroit 3 products that is rationalized by fear, uncertainty and doubt does not pin the problem to the competitiveness of products as much as to outdated perceptions, and it does not take into account social pressure, peer-affiliation, cursory review of vehicle attributes and other behaviors that a subjectively compromised data assessment disguises. The data doesn’t segregate real competitive differences from perception, laziness, social acceptance, over-reliance on irrelevant historical data and import bigotry. Your data review only puts a single rationale at the top of the heap when it should be considered just a column that is no more visible than the underlying factors that are harder to measure but easy to discern.
Phil
Phil Ressler:
“You can ascribe this to loyalty but nevertheless you have a large group of people who won’t consider a domestic vehicle for reason of outdated perception.”
Reliability data is inherently outdated; unfortunately, sitting in a car and test driving it – no matter how good the “initial quality” seems – is not a realistic indicator of reliability. Well, at least for most of us, I mean, Mr. Ressler has the ability to predict reliability from a simple visual check – but that is an ability most of us mere mortals lack. “Initial quality” awards only serve as proof for folks who desire to put their “skin” in the “game” for car companies that got themselves into this boat with sub-par product.
Anyway, you would have to be blind to not be cognizant of problems with recent domestic models. The first generation Malibu, which ran from 1997-2003 has a horrible track record. As did the Cavalier through 2003. Remind me – how does a car that changes only cosmetically over an 8 year span manage to have the same frequent issues during that entire span (I guess it didn’t receive the same year-to-year improvement attention of the C4)? The previous generation Impala (2000-2004) also had questionable reliability. The last generation of the Pontiac Grand Am (1999-2004) had an abysmal reliability record, as did the 1997-2003 Grand Prix, although to a lesser degree. The last generation of the Dodge Stratus (2001-2006)also received bad marks.
(All reliability data from MSN Autos.)
The list goes on and on, of course, of recent domestic cars with shoddy reliability that Detroit would like us to forget. 3-5 years ago is not ancient history, as much as Detroit cheerleaders (Mr. Ressler & RLJ676) would like us to think. And no, I’m not saying that it is in any way a direct indication of future reliability, but Detroit’s record is what it is, there’s no hiding or denying that. From sources such as MSN Autos, Ford seems to have the best track record (of the Big 3) from the late 90’s onward – which I think is probably a better indication that they’re really trying to make a difference.
Mr. Ressler seems to be an excellent spin machine, and picks and chooses data to support his claims as he sees fit. If rearward looking data helps his claim, he’ll use it. But if it’s particularly damning, then, of course, rearward looking data is rubbish. As Bell Springsteen said in his latest editorial “A bullshitter will say anything if it will help them to achieve their goal.”
Phil Ressler:
“You can ascribe this to loyalty but nevertheless you have a large group of people who won’t consider a domestic vehicle for reason of outdated perception.”
Reliability data is inherently outdated; unfortunately, sitting in a car and test driving it – no matter how good the “initial quality” seems – is not a realistic indicator of reliability. Well, at least for most of us, I mean, Mr. Ressler has the ability to predict reliability from a simple visual check – but that is an ability most of us mere mortals lack. “Initial quality” awards only serve as proof for folks who desire to put their “skin” in the “game” for car companies that got themselves into this boat with sub-par product.
Anyway, you would have to be blind to not be cognizant of problems with recent domestic models. The first generation Malibu, which ran from 1997-2003 has a horrible track record. As did the Cavalier through 2003. Remind me – how does a car that changes only cosmetically over an 8 year span manage to have the same frequent issues during that entire span (I guess it didn’t receive the same year-to-year improvement attention of the C4)? The previous generation Impala (2000-2004) also had questionable reliability. The last generation of the Pontiac Grand Am (1999-2004) had an abysmal reliability record, as did the 1997-2003 Grand Prix, although to a lesser degree. The last generation of the Dodge Stratus (2001-2006)also received bad marks.
(All reliability data from MSN Autos.)
The list goes on and on, of course, of recent domestic cars with shoddy reliability that Detroit would like us to forget. 3-5 years ago is not ancient history, as much as Detroit cheerleaders (Mr. Ressler & RLJ676) would like us to think. And no, I’m not saying that it is in any way a direct indication of future reliability, but Detroit’s record is what it is, there’s no hiding or denying that. From sources such as MSN Autos, Ford seems to have the best track record (of the Big 3) from the late 90’s onward – which I think is probably a better indication that they’re really trying to make a difference.
Mr. Ressler seems to be an excellent spin machine, and picks and chooses data to support his claims as he sees fit. He’s never wrong. If rearward looking data helps his claim, he’ll use it. But if it’s particularly damning, then, of course, rearward looking data is rubbish. As Bell Springsteen said in his latest editorial “A bullsh_tter will say anything if it will help them to achieve their goal.”
“Initial quality” awards only serve as proof for folks who desire to put their “skin” in the “game” for car companies that got themselves into this boat with sub-par product.
And yet initial quality is the most widely-followed statistic of the car-buying market. Personally, I don’t value it. But changes in these scores often move the market.
Mr. Ressler seems to be an excellent spin machine, and picks and chooses data to support his claims as he sees fit. If rearward looking data helps his claim, he’ll use it. But if it’s particularly damning, then, of course, rearward looking data is rubbish.
This is an easy superficial claim to make, but it is unsupported by my communications. I’ve dismissed backward-looking data when it is impertinent to predicting future reliability of new platform vehicles born of new development processes, materials, teams and techniques. Whenever I have cited historical data it has been both seldom and in cases where pertinence is not broken by a change of circumstances compared to the context in which the historical data was gleaned. In other words, when conditions make historical data extensible, it might be an element of influence. Even at that, I don’t depend on it to make my point.
All of the cars you cited are old platform cars that should have been better, yet many people have driven them with nary a squeak or problem. Your characterizations of their track records as “horrible” or “abysmal” are debatable, but since they reveal how you interpret MSN’s data, I’ll take that as subjective reporting indicative of your perception. New Malibu is unrelated to old Malibu, so the prior car’s record is mute on what to expect from its replacement. Of those old platform cars, however, I have to say that if I wanted a 300hp FWD 4 door sedan, for example, I wouldn’t have the slightest worry about an Impala SS’ reliability.
Phil
So the failure of Detroit hinges on the fact that a tiny portion of the market won’t consider their products? This is an laughable proposition.
Detroit fans such as Mr. Ressler face a dilemma. When viewed based upon objective criteria such as reliability data and resale value, the products come up short. When it comes to subjective criteria, such as the driving experience reviewed in the buff books and sites such as TTAC, the cars almost always come up short. And we can see from the sales figures that the consumer clearly wants something else (those who could buy a Malibu will often pay more for a Camry or Accord, for example), so the products obviously don’t appeal to the general public just as much as they don’t to the enthusiasts.
So what to do? The only recourse remaining for a diehard is to blame the customer. After all, if the argument demands that the products be fantastic and marvelous, then there must be something wrong with those who won’t spend their money on them. Hence, his desperate need to crank up the assembly lines to produce the One Million Bigot March.
You won’t shake Mr. Ressler off of this kick because blaming the customer is inherent to his argument. If he can’t blame the customer, then his only remaining alternative is to blame the companies and the products, an argument that he can’t indulge.
Yes, he can fault them for bad marketing or for the occasional misstep without disrupting his gestalt. But to admit that the products just aren’t any good would be a way to admit defeat, something that he just cannot do.
The thing that Mr. Ressler needs to realize is that the demise of Detroit that he fears is a byproduct of his customer-is-always-wrong mentality, and not the cure. It’s the very attitudes that Mr. Ressler embrace that are leading to their downfall, because this willful ignorance to accept the problems with the products prevents them from fixing them.
While it may seem to be more fun to blame the customer, the blame game won’t make anybody any money. If you view money as a way of keeping score, which you should, then the way to win the game is to make more money. That requires making products that can be sold in high volumes at reasonable or higher prices so that those revenues turn into profits. To do that requires making products that people want to buy, without being insulted. But that would be hard work, and the diehards are not interested in anything as challenging as that.
Detroit fans such as Mr. Ressler face a dilemma.
You misunderstand. I’m not a “Detroit fan.” I love a Maserati Coupe as much as my XLR-V. I could enjoy a BMW Z4 Coupe as much as a Corvette. An Infiniti M45 was just as engaging as my former Mercury Marauder. I think a first-gen Scion xB was way cool. If a Honda Element had more motor, it would be appealing as a utility vehicle. A Mini Clubman has my attention. I *am* a fan of American economic diversity and of continuing vitality of the middle class and its entry venues.
So what to do? The only recourse remaining for a diehard is to blame the customer.
Sorry, but this is just a slice of the problem. That I dealt with it discretely here in no way indicates I or anyone else here thinks it is somehow “the only recourse.” I simply choose to deconstruct a complex issue and address significant components individually. I’ll get around to the automakers, dealers, governments, etc.
If he can’t blame the customer, then his only remaining alternative is to blame the companies and the products, an argument that he can’t indulge.
I’m happy to indulge that argument in an appropriate thread. Here, however, fault that lies with the automakers is irrelevant to the reasons I advocate a change in behavior on the part of import bigots, and by extension import avoiders or anyone else writing American competitive cars off their consideration list.
But to admit that the products just aren’t any good would be a way to admit defeat, something that he just cannot do.
I’ve many times noted that the poor products are not beneficiary of this argument.
The thing that Mr. Ressler needs to realize is that the demise of Detroit that he fears is a byproduct of his customer-is-always-wrong mentality, and not the cure.
And in weeks of this thread’s life, you still haven’t assimilated that I hold no concept of the customer-is-always-wrong.
because this willful ignorance to accept the problems with the products prevents them from fixing them.
And you therefore missed the original proposition advocating that “fixed” product is exclusively what I am seeking fair consideration for.
To do that requires making products that people want to buy, without being insulted. But that would be hard work, and the diehards are not interested in anything as challenging as that.
It’s your choice, but you must know you’ve just insulted a few hundred-thousand people in three companies who are working feverishly to put past practices behind them and field products that engage and delight. Now they need shoppers to put aside their conceits, their resentments and their grudges to open-mindedly evaluate the output of a changed mentality within the Detroit 3.
Phil
you must know you’ve just insulted a few hundred-thousand people in three companies who are working feverishly to put past practices behind them and field products that engage and delight.
I hope that I’ve insulted them — they deserve it.
The Solstice must be surprising and delighting all sorts of people with its below-average reliability. And mind you, that is a product that is supposed to lead the turnaround.
This is what Bob Lutz said about the Solstice to the New York Times in 2005: “It is a graphic demonstration of General Motors’ capability to a skeptical world. It is a statement to the world that General Motors will take a back seat to no one when it comes to providing style and value.” He told the NYT that he was “98%” pleased with how it turned out.
There’s your “continuous improvement” for you. Lutz figures he nailed it, while Consumer Reports found it to be one of the most unreliable cars on the market and JD Power gave it its lowest rating for quality.
This was Lutz’s comment to the NYT about Solstice quality: “every Solstice that goes out is of impeccable quality to the customer.” That’s GM’s idea of impeccable for you.
And mind you, he’s the guru in charge of overseeing the product lineup for GM North America. Perhaps as his next brainchild, he can make Miatas available as loaners for those whose Solstices are in the shop for repair.
…awaits spin generated for the Solstice example…
Macca –
Although I can’t disagree with one of Phil’s points, that we owe it to ourselves to cross-shop “American” cars, the Solstice is a prime example of all that’s wrong with GM. This car was supposedly delayed to make sure that the quality was right, yet arrived on market 400 pounds heavier than a perfectly competent roadster and with a top that only ex-British Leyland engineers could love. All they had to do was to buy a Miata, design a mechanically identical clone, and then “style” the sheet metal to their hearts’ content. But nooooo. Under Bob “the CarCzar” Lutz, they first let the stylists create a profile which couldn’t actually have a real top, and then let the bean counters winnow away at the development costs so that they could not reproduce an automobile equivalent to one which Mazda has been building since 1990. Mazda, in the meanwhile, builds a retractable hardtop which adds 85 pounds to their svelte roadster.
And where will all of those satisfied Solstice/Sky buyers go for their next car? What do you suppose they will be telling their neighbors?
GM is like a split personality. On one hand, the Corvette, with its superb performance, excellent fuel mileage and only niggling details keeping it from true superstardom and on the other hand, the Solstice/Sky.
It’s no wonder that the public retains skepticism about the domestic manufacturers; these guys can’t seem to undo the latch on the holster before firing off a round.
Phil: “The 1,000,000 number was chosen for its clarity.”
I’m glad we, uh, clarified that; we know it wasn’t chosen based on any kind of reality.
From here on out, I’m picking all my numbers for clarity, too. Sure saves time.
Phil: “All of the cars you cited are old platform cars that should have been better, yet many people have driven them with nary a squeak or problem. Your characterizations of their track records as “horrible” or “abysmal” are debatable, but since they reveal how you interpret MSN’s data, I’ll take that as subjective reporting indicative of your perception.”
Then where did all the GM, Ford and Chrysler owners go? Perfectly satisfying experiences somehow drove half the market into the arms of the Japanese? Puh-leeze.
Set the Wayback for 1972 and you’ll find that that “Don’t buy Asian” number was far, far higher. And it was based on the cars themselves. What happened to the American public that they quite avoiding Japanese cars based on the reality of the cars themselves and started buying cars based on “bigotry?” Your premise is laughable.
A few pages ago, there was further discussion of “backwards-looking reliablity data… old platforms” and the unsuitability of using history to predict the future.
That’s not at all the case. Did all the engineers, purchasers, assemblers, etc, that worked on the ’01 Malibu get fired or die? How about the people they trained in? Crap is institutionalized and The Big Boss telling everybody to “build quality cars from here on out” is a joke. Organizaitonal cultures don’t change like that. It takes many years of the right incentives, rewards and corrections. Detroit hasn’t caught up and they won’t for a while longer.
…awaits spin generated for the Solstice example…
I haven’t seen the citation on Solstice reliability, so I don’t know what kinds of problems are being reported and can’t comment on it.
What I am familiar with is some real-world experience. I know 7 people who own Solstice or Sky and that includes a mix of the base 2.4L version and the GXP/Redline 2.0L turbo. Most are here in California, but two are on the other side of the country. One is a relative. I also see many of these cars here in SoCal, and have chance meetings to ask how people like their cars. They usually want to know about my XLR-V too, so sometimes I don’t even have to initiate the approach. Of the seven owners I personally know well, none have had any problems with their cars. Just one person had a slight dash rattle develop that the dealer promptly corrected.
Also in talking with several other owners in happenstance meetings, everyone has declared complete satisfaction and no problems. I’ve driven a GXP and a standard Sky. I don’t really fit in these cars so can’t consider owning them. I don’t fit in a Miata any better. The Miata is lighter, better balanced. The GM twins are heavier and the weight is felt, but they also stay planted and are very predictable in their dynamics. The cars are responsive and don’t have to be wrestled with. All of the competitors in this segment are a delight to drive, but different in how and from one another. The GXP/Redline have a character the Miata can’t duplicate. They’re muscle sports cars, in the manner of the Triumph TR6 compared to the MGB and Spitfire. Torquey, strong, a little heavy, way fun. The Honda S2000, which I also don’t fit in, is a more precise machine than the GXP/Redline, but doesn’t share their eminently accessible power and grunt.
For the first ten years of my car ownership life I owned nothing but a succession of sports cars which I drove year-round, and after that have usually had something sporting and muscular in my garage. Every sports car is a compromise, even Miata. People complain Solstice should be lighter and, yeah, I’d like it lighter too. But Solstice has a structure that feels stiffer than Miata and in the 2.0L turbo version, you get more than enough power for the difference. Like the Miata, the standard version of the GM twins is enjoyable in the “drive-a-slow-car-fast” way. The top? I read reviewers’ descriptions of the top mechanism before I saw the car and expected a seriously inconvenient stowage. It’s easier than I expected. Now, I started out on British sports cars, and had a Corvette before power tops were an option there. In that context, the Solstice/Sky top doesn’t seem so much trouble. But sure, the one-arm stowage of the Miata top is worth mimicking. I just don’t know anyone who owns a Solstice who is complaining about the top they have now. They don’t even think about it. They’re having too much fun keeping it folded.
For alot of people who buy the GM twins, styling is more than half the draw, and they are completely uninterested in the Miata or S2000, even if they own Japanese sedans. Everyone I know who owns one of these cars did not shop Miata because its image is, in their minds, too feminine. On the other hand, every Miata owner I know or run into loves their car too.
Phil
I’m glad we, uh, clarified that; we know it wasn’t chosen based on any kind of reality.
That is, 1,000,000 instead of, say 2,730,000 or 4,277,000. I think I’m safely conservative on the 1,000,000.
Perfectly satisfying experiences somehow drove half the market into the arms of the Japanese?
It’s not half the market that left Detroit. At the start of this slide, Detroit didn’t have 100% of the market. Imports had 15% comprised of novelty buyers, small cars not duplicated by Detroit, the personal identity buyer who just wanted something not mainstream, etc. So it’s a 35% slide so far.
Some of what drove people into imports was Detroit’s egregious errors over a 30 year period, but those errors were not uniform across all models offered. Social pressure, peer-sensitivity and import bigotry have been accelerators operating on their own dynamic unrelated to any actual customer understanding of product. At no point have I said import bigotry was the only or even main reason for the migration to imports.
That’s not at all the case. Did all the engineers, purchasers, assemblers, etc, that worked on the ‘01 Malibu get fired or die? How about the people they trained in? Crap is institutionalized and The Big Boss telling everybody to “build quality cars from here on out” is a joke. Organizational cultures don’t change like that. It takes many years of the right incentives, rewards and corrections. Detroit hasn’t caught up and they won’t for a while longer.
Get in the new platform and modified platform Ford and GM vehicles and drive them. Chrylser, perhaps not yet. Then tell me you don’t see in these products evidence of profound change. The question is, are you capable of being genuinely objective?
Phil
What I am familiar with is some real-world experience. I know 7 people who own Solstice or Sky and that includes a mix of the base 2.4L version and the GXP/Redline 2.0L turbo. Most are here in California, but two are on the other side of the country. One is a relative. I also see many of these cars here in SoCal, and have chance meetings to ask how people like their cars. They usually want to know about my XLR-V too, so sometimes I don’t even have to initiate the approach. Of the seven owners I personally know well, none have had any problems with their cars. Just one person had a slight dash rattle develop that the dealer promptly corrected.
Oh goodie, your statistical sample of 7 should provide all the data we need for an assessment. Never mind that objective data which indicates that the solstice/sky is 234 percent less reliability than CR’s statistical average and takes the number 2 spot of its list of Least reliable cars. Quite the dubious honor.
Never mind the reviews which read:
Taken as a whole, it’s as if Saturn/Opel/GM/Vauxhall/Pontiac’s engineers built this sports car using 10-foot poles. Everything about the ostensibly rabid roadster seems to have been developed from well outside the car– sacrificing drivability, handling, practicality, reliability, usability and comfort. Yes, the Saturn Sky Red Line looks like sex-on-wheels. And that’s about it.
If this represents something which Bob Lutz is “98%” satisfied with…
Macca “I’m not saying that an ‘86 Aerostar is indicative of quality for the ‘08 Fusion. What you seem to have trouble grasping is the idea that those crap-on-wheels Fords ruined the brand loyalty of both my father and his car-crazy son (me).
I see nothing in the Ford (or other Domestics’) lineups that comes close to swaying either of us away from our current brand loyalty. No amount of whining or complaining from a Ford employee (RLJ676) will change that. Like someone else said earlier – ironic that the factor that made Detroit so successful (brand loyalty) is now partially responsible for their downfall. Get it now? ”
I guess your interpretation of “new brand loyalty” reads to me like a grudge. Overall, if the new brand loyalty leads to be a part of an overall decision after considering the competitive set than that makes sense. Everyone’s set of criteria differ wildly and of course that can be part of it. However, if refusing to consider other cars (particularly a brand because it gave you trouble in the 80’s) is what is happening, than to me that is simply holding a grudge and behaving as an “import bigot”. The way I’ve read your posts is that is what you mean. Making a point about current brand loyalty is different than making a point about previous brand “loss of loyalty”.
PCH “It’s one thing to offer an opinion, it’s quite another to make up data out of thin air in order to “prove” it. If Mr. Ressler can’t prove the existence of these “bigots” (and he hasn’t), then his claims that comprise two-thirds of the article’s verbage are ultimately hollow and meaningless”
Please read the third post or so of this article. Sounds exactly like proof of at least one. Now as to the overall number, that is debatable. But his statement phrasing of “I’m convinced” does not read to me like “for a fact” or “based on a study”. Why you feel the need to argue over the exact number I don’t follow and it really is tangential to the main point.
Maybe 1 million should be replaced with “many” for some people just to reduce the number of points in contention. I happen to think his logic for thinking 1 million is reasonable, but asking for “proof” is a waste of time.
As I said, folks, the only way that you can make this article work for you is to believe that a Ressler Anecdote apparently trumps data. We can’t allow facts to get in the way of a good argument.
Although information about the Solstice was already provided elsewhere on the thread and is readily available online for anyone who wants to find it (including in a TTAC article of several days ago), Mr. Ressler would prefer to bang out paragraphs of deflection than to simply look it up and provide a reasoned response. The author’s attempt at spin was just part of a downward spiral.
Again, this is the mentality that pervades Detroit. It’s the very reason that you have every reason to be wary of Detroit products and make a point of avoiding them if you so choose.
The core problem here is the mentality of the management. That’s still broken, and just as long as it is dysfunctional and devoted to mediocrity, there’s no reason for you to give them your money.
They do not believe that anything is broken, so they see no need to fix it. Your satisfaction is irrelevant because you apparently are too “irrational” and focused on too many “pointless” items to even have the right to demand satisfaction. The products are terrific, you’re just too biased and dumb to figure that out.
If you want to see the quality gap, it begins with their people. Their defensiveness and resistance to criticism is then transmitted into the products they build.
Instead of benchmarking the competition, they benchmark their own previous mediocre effort, so the gap remains because the competition is also improving and not waiting for Detroit to catch up. They do not know how to compete, so it’s not surprising that they make uncompetitive products and that they whine when you don’t buy them.
pch “The core problem here is the mentality of the management. That’s still broken, and just as long as it is dysfunctional and devoted to mediocrity, there’s no reason for you to give them your money”
How are you so informed of the management and their views? You have absolutely no clue what is happening inside those companies as obvious by your statements. When there’s evidence of these changes you seem to blatantly disregard it. Further, why are you on here arguing against others even considering spending their money on domestics? I still can not possibly find a reason for your stance other than flat out spite for a crappy car in the past.
You are aware that the auto industry has long program development times, and even the newest cars have been in development for years ahead of time aren’t you? New processes and changes are going to be coming in recently, but it’s not instant, and won’t hit all models accordingly. There are good models out there though.
I feel the solstice/sky is competitive in many arenas, mostly styling. However, the quality is not there on that model. If quality is your key concern, I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s that simple. It’s a totally unpractical segment all together, so I’d be surprised if reliability was the top factor in its purchase.
How are you so informed of the management and their views?
Because I see the products that they build and am not impressed by the result.
And sometimes they shoot off their mouths. Let’s go back to the Lutz interview.
Q. So how’s your blog doing? What have you learned from the comments that people post there – a rather brave thing to do, by the way.
A. It sort of brings you face to face with the biases against G.M., and a lot of the mistaken beliefs about G.M. still, with broad portions of the American public. The belief that General Motors still produces junk. They obviously don’t read newspapers, they don’t know how we stand in quality and durability comparisons against leading Japanese competitors. So the inaccurate perceptions out in the marketplace, about G.M. and the way we run it, and our position in the industry, our omniscience and omnipotence and so forth — the incarnation of evil American big business, in cahoots with the oil companies. All of that crap comes through in the blog
Sorry, but I don’t want to buy a car from a guy who thinks like that. I do read the newspapers and an abundance of other sources, and Lutz is clearly wrong when he states that his products compare favorably — take his beloved 98% Solstice, for example. Whether he’s a liar or just out of touch, I don’t know, but either way, he’s not someone whom I would trust when it comes to product focus.
And frankly, RLJ, I wouldn’t want to buy a car from you, either. Your lack of interest in quality, customer satisfaction, or competitiveness as the market defines it is proof positive that it is probably better to shop elsewhere. I don’t want what you got, and I’ll be happy to get what I want from somewhere else.
RLJ676:
“I guess your interpretation of “new brand loyalty” reads to me like a grudge. Overall, if the new brand loyalty leads to be a part of an overall decision after considering the competitive set than that makes sense. Everyone’s set of criteria differ wildly and of course that can be part of it. However, if refusing to consider other cars (particularly a brand because it gave you trouble in the 80’s) is what is happening, than to me that is simply holding a grudge and behaving as an “import bigot”. The way I’ve read your posts is that is what you mean. Making a point about current brand loyalty is different than making a point about previous brand “loss of loyalty”.”
My father got fed up with Fords after five of them failed him. The latest of which was a 1993 Ford Thunderbird. Keep in mind that it failed about 4 years later. So the last blown headgasket that he experienced with a Ford 3.8L was in 1997. That was 10 years ago. After that, he was convinced that he needed to shop imports (as his previous Ford loyalty – or bigotry – had kept him from shopping Honda/Toyota/Nissan/etc).
So he went on test-drives (I went with him) and we drove just about every 4-door midsize sedan available (even a Taurus). He chose the Maxima GLE for a number of reasons – it was the vehicle that ‘won’ for him in just about every category.
What you seem to have such a hard time understanding is that he kept coming back to Nissan after having such a wonderful experience with the Maxima. Now after his fourth Nissan/Infiniti purchase, he’s still a huge fan (I got him to test drive a G35…and he got one immediately). He (and I) are brand loyal – just like he used to be brand loyal to Ford. Is the subject still touchy to him? Of course. He holds a grudge because of the thousands of dollars he sank into those 5 vehicles so that my family could have transportation.
But more importantly, he’s found a brand that has yet to let him down, and he has no reason to cross-shop. Does Ford offer a G35 equivalent? A loss of loyalty to one company brought forth a new loyalty to a different company. End of story.
PCH “And frankly, RLJ, I wouldn’t want to buy a car from you, either. Your lack of interest in quality, customer satisfaction, or competitiveness as the market defines it is proof positive that it is probably better to shop elsewhere. I don’t want what you got, and I’ll be happy to get what I want from somewhere else”
Please show me where this has been my position? My point is the exact opposite of this. The cars are better, the customers are satisfied, and the quality is on par with anyone (in my company for sure). You are purely one here to be an agitator as I’ve been stating. You state these things about me with NOT A SHRED of evidence this is my stance, as it has been the opposite. As to dynamic’s earlier comment about how he didn’t like my response to some people, I’m assuming it’s my responses to PCH, and he is a troll to use internet vernacular. I’m starting to think you are some kid in CA just being an ass for fun, dreaming of someday actually driving on the pacific coast highway.
Oh, and as for Lutz, he doesn’t say they’re favorable or better, but that they’re not junk. Basically he’s referring to your ignorant opinion of them, and maybe the truth stings a little.
Oh goodie, your statistical sample of 7 should provide all the data we need for an assessment. Never mind that objective data which indicates that the solstice/sky is 234 percent less reliability than CR’s statistical average and takes the number 2 spot of its list of Least reliable cars.
As I said, I haven’t seen the article in question, so couldn’t — and didn’t — comment on it. I didn’t cite my sample as anything other than that. You already know how (un)actionable I think CR data is.
Phil
The cars are better
Better than what? Better than they used to be? Yes. Better than the competition? Perhaps on par with the weakest rivals, but not on par with the best.
the customers are satisfied
Hertz doesn’t count. If customers were so pleased, they wouldn’t be opting to buy other products. The market is trying to tell you that you aren’t competitive, but you refuse to listen.
and the quality is on par with anyone
If you work for an American automaker, that is almost never true. And generally, the most reliable cars are technological dinosaurs such as the Crown Vic that only a cab driver could love.
You are purely one here to be an agitator
I sure hope so. Your leadership is asleep at the wheel and they need to wake up.
We’ve already been voting with our dollars, but even that wasn’t enough. Stop whining about how wonderful you are and make better products, instead, and then you might get somewhere.
Macca “But more importantly, he’s found a brand that has yet to let him down, and he has no reason to cross-shop. Does Ford offer a G35 equivalent? A loss of loyalty to one company brought forth a new loyalty to a different company. End of story. ”
I still think the 3 series is a better choice than a G35, but neither is wrong if you looked at all competitors. In this case there isn’t a Ford, but maybe a CTS.
I don’t get your point here though. Are you saying you won’t consider domestics, you will but not Ford, or there aren’t any good domestic competitors in this class? Or you will only consider Nissans now?
pch “Better than what? Better than they used to be? Yes. Better than the competition? Perhaps on par with the weakest rivals, but not on par with the best. ”
Yes to all of those. The best domestics are on par or better than the best competition. This is subjective of course, but each person can evaluate for themselves assuming you don’t automatically dismiss something based on it being domestic.
pch “Hertz doesn’t count. If customers were so pleased, they wouldn’t be opting to buy other products. The market is trying to tell you that you aren’t competitive, but you refuse to listen.”
This isn’t true at all. Customer satisfaction, as based on third party and company research says otherwise. This is the JDP and CR info you don’t like when it favors a domestic, ie Ford. If some of the market are avoiding a car without evaluating it, that isn’t the “market speaking” the way you think it is.
“If you work for an American automaker, that is almost never true. And generally, the most reliable cars are technological dinosaurs such as the Crown Vic that only a cab driver could love.”
With the company I work for this is true. CR puts us in the same top tier of quality with the leaders. Overall though, across the board it varies from model to model. Again, any evidence presented is dismissed though as not being “long term” enough.
“I sure hope so. Your leadership is asleep at the wheel and they need to wake up.
We’ve already been voting with our dollars, but even that wasn’t enough. Stop whining about how wonderful you are and make better products, instead, and then you might get somewhere. ”
Again, you don’t have the insight you think you do. I can only speak for one company concretely, but assure you every effort is being made to accomplish the things you speak of. It is not quick due to the cost and time of bringing a car into production.
Last, you keep coming back to this popularity contest (voting with dollars). This is the result of a multi-faceted market. There are many drivers of what has been selling. These change constantly, and some of these changes are both the product, and consumer acceptance. The product has been changing, but the acceptance lags.
PCH “And frankly, RLJ, I wouldn’t want to buy a car from you, either. Your lack of interest in quality, customer satisfaction, or competitiveness as the market defines it is proof positive that it is probably better to shop elsewhere. I don’t want what you got, and I’ll be happy to get what I want from somewhere else”
Again, I’m waiting for the evidence on this statement you keep repeating?
Last, what do you drive? You keep talking about this market speaking, etc. If you believe in your “popularity contest” framework, than you better be driving an F-series, or maybe a Camry if you don’t want a truck. You contend that if something sells more, it’s better/best. So that should guide your decision as you expect it to everyone elses.
Although information about the Solstice was already provided elsewhere on the thread and is readily available online for anyone who wants to find it (including in a TTAC article of several days ago), Mr. Ressler would prefer to bang out paragraphs of deflection than to simply look it up and provide a reasoned response. The author’s attempt at spin was just part of a downward spiral.
I’m a busy man. Perhaps you’d like to offer the link. I’m not offering spin. I’ve driven the car(s). Have you? The search function for a nearly 1000 post thread isn’t robust here. I don’t need to read a review to know what I think of the Solstice/Sky. As for CR reliability data, I’ll be happy to read it but what really matters is what kind of problems are being reported. Does the article detail that?
…take his beloved 98% Solstice, for example. Whether he’s a liar or just out of touch, I don’t know, but either way, he’s not someone whom I would trust when it comes to product focus.
I’m sorry but any alleged problems with a limited production, niche market specialty vehicle that actually turn out to be real do not negate GM’s quality progress in Buicks, Pontiacs, trucks, newer Chevies. Let’s see how Malibu turns out. That’s a lot more indicative of the producer than whatever has you in a twist about Solstice.
Never mind the reviews which read:
Taken as a whole, it’s as if Saturn/Opel/GM/Vauxhall/Pontiac’s engineers built this sports car using 10-foot poles. Everything about the ostensibly rabid roadster seems to have been developed from well outside the car– sacrificing drivability, handling, practicality, reliability, usability and comfort. Yes, the Saturn Sky Red Line looks like sex-on-wheels. And that’s about it.
I have to wonder whether said reviewer ever drove sports cars before. If you judge a 2 seat sports car roadster by sedan standards, even a Miata will be misinterpreted. There’s more than one formula for building a sports car. The Lotus Europa/MGB mix of traits in the Miata is only one. Personally, I always preferred Triumphs, and Solstice is more like that. So a lot of this carping seems to derive from a public now having only one reference for an inexpensive sports car. I don’t see anyone choosing a sports car for its trunk space. If trunk space is your criterion for choosing a two-seat roadster, you really should be shopping for a coupe or sedan. I’d have to know more about the source of these review comments to say more. As for practicality, usability and comfort, the only real problem I see is that someone 6’3″ tall doesn’t fit in the car in any sustainable way. But that’s true for a Miata and S2000 too. People who fit in the car aren’t complaining.
Phil
If you work for an American automaker, that is almost never true. And generally, the most reliable cars are technological dinosaurs such as the Crown Vic that only a cab driver could love.
My guess is you’ve never driven a Mercury Marauder, or a Kenny Brown massaged (and blown) Crown Vic Sport.
Phil
This thread is like the Energizer bunny (or is it Duracell?)
Still going……….
Mr. Ressler, if you spent less time defending the indefensible, then you might free some time from your busy schedule to conduct a bit of basic research.
In the meantime, of over 400 people who responded to a poll on this Solstice owner’s forum, 52% report having issues with the rear differential. I guess Bob Lutz will be thrilled when that figure hits 98%. http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/cmps_index.php
(And just in case you were wondering why such a poll would have been posted on the forum in the first place, that’s because a lot of owners have complained about it, and NHTSA has posted a technical service bulletin for this item.)
RLJ676:
“I still think the 3 series is a better choice than a G35, but neither is wrong if you looked at all competitors. In this case there isn’t a Ford, but maybe a CTS.
I don’t get your point here though. Are you saying you won’t consider domestics, you will but not Ford, or there aren’t any good domestic competitors in this class? Or you will only consider Nissans now?”
Well, when it comes to reliability and longevity, the G35 wins for me. Plus, I (and my father) are quite fond of its driving dynamics. BMW charges a ridiculous premium for their supposed brand “cachet” that makes their vehicles overpriced for what you get, IMHO. There’s no denying the G’s bang-for-yer-buck, although I can readily admit that the Bimmer has its positive traits as well. I certainly don’t fault people for being BMW enthusiasts.
As for the CTS, I’ve never liked its styling. I don’t find Cadillacs latest “edgy” design language pleasing, the CTS especially so. It does seem to be a nice effort from GM…but it is my purely subjective preference that the G35 is superior in exterior/interior styling, engine note, comfort, etc.
I shared the anecdote about my father’s experience with Fords (one that I was directly affected by) to highlight the reasons why someone would be hesitant to put their “skin” in the “game” to keep 1/3 of the Big 3 alive. Between the two of us, we’ve owned 3 Nissans and 3 Infinitis. These purchases weren’t made with our head in the sand, refusing to look at other offerings, but for the segments we were interested in, these cars were the best for us. Plus, our positive experiences with them has built up a strong brand loyalty – similar to what made my father a Ford guy in the first place. As for future considerations, I don’t think my father will ever shop Ford again, nor any other domestics for that matter, considering that his next purchase will probably be either an FX or an M, and he feels that those are head-and-shoulders above their competition, domestic or foreign.
As for me, I would say that I would be more likely to at least consider domestics – if they were to offer a competitive alternative in whatever segment I’m interested in. My next purchase will probably be a CUV (I know, I know) because I’m essentially looking for a “tall wagon”. In my beginning stages of looking around, I’m not very impressed with the RAV4 or CRV, the Escape is not refined enough for me and has disappointing performance and economy, the Rogue is too small, and the EX might be more than I want to spend on this purchase. Actually the Mitsubishi Outlander is looking like the leader. So although I’m a “Nissan loyalist” at heart, I know that they don’t have an answer for all my needs, and I’m also not unwilling to shop a domestic. But in this category, the Equinox/Torrent is about the only Domestic in consideration, but it has lesser performance and fuel economy than the Outlander.
Macca, I guess I was thrown off by your story about the Aerostar. I can’t argue with any of your logic stated above, and it sounds like you are considering the competitive sets. That makes you not at all the “import bigot” being discussed here. Your dad may be a different story now.
For CUV have you considered the Edge as it might fit what you want.
In the meantime, of over 400 people who responded to a poll on this Solstice owner’s forum, 52% report having issues with the rear differential. I guess Bob Lutz will be thrilled when that figure hits 98%. http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/cmps_index.php
First, I know from the many car-specific forums I’ve participated on that these owners are not representative of the overall customer population. That is to say, this crowd aggressively uses their cars, sometimes beyond spec. Further, this is a poll, not a statistical sampling. And still, 48% who bothered to participate report no problems whatsoever with their rear differential. So what’s going on here?
A glimmer of insight might be revealed in one person’s post. He reports that he has had no problems since getting a differential casing replacement and then says he’s soon going to the dragstrip to see how it holds up.
If you take an IRS sports car to the drag strip, rev your engine to the fat part of the torque curve and dump the clutch, you will eventually be replacing your pinion seal or the axle seals, both, or the entire differential. This is going to be true if you take an aftermarket turbo’d Miata, a Solstice, an S2000, a Nissan Z or any other car not built for drag racing to the 1440 for a run. There’s a reason beyond cost that Mustangs have solid axles.
It’s also going to be a problem if you sub the street for the track but get underway with the same method. By the way, people who bought CTS-V for the same thing got the same result, as BMW drivers drag racing M3s have sometimes found too.
Next, alot of people who bought Solstice/Sky have never owned a small roadster before. They have been concerned about mechanical noises that you’re isolated from in a sedan or coupe. There’s a driveline thunk in the car under certain conditions. For some people that’s a service visit when there’s nothing wrong. The diff has a vent that can drip a little rear-end lube in hard driving. Same deal. A little gear whine may be harbinger of a downstream problem or nothing at all. Some of these symptoms may generate complaints from the unintiated and yet the diff will require no service whatsoever for the life of the car.
Still, for some percentage of these reported problems, a real defect, either of design or manufacturing, might be present. GM has replaced pinions, seals, casings and complete differentials and in many reported cases, no further problems are reported. In some cases, the same driver is back with a new problem. Could it be the driver dumping peak torque into the diff with a simple, punishing drop of the clutch? I don’t know and neither do you.
GM has apparently made some improvements, since 2008 Solstice/Sky are not seeing the early failures reported for 2007, and people who have received diff replacements with 2008 pumpkins report problem solved. And by the way, I haven’t seen any reports of a diff failure stranding anyone.
By the way, you can also find differential failures among Miata owners in their forums too and often these are cars that get some “dual use” if you know my meaning. Drifting beats up on a differential too. One Miata mod I’ve seen a few times is installation of an adapted Ford 8.8inch pumpkin, especially if the owner is adding ponies.
Phil
I forgot about mentioning the Edge. I like the styling (it’s growing on me) and it seems to be a solid CUV…performance is apparently great and although I haven’t driven one, refinement seems to be there as well.
As this vehicle will be a daily-driver, city MPG is important (just a personal qualm regarding fuel consumption), and the Edge is rated at 16/24…not surprising considering its 265 hp and 4500lb curb weight. (Fuel economy is also the reason why the Murano isn’t high on my list.) So that’s about the only strike in my book, since the Outlander is rated for 20/27 and real world numbers appear to be even higher – but this does come at the cost of hp (220 vs 265). Although the Outlander does have a manumatic function that I can see myself actually using. Also, the Outlander boasts 72 cubic feet of cargo space over the Edge’s 69.
So it might get a test-drive, but I’ve probably found the best (according to my specifications) CUV for my money.
We got ya, Mr. Ressler — your anecdotes are superior to any data source that contradicts you. It’s just so unfortunate that there are so many data sources that contradict you.
This comment from you actually made me laugh out loud:
GM has apparently made some improvements, since 2008 Solstice/Sky are not seeing the early failures reported for 2007
That’s absolutely hilarious — you actually want the TTAC readership to ignore results from the 2007 model year. You’re like a non-stop practical joke…
you actually want the TTAC readership to ignore results from the 2007 model year.
I didn’t suggest that. GM apparently either recognized a problem or decided that even if the nature of the complaints was suspect, it was still worth addressing the component. So the 2008 cars are better in this respect. Isn’t that exactly what you want? Continuous improvement. But as for the problem in the first place, your “poll” is recognized even by its participants as being only, as its author said, an “entertainment exercise.” The context for those problems is significant and worth knowing. Have you ever even driven a Solstice/Sky in either performance configuration? I’m guessing no. Have you ever seen what happens to a sports car IRS when the car it is in is driven like a V8 Mustang on drag night, raced or drifted? Have you ever torn down a diff to see what wears under these circumstances? Well I have, and context is all the difference in diagnosing failures.
If there’s a general problem and its incidence data is normalized for driver conduct and the expectations of owners who have no prior experience with such a car, I’m happy to take it seriously. Differential problems that are getting fixed as needed, with upgrades in production, in a specialty sports car are not particularly damning in the way you hope.
Phil
So the 2008 cars are better in this respect. Isn’t that exactly what you want? Continuous improvement.
I would have preferred that Bob “98%” Lutz hadn’t put the cars on the road in that condition, while lying to the New York Times about their “impeccable” quality.
And it’s a bit early to cheerlead for the fantastic triumph of the 2008 model, when it just came out. The absurdity of your rebuttals never ceases to amaze me.
Macca “So it might get a test-drive, but I’ve probably found the best (according to my specifications) CUV for my money. ”
All that anyone could ask.
I too wish the edge weighed in lighter and achieved better milage. The milage can vary wildly though depending on how lead-footed you tend. Trying to be impartial though, I find it’s styling to be worth the tradeoff, and it drives great (haven’t driven too many other CUV’s though).
I would have preferred that Bob “98%” Lutz hadn’t put the cars on the road in that condition, while lying to the New York Times about their “impeccable” quality.
I don’t know what problems CR is citing, their actual incidence, nor whether their data is normalized for the special circumstances of the category. People are much more satisfied with these cars than you believe, but these cars aren’t appliances so satisfaction is driven by different factors than for a Camry buyer. I doubt CR has considered this.
And it’s a bit early to cheerlead for the fantastic triumph of the 2008 model, when it just came out. The absurdity of your rebuttals never ceases to amaze me.
You obviously didn’t read the threads on differential problems posted on that forum. The reason the 2008 diffs are worth noting is that people who reported infant failure of earlier differentials sometimes did so within a couple thousand miles. Given that the members of an enthusiast forum pile on miles, there are 2008 diffs in service for enough mileage, both as replacements in 2007 cars and stock in 2008s for that community to believe that infant failure of new differentials is not happening nor likely to.
Read a little deeper into that forum and you’ll see that differential failures aren’t causing people to abandon their cars. In some cases, they in fact doubled down and upgraded to a GXP. As for some of the other criticism of this car’s weight and handling, it’s been meeting and beating Miatas on the amateur race circuit for the past two years. The operative modifier there being “amateur.” Some people, even fairly regular ones, like a spicier car and learn how to use it to advantage.
Phil
Pch101,
I noticed you ignored these two questions:
“Have you ever even driven a Solstice/Sky in either performance configuration?”
and,
“Have you ever torn down a diff to see what wears under these circumstances?”
I didn’t think so.
Phil
Read a little deeper into that forum and you’ll see that differential failures aren’t causing people to abandon their cars. In some cases, they in fact doubled down and upgraded to a GXP.
So, we’ve changed the definition of “impeccable quality” to mean “some fan boys haven’t deserted us.” For Mr. Ressler, any rebuttal will have to do…
If GM wants to build cars with such iffy reliability, that is certainly its choice to make. But then don’t be surprised when the market share transfers to rivals and sales volumes decline.
I presented this earlier: Either act like a mainstream automaker and give the majority what it wants, or else sell into a niche that doesn’t care about quality and accept lower sales. If you are sloppy about build quality, then you will sell fewer cars, and you will have to figure out how to sell in lower numbers while being able to turn a profit.
You can’t expect to lead the market and to have poor reliability, consumers have become accustomed to a higher level of quality and expect it.
If there’s a general problem and its incidence data is normalized for driver conduct and the expectations of owners who have no prior experience with such a car, I’m happy to take it seriously. Differential problems that are getting fixed as needed, with upgrades in production, in a specialty sports car are not particularly damning in the way you hope.
Again, we see the mentality of Detroit in this defense. If a car has failings, it must be a result of driver conduct. Clearly other sports cars must have the same issues. Oh wait, that’s simply false. I could purchase an array of other cars which do not suffer from these same failings. Why buy a solstice/sky if I can get an S2000 with a top that doesn’t leak, a usable trunk and a differential that doesn’t fall apart on me. The line of thinking exhibited here is what is killing Detroit, until that goes away, they will find it difficult to win back customers.
From my ealier post:
“PCH “And frankly, RLJ, I wouldn’t want to buy a car from you, either. Your lack of interest in quality, customer satisfaction, or competitiveness as the market defines it is proof positive that it is probably better to shop elsewhere. I don’t want what you got, and I’ll be happy to get what I want from somewhere else”
Again, I’m waiting for the evidence on this statement you keep repeating?
Last, what do you drive? You keep talking about this market speaking, etc. If you believe in your “popularity contest” framework, than you better be driving an F-series, or maybe a Camry if you don’t want a truck. You contend that if something sells more, it’s better/best. So that should guide your decision as you expect it to everyone elses.”
I’m still looking for some answer to any of this? Or where these not convenient enough to take out of context and manipulate?
Bob Lutz’s next brainchild could be the Chevy Excuse.
It could come in every shape, size and configuration: “We have all sorts of Excuses!”
No need to worry about these ever going out of production: “You can count on us to keep making Excuses!”
They’ll be good enough for Mr. Ressler to defend: “The Detroit Three have great Excuses.”
Of course, it will be available for fleet sales: “We have all the Excuses you could possibly want!”
Meanwhile, the domestic avoiders can keep avoiding them: “No Excuses here.”
The dealer might not be so happy, though, as they pile up on the lot. “Excuses, Excuses, Excuses…”
Perhaps best of all, it has badge-engineering potential. Pontiac Alibi has a certain ring to it…
You can’t expect to lead the market and to have poor reliability, consumers have become accustomed to a higher level of quality and expect it.
If these same differential problems occured in the 2008 Malibu, that would be serious and not a mere anomaly. In Solstice, a different issue with many other factors at play. Let’s watch Malibu. It wasn’t a quick-turn project for a niche with some buyers who will use their cars outside intent. It’s mainstream.
If a car has failings, it must be a result of driver conduct. Clearly other sports cars must have the same issues. Oh wait, that’s simply false. I could purchase an array of other cars which do not suffer from these same failings. Why buy a solstice/sky if I can get an S2000 with a top that doesn’t leak, a usable trunk and a differential that doesn’t fall apart on me. The line of thinking exhibited here is what is killing Detroit, until that goes away, they will find it difficult to win back customers.
Google “Honda S2000 differential failures” and you will get a list of references. The first few being mods for people who abuse their diffs. You also might find this interesting:
http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-20058.html
It’s a Q&A with a Solstice/Sky engineer. You’ll see some common-sense info on why performance LSDs are noisier than some customers are accustomed to.
Why buy a Solstice/Sky over an S2000? Well the base GM car costs a lot less. And the GXP/Redline have both more power and more accessible power. You really have to spin that Honda to find its hp. The Honda is responsive and well-made, but it has a specific character defined by its engine that doesn’t appeal to everyone. Also, to most people the GM twins slay the Honda on style.
The fact is, you can find differential failures in every sports car in mass-market pricing. If you want heavy-duty parts ready for any abuse, ante up for a Corvette, Viper or a Porsche.
Again, what is wrong with GM fixing the (alleged) problem?
Phil
If you want heavy-duty parts ready for any abuse, ante up for a Corvette, Viper or a Porsche.
Er, the Solstice has the 2.4 liter Ecotech that can be found in the Cobalt and a variety of GM cars. With a 0-60 time in the high 7’s, it is fair-to-middling in terms of velocity.
Even a 6-cylinder Accord will beat a Solstice off the line. And it isn’t nearly as likely to break.
The problem with the Solstice isn’t with its stunning power delivery — it has an economy car motor with less than 200 hp. The problem is with the excuse makers such as Bob “98%” Lutz who put these projects together and don’t ensure that they everything is done properly.
Bob Lutz apparently has a definition for “impeccable” that must be translated as “better than the Fiero.” Unfortunately, the definition should have been “better than the new Miata,” the standard bearer in this class.
Phil
I drove the new Malibu today. In a prior post, you had asked me to share my impressions, so here they are. Keep in mind we’ve had Hondas (or rather my wife’s cars have been Hondas) for 20 years.
Overall, it’s a very nice car. I like it, and I think I’d be happy with a ‘Bu, if I should decide on a midsized car.
The one I drove was fully loaded with a V6, 6spd auto, which is not representative of what I would buy, but that’s the only one they had. The salesman asked me to drive it, so I did.
I punched it a couple times, and it has plenty of power. Under normal drivng it shifts very smoothly, and when you stand on it, it’s still fairly smooth, though of course you’re going to feel it a little. The paddle shifters are a nice little toy to play with, but I don’t know that I’d use them much beyond the second week of ownership – after all, most of us buy an slush box so we don’t have to do the shifting. (and of course you don’t have to use them, but then why have ’em?) I didn’t have an opportunity to take it through some twisties, so I can’t really say much about handling. At normal city traffic speeds it feels like most D3 cars -e.g. a bit too much power assist. For a guy like me, who isn’t going to do any performance type driving, this is not a problem. Out of curiosity, I’d like to take it though some S-curves at speed, just to see what it’s got. Not that I’d drive that way except once in a blue moon.
The interior is nice. I’d say it’s about on par with it’s competition. The seats were leather trimmed, but that’s not an option I’d get. The dealer said they’d be getting another one in, with fewer options, so I’ll go back and check out the standard interor some time. The plastics are good. I’m not quite sure their up to top tier standard, but it’s somewhat subjective, and they are good. It doesn’t look cheap. The twin cockpit dash board design is really nice. In pictures, or on the net, this looks slightly boy racerish, and a bit retro. In the flesh, so to speak, the effect is tasteful and makes the car feel larger – not that it’s small. Headroom and legroom are good, including the back seats. (I’m 6′ tall) The car I drove had a power seat and adjustable pedals, so one could really tailor it his (or her) own feel with these options. If there were no chevy emblems anywhere, you could easily believe this was a Camcordima interior. The only thing I’d be cautious about is interior color choices. The two tone scheme is nice, but the cashmire color was already looking dirty on the seats. This may be how it’s supposed to look, but I didn’t care for it. Another color, that doesn’t have this dirty look, might be a better choice.
The exterior fit and finish is good. There’s nothing as far as workmanship that I’d fault. Panel gaps are smaller than I’m used to seeing on D3s, and they are even all around. I do have two gripes though. One, and this applies to all carmakers, and perhaps even more so to Camcordimas, the color choices range from dull to boring. What is with all this beige and gray? You can get blue, but you can only get red by moving up a notch or two in trim level. If Detroit wants to rekindle the romance with cars through style, maybe their first step should be to bring back at least some colors from the ’50s. I’d kinda like a Malibu in aquamarine. No, update that – metalic aquamarine. Of course that complicates interior color schemes, but I’m sure they could manage it. I’m tired of boring colors. The other gripe I have is the grill. This car’s grill just looks as if it were grafted on from some other vehicle, perhaps a 1/2 ton PU. If I were the styling boss at Chevy, I’d say loose the upper grill altogether. Just fill that in with sheetmetal and the front end would be smoother and cleaner looking. It’s not so bad that I’d refuse to buy the car -after all, when I’m driving it, I don’t have to look at the grill- but it could be sooooo much nicer looking w/o that upper grill. IMO it ruins the smooth lines of the car. The grill itself is also a bit cheap looking. I didn’t touch it (and I should have) but it looks like plastic. You wouldn’t notice it on the lower grill, but the upper grill just forces you to look (or look away) But that’s just my take on it. I’m sure it won’t revulse very many buyers, but I don’t think it will really win anyone over for it’s styling.
As far as looks (except for that grill), feel, comfort, and just general “niceness” level, I’d say they’ve closed the gap. It’s a nice car.
The only reservation I’d have is the reliability issue. I don’t want to rehash all that jazz about data and new platforms. I’ll just say this, if Honda comes out with a new platform, I’m not afraid to buy it because of their general reputation. When GM comes out with a new platform, I’m inclined to let someone else be the first on the block to own it. If it pans out, then I’ll get one next year. In my case I’m not ready to buy for about a year, and by then, the ’09s will be out and we’ll have at least one year of reports on the ‘Bu.
I’m not sure I want a midsize sedan, but if that’s what I decide on, Malibu would be a very strong contender for my dollars -assuming reliability issues aren’t a problem- and that’s not even considering the socioeconomic factors. If it proves reliable, it’s a good enough car that one doesn’t need to let socioeconomic factors tip the balance. In short, it’s competitive. And I admit, I was suprised, in the back of my mind, I’d expected it to fall short.
The problem with the Solstice isn’t with its stunning power delivery — it has an economy car motor with less than 200 hp.
Do you understand this market sector? A 4 cylinder affordable sports car is a very specific thing. Mazda makes one in the Miata and it has a 166hp four. Pontiac and Saturn offer on with a 177 hp base four. A V6 Accord ought to be able to beat such a car off the line, but sheer acceleration isn’t the point of a 4 cylinder roadster. Responsiveness and visceral connection to the road, with your face in the elements are. So why would you reference a V6 sedan? Even at that, a competent driver of the rear-drive Solstice can get moving more quickly than the average FWD driver who just mashes the throttle and grapples for traction on those suddenly-unloaded front wheels.
Even at 177hp, if you dump the clutch near the mill’s torque peak, thumping power into an IRS differential, you’re going to engender some problems downstream.
The 240hp S2000, the 6 cyl Z4 and the GXP/Redline move the basic 4/2/rwd sports car attributes in a different, albeit entertaining, direction toward muscular roadsters.
The problem is with the excuse makers such as Bob “98%” Lutz who put these projects together and don’t ensure that they everything is done properly.
Again, every car in the sector can be driven to differential trouble, as the field experience with all of their enthusiast communities confirms. What else is going wrong with Solstice. So far all I’ve heard about is differentials, of which only a subset of reported problems are real. What else? Let’s not bring up leaks, because there’s never been a cloth top roadster model with some samples that didn’t leak, or absent *any* circumstances in which a little moisture can be driven into the interior. What else?
Bob Lutz apparently has a definition for “impeccable” that must be translated as “better than the Fiero.” Unfortunately, the definition should have been “better than the new Miata,” the standard bearer in this class.
I don’t know Bob Lutz and I’m guessing you don’t either. But I do have more than enough experience being interviewed by journalists and seeing coverage that’s from somewhat to blatantly at variance to what I or others in the conversation said. He speaks vividly.
However, every specialty roadster sports car project I can think of has been an exercise in refinement with some first gen aspects questionable in hindsight. The Miata is a truly nifty car, made more so by its affordability. The retractable hardtop option makes it a cheap & cheerful GT. But it wasn’t perfect on launch and took several years to get right. I recall many first-year one-eyed Miatas at nighttime because of gremlins in the retractable headlights. The car was underpowered. Brakes were so-so. And it had a flexy structure. And now 17 years later, you can still drive your Miata to differential failure if you’re inclined.
Solstice/Sky are getting import owners into GM showrooms and making some sales. So far, problems seem to be small and not of the dependability variety, and within tolerance for error in the quirky sports car sector. More important, what problems are emerging are being addressed. Everyone who bought one of these cars did so fully aware of the trunk space, the manual top, the location of the cup holders. Malibu will be more telling.
Phil
So far, problems seem to be small and not of the dependability variety, and within tolerance for error in the quirky sports car sector.
I think that you need a new pair of reading glasses, and some new interpretative skills to boot.
The Solstice is a contender for the bottom of both CR and JD Power. This “sports car” has an economy car drivetrain that has already been beta tested on plenty of GM customers driving G6’s and Cobalts who have also experienced reliability issues.
Every post you make convinces me that these companies are terminally broken. They cannot be fixed, because the people who mismanage them are themselves too broken to be fixed. We would need to fire the entire lot and start from scratch before there would even be a hope of ridding the corpse of the cancer that rots within it.
Alibis, excuses, and more alibis and excuses. Trying to get the Ressler’s of the world to honor your warranty or admit to a mistake is an exercise in futility.
I will leave post 1000 of this sprawling, absurd mess of a thread to someone else.
The fact is, you can find differential failures in every sports car in mass-market pricing. If you want heavy-duty parts ready for any abuse, ante up for a Corvette, Viper or a Porsche.
The problem here is not that they are failing because they are abused, its that they are failing in a systematic manner not related to abuse.
The stock differential in the solstice has a rather obvious design/manufacturing flaw with its seals. There is a difference between a component which might eventually fail under abuse to one which randomly fails after losing all its fluid due to a design flaw. The fact that a product was shipped with such a blatant flaw is an indictment of GM’s culture.
Again, what is wrong with GM fixing the (alleged) problem?
Nothing is wrong with fixing a problem, but the culture of spin and blaming the user for your own shortcomings is a problem. Your attitude towards this particular issues speaks volumes. It demonstrates willful disregard for the facts which would make even the spinsters in the Bush administration blush.
The problem here is not that they are failing because they are abused, its that they are failing in a systematic manner not related to abuse.
This may be true, but it’s not clear this is the case from the Solstice forum PcH referenced.
The stock differential in the solstice has a rather obvious design/manufacturing flaw with its seals. There is a difference between a component which might eventually fail under abuse to one which randomly fails after losing all its fluid due to a design flaw. The fact that a product was shipped with such a blatant flaw is an indictment of GM’s culture.
Aside from the diff vent sometimes weeping a bit of fluid under hard cornering or directional changes, the info so far doesn’t settle whether the diffs have a design or a parts/build flaw with the seals or the casing. Most customers aren’t having diff problems, so defects in the latter that might survive static testing look suspect.
Nothing is wrong with fixing a problem, but the culture of spin and blaming the user for your own shortcomings is a problem. Your attitude towards this particular issues speaks volumes. It demonstrates willful disregard for the facts which would make even the spinsters in the Bush administration blush.
I don’t work for GM and in this thread I’m not giving them advice. So my tick-off of possible mitigating context speaks nothing about spin or blaming the user at GM. So far as I know, GM hasn’t blamed drivers at all. But every car sold into a performance subculture, whether Japanese, German or American has some incidence of component failures induced by enthusiasts being enthusiasts. The Ford 8.8 rear end is a robust item for its purpose, but more than a few have been blown out by a GT owner bolting on slicks, a power adder or two and dropping clutch. Some of these same dudes have reverted their cars to stock for a trip to the dealer begging warranty repair. Just saying, something like a diff failure in a minority of users in this sector deserves a deeper look before you condemn everyone who brought the car to life.
What else has been a problem with Solstice?
The Solstice is a contender for the bottom of both CR and JD Power.
Which tells me little. A first-year, low production specialty car that sells to performance buyers as well as first-time segment owners who may not understand it is reported as problemmatic by the milquetoast set, with no context reported. Might mean something. Might not. In any case, the problems seem specific, not generalized, and GM is taking care of it. Better if it didn’t happen? Sure. But a diff problem in this sector doesn’t negate the car.
This “sports car” has an economy car drivetrain that has already been beta tested on plenty of GM customers driving G6’s and Cobalts who have also experienced reliability issues.
Engine and transmission issues don’t seem to be a problem with any of them. The rear-drive Solstice has a different diff, and the customer set is different as well.
Every post you make convinces me that these companies are terminally broken. They cannot be fixed, because the people who mismanage them are themselves too broken to be fixed. We would need to fire the entire lot and start from scratch before there would even be a hope of ridding the corpse of the cancer that rots within it.
What I’m writing here tells you nothing about these companies, as I am completely unconnected with any of them.
Alibis, excuses, and more alibis and excuses. Trying to get the Ressler’s of the world to honor your warranty or admit to a mistake is an exercise in futility.
Again, *THIS* isn’t an advice column. That’s another subject. You have no indication of what my warranty policy would be if such were my responsibility, as I’ve not commented on it. But GM appears to be honoring warranties and dealers seem to be going out of their way to give benefit of doubt, based on the online commentary among relevant owners. So you’re fabricating.
Phil
I keep thinking that Solstice/Sky ads would not be particularly effective if they carried a warning:
“Spirited Driving Not Advised”
and that you wouldn’t see that on a BMW, Mercedes, Mazda or other competitor’s ads.
I suppose Pontiac/Saturn dealers are giving Solstice/Sky owners crap about warranty service? I hope not but it wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Of course, the cars haven’t hit the end of their powertrain warranties, which is when the screaming will start. Can you say, “no resale value?”
Engine and transmission issues don’t seem to be a problem with any of them.
I hope that you’ve scheduled that appointment with the optometrist.
There are TSB’s on both. This is easily verified with about 30 seconds of research. Did you even bother to look that up before posting yet another fallacious response?
I keep thinking that Solstice/Sky ads would not be particularly effective if they carried a warning:
“Spirited Driving Not Advised”
and that you wouldn’t see that on a BMW, Mercedes, Mazda or other competitor’s ads.
Yet every one of those companies has at various times suffered serial vehicle problems exacerbated by the habits and behaviors of their enthusiast subcultures. When criticism for same is uniform here, have at Pontiac. Until then, give them same latitude.
Spirited driving alone isn’t breaching diff seals. Many spirited drivers are not having problems. And I’m sure some timid drivers are. We just don’t know anything about how these problems correlated to use in the enthusiast subculture represented by the Solstice forum cited. Running a Solstice at the drag strip or using same methods on the street is beyond “spirited driving.” Whatever you’re driving, go rev your mill to peak torque and dump the clutch ten or twenty times, or brake launch the car if it’s a juice drive. Tell me how it fares downstream.
Phil
“However, every specialty roadster sports car project I can think of has been an exercise in refinement with some first gen aspects questionable in hindsight.”
Phil – I know you really want us to think that GM has turned the corner and that the Solstice is more representative of the reborn GM than the last generation Malibu or godawful Monte Carlo. But the original Miata was weather-tight and offered exceptional performance in 1990; it was a fully fleshed out design that was not overweight when it was born. When the Z3 was introduced, David E. Davis, that old BMW-shill, said that he had the opportunity to drive the two cars back to back and that the Z3 was a “girl’s car”, while the Miata was the real deal. The tops did not leak, they did not eliminate trunk space and the cars are incredibly durable even when autocrossed or tracked at an amateur level. Neither does the S2000 leak or have its trunk evaporate when the top is down. The S2000 engine is perforce a buzzy motor in order to squeeze the highest horsepower output per liter of a production car, and the original version remains, if I am not mistaken, the redline king of automobiledom. Both the Miata and S2000 hit their respective weight targets and both are highly competent roadsters.
Having said this, it is unfair to compare the Solstice with the S2000 as it does not sell in the same price range, although the GXP is creeping up there.
The point is that we’re all hoping the Solstice remains an example of “old GM-think” when 98% was good enough provided we can move them with discounts. I know that I have every hope that when I drive the ’08 CTS, I get back in my 335 and think, “Damn, I wish I’d waited for the new Caddy.” But if the new CTS is still a 98% car in the eyes of a GM cheerleader, I doubt that I’ll regret buying the 335.
The Corvette and Ford GT are proof that the engineers in Detroit can rival anyone in the world; reliability records suggest that the UAW guys are working their asses off to make the cars right. Yet too many of their cars still scream that the last stop was the accounting department before they were put into production. I know that GM engineers could have, and perhaps did, design a
Solstice which met the Miata weight target, but were thwarted by the MBA’s.
I think that most everyone on this forum wants to see high quality, high content cars come from Detroit nameplates. Even though I did not buy the old CTS, I was pleasantly surprised at the inherent goodness of the platform, much as I was with the Lincoln LS. I am happy to see that GM, unlike Ford, actually made a commitment to the CTS and has improved it across the board. But I’m not going to give them a pass just because they play for the team in my home country; they either deliver world-class products without excuses, or I’ll buy from the multitude of available alternatives.
There are TSB’s on both. This is easily verified with about 30 seconds of research. Did you even bother to look that up before posting yet another fallacious response?
I’ve seen the list of TSBs. Many are bulletins on problems that occur after a repair and systems may not come up properly, so these are pertinent to the mechanic working on the car before release to customer. Many others are minor. Two are major concerns for anyone affected by them:
# TSB #3253 — VEHICLE WILL NOT MOVE IN EITHER DIRECTION. TRANSMISSION MAY SHOW OVER FULL. P90 4T40E 4T45E NO MOVEMENT DRIVE OR REVERSE. CONVERTER MAY BE EMPTY OF FLUID. *TT (NHTSA ID #10017096, no date provided)
and
# TSB #4110 — LONG CRANK, ENGINE WILL NOT START. *KB (NHTSA ID #10022361, no date provided)
Now issuance of TSBs tells you nothing about frequency of incidence. Should there be fewer? Sure. Show me a car absent any TSBs. I think there are none today. The question is incidence. You can choose to magnify perception of a problem to meet your anti-domestic agenda, or you can check your arrogance to instead dig deeper for context that gives you meaningful understanding of magnitude and impact.
Phil
Now issuance of TSBs tells you nothing about frequency of incidence. Should there be fewer? Sure. Show me a car absent any TSBs. I think there are none today. The question is incidence. You can choose to magnify perception of a problem to meet your anti-domestic agenda, or you can check your arrogance to instead dig deeper for context that gives you meaningful understanding of magnitude and impact.
The only arrogance present in this discussion is from those who would dismiss serious issues as matters of non-importance on “low production, specialty” automobiles. The only context being ignored is that of one product vs. its primary competitors. Why is it so difficult to admit that a product is terrible when all the prevailing data points in the same direction?
You can choose to magnify perception of a problem to meet your anti-domestic agenda
My only agenda is to provide a counterbalance to the “facts” that you manufacture as you attempt to shore up the gaping holes in your editorial and follow-on comments.
Once again — this car ranks toward the bottom of both the JD Power and CR surveys. Over half of the owners responding to a poll on a fan boy forum report having differential problems. There are TSB’s related to the very same problems cited by those on that owner’s forum. Plenty of information all pointing in exactly the same direction, with no information indicating otherwise.
And this is the fate of Bob Lutz’s pride and joy, this vehicle that Lutz describes of being of “impeccable” quality. I can only imagine what happens with the other stuff that isn’t so impeccable.
But I’ll have to leave that to the imagination, because there is no way that I’m going to experiment with my money to find out. I don’t need to touch a hot stove personally to know that getting burned is not a good idea.
But the original Miata was weather-tight and offered exceptional performance in 1990
I’m intimately familiar with the original Miata, and I think your statement would be more tenable if the last three words were “….performance *for* 1990.”
But the original Miata was weather-tight
I beg to differ. I think I still have the run-ink notes from a ride I had to endure in an staff member’s ’90 Miata in an L.A. rainstorm when windblown rain was driven sideways through the seals onto my lap.
it was a fully fleshed out design that was not overweight when it was born.
Nope, it wasn’t overweight but it was underpowered. Which I didn’t hold against it.
Neither does the S2000 leak
A friend of mine disagrees and his seats tell the tale.
The S2000 engine is perforce a buzzy motor in order to squeeze the highest horsepower output per liter of a production car, and the original version remains, if I am not mistaken, the redline king of automobiledom. Both the Miata and S2000 hit their respective weight targets and both are highly competent roadsters.
True, but the S2000 engine is not considered a practical 240 horses by many people who shun it. True, horsepower in small-displacement engines requires spin. The torque generated is anemic. While the S2000 mill is a sensational jewel, its power is not as accessible as many people would like and therefor the power it has isn’t as usable and this characteristic limits the appeal of the car. Even in sports cars, most Americans drive torque, not hp.
The point is that we’re all hoping the Solstice remains an example of “old GM-think” when 98% was good enough provided we can move them with discounts. I know that I have every hope that when I drive the ‘08 CTS, I get back in my 335 and think, “Damn, I wish I’d waited for the new Caddy.” But if the new CTS is still a 98% car in the eyes of a GM cheerleader, I doubt that I’ll regret buying the 335.
I think the Solstice represents GM in transition. Work on the car goes back to 2002, and it was an accelerated project to take mechanicals they had to create an “It” car when they needed one. It is a car that the GM of, say, 1996 could not have produced. If they were starting from scratch today, I’d guess it would be better. But now they have an “It” car in the field and how they refine it and revise it in next version will tell the tale.
Yet too many of their cars still scream that the last stop was the accounting department before they were put into production. I know that GM engineers could have, and perhaps did, design a
Solstice which met the Miata weight target, but were thwarted by the MBA’s.
Agree about the MBAs. Every product business struggles with them. Ultimately, putting the finance guys in their place is up to the CEO. However, while some product hangover remains, I’m looking forward, not back. As for the Solstice meeting the Miata target, according to the engineer Q&A in the link I posted earlier today, they were not aiming for Miata. They were aiming for what’s missing in the market. I don’t think they could optimize for mass in an accelerated project. That has to come with a holistic revise, as happened in the Corvette moving from C4 to C5. I view the GM roadster twins as Triumphs to Mazda’s MG.
As a former serial British sports car owner and driver (I probably put over a quarter of a million miles on those cars), I agree the Miata is the real deal. And the S2000 is a very fine Honda something else. It’s part motorcycle, part sports car. Unfortunately I can’t fit in any of these things. If I could, I’d be having the most fun in a GXP or Redline, trunk be damned.
Phil
Phil: “A first-year, low production specialty car that sells to performance buyers as well as first-time segment owners who may not understand it is reported as problemmatic by the milquetoast set, with no context reported.”
Cue the laugh track. If your differential fails and you find this annoying, you’re part of “the milquetoast set.”
And “context” for differential failure? That’s ludicrous. Phil, get a clue, these cars have been out for just a couple years. None of them are old or high mileage, the “Red Line” or “GXP” versions, with more power, are newer still. Failures at this point are ludicrous.
And, as for the roadster concept here, the Solstice and Sky are fat. Roadsters do not need “road hugging weight.” And the idea or a conveniently operated rag top being a product differentiator goes back at least 10 years, I remember it being discussed in a shoot-out between a Saab 900 Convertible, a BMW and… something else… probably in C&D. Ease of top operation for these sporting cars was considered important.
Why is it so difficult to admit that a product is terrible when all the prevailing data points in the same direction?
Because in spite of “data,” the car has many happy customers and is a solid performer for most of the people who buy it. Incidence is everything. TSBs don’t tell me anything about incidence. Show me something that does and there’ll be something to discuss.
Once again — this car ranks toward the bottom of both the JD Power and CR surveys.
In an era when the least reliable cars are still essentially dependable, I’m still looking for you to cite something meaningful here.
Over half of the owners on a fan boy forum report having differential problems.
I’ve already addressed what’s wrong with presuming that sample supports your conclusion. But more to the point, some of those 52% that reported problems identified things that require no repair.
There are TSB’s related to the very same problems cited by those on that owner’s forum.
A normal manufacturer response, and it appears GM is taking care of the real problems among complaints.
And this is the fate of Bob Lutz’s pride and joy, this vehicle that Lutz describes of being of “impeccable” quality. I can only imagine what happens with the other stuff that isn’t so impeccable.
I know you’re stuck on embarrassing Bob Lutz, but really it’s distorting your judgment. Diff problems in cars sold into enthusiast communities aren’t a first and GM is fixing them. This isn’t a big deal. WHAT ELSE ya got?
Phil
these cars have been out for just a couple years. None of them are old or high mileage,
If you read the forum notes with some digging, it’s interesting that it’s some of the highest-mileage owners who have no problems with their differential. The antics of an enthusiast community can drive component failure independent of mileage.
the “Red Line” or “GXP” versions, with more power, are newer still. Failures at this point are ludicrous.
And they appear not to share this problem.
And, as for the roadster concept here, the Solstice and Sky are fat. Roadsters do not need “road hugging weight.”
Agree. It will take revisions to lipo them down to fighting weight. But their structures feel stiffer than Miata. As for weight, this is one reason I prefer my XLR-V over the porcine Mercedes SL. The X is 410 lbs. lighter than a SL550 and a quarter ton lighter than an AMG.
And the idea or a conveniently operated rag top being a product differentiator goes back at least 10 years, I remember it being discussed in a shoot-out between a Saab 900 Convertible, a BMW and… something else… probably in C&D. Ease of top operation for these sporting cars was considered important.
Yeah, an easier top is a selling advantage and Solstice doesn’t have the easiest top. It’s easier to fold than reviewers claim however. What was that I said about the milquetoast set?
Phil
Mr. Ressler, try rereading that “explanation” of yours. It might provide you with a few helpful insights why the domestics are losing market share while the imports are gaining it.
(Honestly, you couldn’t have proven my argument for me any better if you had tried.)
Mr. Ressler, try rereading that “explanation” of yours. It might provide you with a few helpful insights why the domestics are losing market share while the imports are gaining it.
Before I bought my wife’s CTS-V, I researched field experience with the car. I didn’t have any particular reason to be concerned. The car is built on a straightforward and technically sophisticated platform, and the drivetrain includes the proven and bulletproof 6.0L LS2 small block, and a Tremec 6spd manual transmission. What could go wrong?
Prowling around the net I ran into a few concentrated storms of complaints about the CTS-V differential on a handful of enthusiast forums. Same litany as what we now see among some Solstice owners: noise, gear whine, leaking seals, blown diff. And then I found the problem. Most of those “defects” were cited by young, well-off owners who bought new or low-mileage used Vs and they were running them hard at drag strips and on the street. Their prior car? Mustang, Camaro, Corvette, occasionally a used M3. They bought the car for the 6.0L small block with four doors more than anything and they were running them against blown Mustangs, Corvettes and German cars bought by kids on their own or Daddy’s wallet to do the same.
Cadillac dealers and GM were pretty flexible about diff replacements until people started showing up for their third or fourth. With most customers experiencing no problems, and a spate of problems from a specific psychographic and demographic, they properly wondered how much was GM’s fault.
Now, give me a CTS-V that I’m not paying for and I am sure I can destroy the differential in under 2 hours. Is that relevant to the car’s overall reliability and dependability? No. I can do the same to any car with a manual transmission and grippy tires. So I paid no attention to the differential issue and it turns out I was right to dismiss it.
Yet among the import bigot set, that CTS-V differential issue got amplified play way out of scale to its significance even to the limited subculture of rocket boys who were shredding them. Is the Solstice diff the same thing all over again? I don’t know, but two things point to it: 1/ it has highest profile among the same subculture; and 2) it’s doesn’t have the same incidence in the Saturn Sky. Given the difference in brand coteries, there’s a clue. I’m still not reading anything other than this diff issue.
If you want to justify import bigotry, let’s stick to real problems in volume cars without the liabilities of specialty sectors.
Phil
From a Solstice Engineer Q&A. It’s Steve Padilla, Ride, Handling and Steering Development Engineer for the Kappa platform:
Q: My Differential leaks at the pinion seal, why is that?
A: The pinion seal leak is a quality issue from the supplier that makes the differential, Getrag. The leak is solved by properly installing a new seal according to supplied procedure. It is not a safety issue. We have seen service that improperly installed the seal, creating a second leak after the initial repair. I do not know the details of the exact issue, but I do know it is NOT an issue with fluid seal material compatibility.
I cannot relay the exact warranty rates, as I do not have the exact information, but we are aware of the issue and have been working to resolve it. This issue also has been seen on the cars that share the differential (Cadillac CTS/STS/SRX).
+++++
And this:
Q: What is the designed standard operational temp. limit of this (differential) carrier? What is the max. temp. that this unit is operating in during the summer months in the deep south / southwest? The same questions would be asked of the lube spec. used within the carrier.
A: The maximum operating temperature of the differential is not something we generally share. It is dependent on the thermal characteristics of the fluid used, and also depends on how long you operate it at elevated temperatures.
Our validation of all components is very throrough. We account for all operating conditions from the lowest to highest temperature extremes, and evaluate/validate our cars over a large range of altitudes and conditions from normal driving to the road course and even the Nurburgring.
The lube specification can be found by researching the characteristics of the recommended differential fluid. It should be readily available if you contact your dealership for the specifications and do a little bit of research on the fluid.
It is generally bad practice to design a system with components that operate at temperatures in excess of the lubricant used in that component, be it an engine, a transmission, or a differential.
If by some way you are implying we may not have accounted for all of the conditions this car may encounter, I can assure you that we have.
If you can get Mazda to admit their operational envelope for the MX-5 differential thermal performance, and Honda to admit the same information for the S2000, I will take that back to our engineering staff and see if we can provide the same information.
+++++
There you go, a component defect by Getrag (a German supplier, no less.)
Phil
My my, so very defensive Mr. Ressler. Perhaps making all those statements of questionable veracity is staring to catch up with you. The parallels between the downfall of Detroit and the decline of Mr. Ressler’s credibility are quite striking. Rather than facing the facts and doing something blame is placed on the customer for being “rocket boys” or part of the “milquetoast set”. Well, customers got tired of that attitude over the years and its going to take more than a few pleasant words to win them back. Its a good thing that many in Detroit are starting to abandon Phil’s viewpoint.
“The pinion seal leak is a quality issue from the supplier that makes the differential, Getrag. The leak is solved by properly installing a new seal according to supplied procedure. It is not a safety issue. We have seen service that improperly installed the seal, creating a second leak after the initial repair”…
There you go, a component defect by Getrag (a German supplier, no less.)
So, let me understand this — everything is A-OK because Getrag made the malfunctioning component.
I don’t frankly care if Rick Wagoner’s mother made the component along with a batch of cookies. The damn thing leaks, and GM decided to use the part, ergo the problem. Defective parts do not create benefit for the customer.
Incidentally, that’s the same seal that is leaking in the Solstice. You know, the very same seal whose malfunctions that you were wrongly attributing to the customers, just a short time ago.
My my, so very defensive Mr. Ressler.
“Rocket Boys” is not meant pejoratively. You’d be forgiven to assume “milquetoast set” is.
Rather than facing the facts and doing something
How is this true? The record shows GM is honoring warranty claims (even dubious ones) and newer cars have been revised.
So, let me understand this — everything is A-OK because Getrag made the malfunctioning component.
No, not OK. But it is understandable how pre-release testing did not reveal the problem.
The damn thing leaks, and GM decided to use the part, ergo the problem. Defective parts do not create benefit for the customer.
SOME leak. And GM personnel are open about it, and dealers are fixing extant defects. GM has revised in production.
the very same seal whose malfunctions that you were wrongly attributing to the customers, just a short time ago.
There’s no conflict between the two observations. Customer behavior in the user subculture can create failure where normal use would not and in most cases isn’t. More to the point, the pinion seal leak is not the only differential problem cited by the enthusiast subset and those problems appear mostly restricted to that population.
Phil
Dynamic88,
Thank-you for the summary of your experience evaluating a new Malibu today. I’m equally interested in how you assess the base model.
I agree with you on color selection. Ford has usually done a better job here than GM. Today I was on the 405 freeway heading south into L.A.’s West Side. For most of that drive, a new Mustang GT, spotless and glossy in today’s version of Grabber Orange rolled with me. The car had tasteful aftermarket wheels, a suspension lowered just enough to tighten the look without inducing bump steer into the setup, and it looked like new Borla stainless steel pipes poking out the back. The car sounded fab and looked sharp against today’s marine-layer-grey sky. Given the looks the driver was getting, everyone was happy to have their spirits lifted by a searing orange sample of modern Detroit romance burbling down the concrete ribbon at 75.
It particularly irritates me that the performance versions of cars are even more limited. When I was buying SVT Fords, usually just 3 or 4 colors were available and three of them were invariably black, red, and silver or white. My Cadillac V Series cars only offer 3 color choices. Bring back more choice and take us out of the monochrome doldrums!
Phil
I’m going to straddle the fence with the Solstice. On one hand, I understand where Phil is coming from. For GM, the car is a relatively successful niche car, and it has many things going for it. I also understand that newly released models have their share of bugs – usually minor annoyances that stem from the myriad sensors and electronic gadgetry found on today’s cars. Many of these issues are just early-production mishaps, and they get resolved as time goes by.
I mentioned the Outlander earlier – I’ve been browsing forums as one way to learn about potential problems. The early production models had a rattly driver’s rear-view mirror, for example, that needed a new clamp on interior wiring. Also, the drive-by-wire firmware needed an upgrade to improve throttle response. I think another “common” issue was a front-wheel bearing that caused vibration – and all of these received TSBs from Mitsubishi, and the problems were corrected on the assembly line in the first few months of production.
Much of what I’ve read on Solstice forums seems to be in the same vein – nagging “little” issues that have simple fixes. Problems that are difficult to “simulate” in light of just driving the vehicle in the unlimited assortment of ambient conditions and driving variables.
From another forum (SolsticeGXPOwners.com) I found that aside from the aforementioned differential issues, there were three other issues that “several” people chimed in on – misfiring, tears in the ragtop, and a recall for the seat connection belts resulting in an airbag sensor trip.
GM apparently has said that the misfires are due to some owners not driving the vehicle long enough or not driving it very hard…the stock plugs can be upgraded to a different heat range if this is the case. This alone suggests that GM knows this car will be driven “hard” – and I believe that they should have tried to simulate said driving a bit further. Kind of like the latest Mercedes C-Class commercial…put it through the ringer just to see what happens (I know, it’s just a commercial). If it really is a 40-some percent error, methinks that it could have been easily detected with some thorough test thrashing – considering the “purpose” of the car and intended audience.
Despite all this, I still find the differential problems disconcerting. On this particular forum, they held a poll, and of 16 responses (how scientific!) 7 had failures. 15 of the 16 were GXP models, and 6 of the 15 GXPs reported failures. For the total poll, they had a 43% fail rate. The other forum came up with 48%, right? Seems to be that somewhere in the mid-40% range is probably not far from accurate. Phil repeatedly states that since at least 52% of Solstice owners haven’t had an issue that this is really being blown out of proportion. I disagree.
I know GM didn’t manufacture the differential, I know some drivers may be giving these vehicles more abuse than intended, blah, blah, blah, but ~45% failure still seems high to me. And having only 52% be problem free does not seem acceptable, either.
Searching Miata and S2000 differential problems came up with far less hits and far less complaints that I could readily come across. I do believe Mr. Ressler in that vehicles in this segment are prone to abuse from Boy Racers and that no parts are safe from failure under excessive thrashing. BUT I’m not so sure that the rich-kid Boy Racer demographic represents ~45% of Solstice owners…quite a few I’ve seen on the road are driven by middle aged women, including one down the road from me. I know, that is a pretty weak sample, but a great deal of Boy Racers stick to the older Hondas and Nissans because of their cheap buy-in price and the ubiquitous nature of performance/cosmetic parts for the well established engines/body styles.
SO, in short, what I’m saying is that I don’t doubt that the Solstice will improve with the minor issues in future revisions – BUT it does seem that it is flawed, due in no small part to it’s rushed development. It seems Lutz et al should have known not to place much “turnaround” stock on this particular car. I do agree that the Malibu will be a far better litmus for GM’s as-for-now suspect turnaround.
I do agree that the Malibu will be a far better litmus for GM’s as-for-now suspect turnaround.
The Malibu will use the Epsilon platform used by the G6, outgoing Malibu Maxx and Saturn Aura, and the 4- and 6-cylinder motors from the Aura and G6. The Malibu will be built in the Kansas City plant, where the Aura is built.
All of those cars have had reliability ratings of “average” (3 stars) or somewhat above “below average” (2.5 stars) according to the JD Power survey. (2 stars is JD Power’s lowest ranking.)
There is no reason to believe that the Malibu will be “above average” (4 stars) or “best” (5 stars) when its closest cousins get 2.5-3 stars. You can look at the data posted previously to see who is getting those highest ratings, and they aren’t coming out of GM.
You will find that these findings correlate well with what can be found in Consumer Reports. They don’t correlate well with Mr. Ressler’s anecdotes, but nothing much ever really does.
Macca, I think your comments are fair. I am sure GM knows a sports car will be driven hard. What they may not anticipate or even care to test for is what happens when you treat a 4 cylinder lightweight (by today’s bloated standards as cars go) sportscar like a stick axle pony car. They don’t seem to have anticipated that people would take $54,000 CTS-Vs to the strip and drop clutch either.
With Solstice, I think there is a core sports car driver in the customer pool, but layered around them are some customers who are buying the body and little else, and then others who, like Mustang GT and Ferrari owners of yore, are buying the engine and little else. Both motives drive behavior that mainstream sedan product managers don’t worry so much about. They worry about different things and their cars typically have a longer gestation and larger resource pool than Solstice did.
The SolsticeForum poll results were:
No problems 200 48.08%
Pinion seal leak 60 14.42%
Driveline clunk 22 5.29%
Vent leak 22 5.29%
Carrier failure 9 2.16%
Pinion leak + clunk 40 9.62%
Pinion leak + vent 18 4.33%
Vent leak + clunk 17 4.09%
Carrier failure +
pinion leak 8 1.92%
Carrier failure + clunk 3 0.72%
Carrier failure + vent 1 0.24%
Carrier failure +
pinion + clunk 16 3.85%
So, about half of an unscientific group in the enthusiast community had no problem with their differential. Add to those 200, twenty-two more who reported only the vent leak, which requires no repair. Add twenty-two more who only had the clunk, which is also not a malfunction. That’s 244 who have no actionable problem or no problem at all. Add to that sixty who had the pinion seal leak alone, which GM is addressing through warranty and in-production improvements. Fifty eight more had only the pinion leak plus another non-actionable complaint (observation?). And 17 more had the vent leak and the clunk, both of which require no repair. That’s now 379 people who have no problem, or no actionable complaint, or a pinion seal problem which is being addressed by GM to take care of the customer. That leaves 37 people who have had carrier failure either alone or combined with other non-actionable complaints or plus a pinion seal leak which may or may not have contributed to the carrier failure.
As we can see when we break down this 416 sample of responses to this specific breakdown of problems, about 8% have a problem that is possibly not identified, is nevertheless being reported serviced by GM dealers under warranty, and may not be GM’s failure at all. And if it is, it appears dealers are honoring the warranty too. Plus, early evidence suggests in-line fixes in new cars are addressing the problem. We’ll see as he model year progresses. I can say for myself that risk of a pinion seal leak would not prevent me from buying a sports car I otherwise wanted, regardless who makes it.
Pinion seal leaks don’t dump lube all at once and as the Solstice engineer noted, the seal is not a safety issue. And this poll doesn’t really show a 52% failure rate as someone else claimed, either.
I’d want to know more about those 28 carrier failures before I hang GM out to dry for not being responsive. Again, subjectively, I am not finding nearly the chatter about this on the Saturn forums as on Solstice, which points to a possible driver influence on incidence of actionable complaints.
Phil
And here are posted comments on his poll by the member on the Solstice forum who posted the differential poll:
“Oh, this is in no way a poll that will give us a reliable statistical sample. There are WAY too many variables in the equation. Right down to the forum demographic. If ONLY the very active members posted, you might be able to consider it a good sample size, but that is not the case. Everyone can respond, and among casual forum users, you tend to have a larger representation of owners with problems than actually exist in the community. Many owners will never seek out a forum for simple social/community enjoyment, but many of them will if they experience a problem to research it and get a solution. As a result, the percentage of owners with problems on a forum is higher than the percentage of owners with problems overall.
“Then the poll is flawed in other ways. Do you consider the vent leak really a “problem?” Some work fine, but weep fluid during aggressive driving. Maybe it is a design shortcoming, but it isn’t a mechanical problem or build quality problem either. Also, someone might have had a weeping vent, but the dealer mis-daignosed it leading the person to believe they had a bigger issue.
“Then there is the issue of the clunk. Some are worse than others. GM tends to maintain it is not a problem that will result in a component failure. It is more of an annoyance (in their estimation) and they have developed a partial cure in the torque bar. Yet, the poll only asks if you have a clunk. So you have a bias by the respondant to determine if they have a “clunk” and there is no way to tell if they are diagnosing the right clunk or not, or whether whatever their car is doing qualifies as the clunk. Then there is the question as to whether this clunk is really a problem, just an annoyance, or somewhere in between.
“Regardless, between the clunk and the vent leak, we could have a lot of respondents with either or both problems, who really do NOT have a mechanical issue whatsoever and own a car that will not need any rear end repair over it’s lifespan, and only have the inconvenience and annoyance caused by the design of the rear carrier and mounting assembly.
“The poll is mainly for the fun of it, to see how it turns out, and to satisfy those who want to know. But as you point out it is by no means a definitive figure to be relied upon either. There is no scientific basis to this poll.”
I’m still surprised at how much debate there has been on the solstice/sky. I personally feel it is such a niche vehicle it could just be considered “not competitive” reliability wise. However, it is compelling in so many other manners that its sales are quite good actually for the market. This is despite the known issues being mentioned in here. Overall than, it is proving to be the better choice for some as a combo of styling, price, perfomance and reliability (it just happens this demographic will sacrifice more reliability than a midsize sedan owner). Overall, it supports the thesis of this article completely. There are domestics that are quality ENOUGH that when weighed with the other attributes are a great choice for many people.
PCH I believe this is the third time I’ve posted this at least. You seem to want to attack everyone’s credibility, when I find you have none whatsoever. Please, show me where you have the evidence this is my stance? Your avoidance of this shows you as guilty of stating things with no evidence as you accuse everyone else of doing.
“From my ealier post:
“PCH “And frankly, RLJ, I wouldn’t want to buy a car from you, either. Your lack of interest in quality, customer satisfaction, or competitiveness as the market defines it is proof positive that it is probably better to shop elsewhere. I don’t want what you got, and I’ll be happy to get what I want from somewhere else”
Again, I’m waiting for the evidence on this statement you keep repeating?
Last, what do you drive? You keep talking about this market speaking, etc. If you believe in your “popularity contest” framework, than you better be driving an F-series, or maybe a Camry if you don’t want a truck. You contend that if something sells more, it’s better/best. So that should guide your decision as you expect it to everyone elses.”
I’m still looking for some answer to any of this? Or where these not convenient enough to take out of context and manipulate? “”
You seem to want to attack everyone’s credibility, when I find you have none whatsoever.
I’m sure you don’t, which is part of the problem.
The Detroit automakers believe themselves to be impervious to criticism, when you would actually benefit from the criticism if you’d accept it for what it is, and then change your ways so that you are no longer worthy of so much well-earned damnation.
You’re a defensive bunch by nature, which doesn’t lead to good products. It’s hard to not keep myself from laughing watching Mr. Ressler here fall all over himself to defend Bob Lutz’s supposedly “impeccable”, “98%” turnaround car because only 52% of the owners on a fanboy forum reported differential problems. Even more hilarious, he wants to blame the consumer, even though he himself found a GM engineer who blamed the part! This is the kind of defeatist mentality that your brethren carry, which is why you need to really fail first before you’ll ever succeed. A Chapter 11 filing and some top-to-bottom housecleaning would do you more good than you realize.
But you’d prefer to fool yourselves into believing that you make great stuff than to wake up to the reality that you don’t. When you end up unemployed, don’t blame me — I, along with many others, tried to warn you.
The reason that I wouldn’t want to buy a car from someone such as yourself should be obvious. I have already told you repeatedly: the more you whine, the more you convince me that your love of the failure ethic makes it near impossible to expect a good product to come from companies such as yours. You’re not worth the risk.
The fact that you stubbornly cling to the false beliefs that your businesses are well run, that your products are great, and that everything is generally fine but for the poor dumb bigoted consumer is all I need to know that you should be given a wide berth and avoided passionately in favor of others who actually make products driven by fulfilling consumer demands.
What I drive is irrelevant to this discussion, as this discussion has never been about my personal tastes. (Unlike Mr. Ressler, I can step outside out of my own personal tastes to view the market as a whole.) I am defending the customer and the marketplace here, and it isn’t meaningful whether I drive a Ferrari or ride a skateboard for me to do that.
PCH “The fact that you stubbornly cling to the false beliefs that your businesses are well run, that your products are great, and that everything is generally fine but for the poor dumb bigoted consumer is all I need to know that you should be given a wide berth and avoided passionately in favor of others who actually make products driven by fulfilling consumer demands. ”
You must have missed the ready acceptance of past mistakes. I fully understand the problems that got the Big 3 to this point, and am aware that is what turned people off. Further, my point has been there are competitive cars, not that all products are the best. I gave my list a while back of cars that are competitive, and it clearly didn’t read “all domestics” did it. So in no way am I trying to “whine” and just say buy American.
Further, I never claimed Detroit was being managed perfectly. I claimed that the things YOU claimed should be done, are being done where I work. Quality, the satisfying the customer, etc are the emphasis of everything. You not understanding or not believing doesn’t mean its not true. Of course there still needs to be changes made. I think the buyouts should have not been voluntary as they were. However, mgmt wanted to be as fair as possible in what is a rather stressful time for all.
So yes, I think there are great products to choose, and the emphasis is on the right points mgmt wise. What you consistantly miss is acknowledgement that not everything is competitive yet, and that improvements in all aspects take time, and some are still coming. You again misrepresent this as, well, see your whole post. I don’t know if its intentional or lack of comprehension. You still haven’t in any way shown where I actually have these traits in any way “Your lack of interest in quality, customer satisfaction, or competitiveness as the market defines it is proof positive that it is probably better to shop elsewhere.”
Worse yet, you manage in your mind to take a discussion with one employee (clearly not in marketing) and an outside person, and apply it to all Detroit mgmt? Not only can you not get our points clear in your mind, you apply it to 100k white collared people. This gives me further evidence of your lack of logic, or intentional misrepresentation.
Last, your choice of car does bear interest in this. You have made it clear you believe the “market has spoken” and identified what are the “best” cars, and that should apply to everyone. Since you yourself didn’t apply this to your purchase, it is blatantly an illogical argument, ie everyone has different criterion and the sales leader isn’t best for any individual simply because it’s popular. You clearly don’t speak for the “market” the way you insist you do.
because only 52% of the owners on a fanboy forum reported differential problems. Even more hilarious, he wants to blame the consumer, even though he himself found a GM engineer who blamed the part!
There’s more than a part at play. Incidence is affected by user behavior. You can also see from breaking down the data you claim supports your attack on Lutz that the report of problems isn’t the same as having problems and that failures were a much smaller incidence. That is to say, a differential case failure is indeed a failure. A leaking pinion seal may be a defect, but it’s not a failure. It is easily dealt with in regular service.
Neither Bob Lutz nor anyone else views a niche specialty vehicle like Solstice/Sky as a turnaround vehicle. He might have offered it as an indicator, but not enough people will ever have exposure to it for it to be a turnaround spark even if it’s perfect.
Solstice is a sideshow to this thread. There is only one reason for me to put any time into the Solstice matter and that is your persistent unwillingness to view products, markets, people or vendors holistically. You cite data without context or any interest in digging beneath it. In this case you decided to attack Bob Lutz on the Solstice, citing an enthusiast forum poll in which the poll’s author willingly explains all the reasons not to take it seriously and details why the trouble rate will not reflect the actual market incidence. Yet you loudly promote a 52% problem rate as though it’s a market fact, which the open Solstice market isn’t experiencing. He doesn’t believe any conclusions can be drawn from his poll. As for the customer role in incidence of this problem, when I see evidence that the Saturn owner community has same incidence of defect as the Pontiac’s, I’ll consider the owner factor moot outside of normal sports car risk.
You accused Lutz of “lying” to the New York Times because his mention of Solstice as evidence of GM’s turnaround is undermined in your view by emergence of a problem with the car’s differential which GM is apparently rectifying for its customers. “Lying” is a serious charge and it’s a baseless overstatement of the actual situation. You don’t even know the full context of Lutz’ comments to the publication. An accusation of lying is a step too far. If this weren’t my thread, I wouldn’t bother. But it is so I’ve taken the time to detail what your cited data really says. You are prone to “data malapropisms.” Citing data is easy. Determining what it means matters more.
Now I’ll stand up for you. It’s true that what you drive is irrelevant to what you say here. But RLJ has a point when he says that unless you’re driving the #1 seller in your vehicle category, your claim that the market is perfect and what sells best *is* best is undermined by your own claimed rational behavior.
Phil
RLJ – I grew up as a “Ford man” and one of my first cars was a Mercury Comet with a 260 and three-on-the-tree. I avidly followed the brand for many years and was very happy when the Taurus became a sales leader after so many years of dominance by the wholly mediocre Olds Cutlass. Yet when I bought a Taurus (one of the rare 5MT 4-cylinders), it was the dealer who ruined the experience. Since I had found that dealers usually responded to an ugly recount to headquarters, I sent a letter to Dearborn (cc: dealer) outlining my disappointment that an otherwise decent car was ruined by the dealership experience. Unlike letters I had sent after similar experiences with VW and Mazda, the net result of my letter was zero; no response, nothing from either the dealer or Ford HQ.
After renting a Lincoln LS and feeling they had a diamond (still slightly in the rough), I wrote again to headquarters to encourage them to refine an otherwise excellent automobile as a means of creating a good halo car for Lincoln. Again, zero response. Just two years ago, after another rental experience with an LS left me locked out at a gas station when I closed the door with the key in the ignition, I wrote again not only to register my annoyance at whatever idiotic “safety” feature auto-locked the door with the key in the ignition, but to again say what a fine car it was and encouraging them to go the extra mile. Result, zero.
I think Mazda builds the most entertaining cars coming out of Japan and find both the 3 and the 6 to be excellent values; I’ve recommended them to friends and will continue to do so. Yet I recently rented a Lincoln MKZ and wondered how they managed to leach some of the goodness out of the Mazda6 chassis while injecting little in the way of the best of the LS.
Despite the fact that I own two imports (BMW, Honda), I’m still rooting for Ford. Perhaps Al Mullaly has brought a sea change in attitude; I hope so, but I doubt I’m the only one who will remain skeptical until I see some proof that they’re back in the car biz. I don’t need a pickup. Sincere wishes of good luck to all who have careers at Ford.
RLJ676: “I’m still surprised at how much debate there has been on the solstice/sky. I personally feel it is such a niche vehicle it could just be considered “not competitive” reliability wise.”
If reliability is unimportant in the roadster market, why is it that I don’t see new Triumphs and MGBs for sale?
Answer: because reliability IS important.
However, laughing and, agreeing for the purposes of discussion to set reliability aside, the Skystice is still uncompetitive because it’s fat, has mediocre fuel economy, indifferent handling for its class and no trunkspace whatever. Even the Mazda fliptop has trunkspace. Oh, and it’s more expensive, too, by about $4K (base), unless the famed GM givebacks have kicked in on this car, too.
Would you let me know in which dimensions it IS “competitive?”
—
RLJ676: “I claimed that the things YOU claimed should be done, are being done where I work. Quality, the satisfying the customer, etc are the emphasis of everything.”
If you actually believe that, you should be content to LET THE CARS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. On reliability and long-term durability, however, there are no shortcuts. Begging for special attention is not a winning plan. Dazzling advertising might help.
An earlier poster, Edgett, I think, said that we owe it to ourselves to consider all the possibilities. And that’s true. However, the consumer does do a lot of “editing” of “possibilities” up front and this is just a cross that Detroit will have to bear for a while. This is not the consumer working against his own best inerests, this is the consumer using established value to guide his choices. Too bad, so sad. If you believe in the cars, then there’s not much else for you to do except wait for them to tell their story. And do incremental quality and process improvements.
By the way, you wasted a lot of money on that “psst…” series of ads where the Edge (or whatever) beat a BMW or Lexus (or whatever) in . Noboby expects a Ford to beat a BMW or Lexus in any meaningful way, and no one cross-shops them, anyhow, so it’s not necessary to do that. You might even confuse some people into thinking it competes with a BMW or Lexus and is, therefore, expensive. And, when you run such ads, people naturally presume (correctly) that this is a VERY one-dimensional win and the total car just does not measure up the same way. You should package Fords as good values. Surprising quiet, surprisingly spacious, surprising performance, astonishing value. “It’s a Ford?! You’re kidding me! Well, it’s a great car! What a value!”
Worse yet, you manage in your mind to take a discussion with one employee (clearly not in marketing) and an outside person, and apply it to all Detroit mgmt?
The two of you are simply examples of the problem. It’s a pervasive problem, and this thread does not provide the first examples of it.
Earlier, I quoted Bob Lutz. If he doesn’t speak for GM, I don’t know who does. If the whining and sniveling occurs at the very top, it’s no surprise that it’s going to be echoed from the middle. Not many quality and results-driven people are going to want to work in an environment like that. It will be the mediocre enablers who wish to hang on to their jobs in an enabler’s clinic.
Edgett, I’m aware that dealer interaction has been strained. The plus side to having too large a dealer network is the ability to cross shop. Done right, the consumer wins with both the best dealer experience and best price. However, I’d prefer a smaller network of quality dealerships.
The MKZ is not meant to be sporty like a Mazda. I find the ride/interior nice for what it is, near luxury.
kixstart “Would you let me know in which dimensions it IS “competitive?””
Must be styling then, because it has respectable sales, and certainly isn’t a failure. The point is people are choosing it for certain attributes. When weighing attributes you can’t always determine what another’s most important is. I think this is an example of that.
kixstart “If you actually believe that, you should be content to LET THE CARS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. On reliability and long-term durability, however, there are no shortcuts. Begging for special attention is not a winning plan. Dazzling advertising might help”
That is what is happening. This is a discussion of opinions, not a marketing campaign. It seems some struggle to draw the line between the two. My opinion about the cars is what I’m sharing, not “the company line.” Further, the cars can’t speak for themselves if you’ve muted the volume. You have to at least consider them before anything can happen, that’s the point here. If you check it out, don’t like it, don’t buy it. I think the (competitive) cars are good enough that if fairly considered they’ll sell.
As to those Edge comercials, I couldn’t agree more. I can only hope marketing improves their message. I think the “swap your ride” is the right message at least, similar to what you mentioned.
I know anecdotes are not signifigant data, but I’ll just add one since there have been plenty on both sides of this.
I have a fried who lives in the Detroit metro area. She recently purchased a new Nissan Altima. When I asked her what else she looked at it was basically “I don’t know.” I then asked about the Fusion/Milan and she said what are those? I said Ford’s, and she replied with an “ugh”. I then found out what her lease payments were and said she could have had an MKZ for that which is a nicer car, albeit a different market. Again, she didn’t know what it was, and upon finding it was a Lincoln, “ugh, their for old people.”
So this basically sums up the type of person were discussing here. Uninformed, “bigoted” against domestics, and clearly against ones best interest not to support the Big 3 (you can’t possibly argue that someone living IN Detroit doesn’t have self interest in the Big 3’s success.) Clearly I don’t know how many are out there, but it happens. She may have ended up in the Altima anyways, but didn’t even bother looking at some decent alternatives.
So this basically sums up the type of person were discussing here. Uninformed, “bigoted” against domestics, and clearly against ones best interest not to support the Big 3 (you can’t possibly argue that someone living IN Detroit doesn’t have self interest in the Big 3’s success.) Clearly I don’t know how many are out there, but it happens. She may have ended up in the Altima anyways, but didn’t even bother looking at some decent alternatives.
All this tells me is that you associate with people who are uninformed and make poor choices. It says nothing about the market as a whole. We’ve beaten this one to death. No more than 4% of potential car buyers would definitely refuse to consider a domestic. When you compare that to the 16% refusal rate for German cars and 4% refusal rate for Japanese cars, we see that this whole import bigot business is really not the reason for Detroit’s downfall.
American products will stand or fall on their merits. If they chose the path of quality improvement and customer service, they might survive. If they go along with Phil and RLJ676’s lines of thinking, they will surely fail.
RLJ676: “I have a fried who lives in the Detroit metro area. She recently purchased a new Nissan Altima.”
Ouch. That had to hurt.
Is she an “import bigot?” Maybe. Maybe not.
First, there’s no particular requirement for the consumer to be informed. Consumer are what they are and do what they do. Sure, she didn’t cross-shop anything and has no awareness of the Fusion and dim awareness of Lincoln but that’s not her problem. She went out and bought something that made her happy.
Why? Where did she get the idea to buy an Altima? Do her friends and family have Nissans? Was her father screwed over a few times by Ford? What does she think of GM? Does she carpool in an Altima?
While I’m a bit surprised that someone living in the Detroit metro area feels unconnected to the auto industry, I think this says more positive things about Detroit’s long-term prospects than otherwise; it’s no longer a one-industry town.
How good a friend is this, anyway, that she doesn’t seem to know you work for an auto manufacturer and/or anything about your products?
KBW “All this tells me is that you associate with people who are uninformed and make poor choices. It says nothing about the market as a whole. We’ve beaten this one to death. No more than 4% of potential car buyers would definitely refuse to consider a domestic. When you compare that to the 16% refusal rate for German cars and 4% refusal rate for Japanese cars, we see that this whole import bigot business is really not the reason for Detroit’s downfall.
American products will stand or fall on their merits. If they chose the path of quality improvement and customer service, they might survive. If they go along with Phil and RLJ676’s lines of thinking, they will surely fail. ”
Nobody said the refusal to shop domestics was the sole cause of any problems.
I see you’ve taken the “pch” approach on blame your wrongly percieved opinions of people you disagree with for all of Big 3’s problems. As I asked him to do, please show where I advocated anything other than improved quality and customer satisfaction? What IS my line of thinking then to you, as you clearly don’t get it.
My line of thinking is the competitive domestic products do stand on their merits, but if you don’t even look at it, you won’t know it’s merits. That’s pretty simple, and all anyone who believes in their product asks. It’s not whining as “some” on here keep claiming.
As I asked him to do, please show where I advocated anything other than improved quality and customer satisfaction? What IS my line of thinking then to you, as you clearly don’t get it.
Here, your words will speak for themselves.
I’m still surprised at how much debate there has been on the solstice/sky. I personally feel it is such a niche vehicle it could just be considered “not competitive” reliability wise. However, it is compelling in so many other manners that its sales are quite good actually for the market.
Translation: “its a turd of a car, but some people like it, so it must be good!”
Kixstart,
I met her after she had bought it. I clearly would have at least given a list of decent options.
She never has given a clear reason for it’s purchase other than “I liked it, and it has push button start, how cute.” Clearly not the savviest of consumers. As for how good of “friend”, well she’d like to be better but I “can’t be seen with no import driver” (j/k obviously).
“While I’m a bit surprised that someone living in the Detroit metro area feels unconnected to the auto industry, I think this says more positive things about Detroit’s long-term prospects than otherwise; it’s no longer a one-industry town.”
I wish that is what this indicates, but it just shows a lack of consideration of ones self-interest really. I can assure you the housing market here is a barometer of this town’s reliance on the auto industry still, and it’s scary.
People will ignore a domestic over a percieved few grand in resale, etc, all the while Detroit area home values are plummeting to the tune of over 100K. Now was buying that Lexus over a caddy or lincoln worth that? Clearly Detroit residents are an amplified example of the issue, but even they fail to grasp their own self interest in it.
Hell, there are DEARBORN homeowners with brand new Camry’s in their driveway. How tough is it to draw the line between a companies survival and a town’s in that case? Too tough for some appearantly. The kicker is that new Camry is more likely to cause them a problem than a Fusion!
KBW “Translation: “its a turd of a car, but some people like it, so it must be good!” ”
Than I guess that’s a poor translation/reading comprehension.
It should be translated as “reliabilty isn’t the best in industry, but styling and other attributes make it a good car to the satisfied owners of it in this demographic.”
There’s no implying in any way that it shouldn’t and won’t be improved.
Very few brand new entries into a segment are completely trouble free. Even Toyota has botched the Tundra, which was much more important to them than the Skystice to GM. However, they get a free pass in the eyes of “some people.”
Would you let me know in which dimensions it IS “competitive?”
The Miata’s fuel economy rating is 22/27 5MT, 21/28 6MT and 20/27 Auto. Solstice fuel economy ratings are:
* ECOTEC® 2.4L VVT DOHC (manual): 19/25 (city/highway mpg)
* ECOTEC® 2.4L VVT DOHC (automatic): 19/24 (city/highway mpg)
* Turbo ECOTEC® 2.0L VVT DOHC (manual): 19/28 (city/highway mpg)
* Turbo ECOTEC® 2.0L VVT DOHC (automatic): 19/26 (city/highway mpg)
Of course Solstice has more power in the base version and in its performance version, which Mazda has no equivalent for, if offers 94 more horsepower with highway mileage equal to the weaker Miata’s with a manual transmission and within 1mpg eqipped with an automatic. I’ll add that both of the people I know best who own Solstice or Sky get better fuel economy than the rating. The person who buys these cars is not swayed one way or another by 1 – 3mpg in fuel economy. But getting 94 more hp while matching the Miata certainly looks more than competitive in the GXP.
The Honda S2000 with its 2157cc engine splitting the displacement difference between the 2.0L Miata and 2.0L turbo GMS, and the 2.4L GM twins, is rated 18/25mpg — worse than all versions of the GM twins except for the base car with juice drive.
So, how is Solstice mileage not competitive?
Next, trunk space. Who cares? In the sports car market, Solstice/Sky appearance trumps trunk space. Everyone buys knowing what the trunk holds.
Handling. For all the carping by reviewers in the milquetoast set about handling, the Solstice is sharp handling, corners flat, and lets the driver know what the tire/road interface is doing. More to the point, when the Solstice first shipped some of the earliest cars were taken to autox events and as raw runners proved a handful for Miatas. Since then, the Solstice/Sky record at autox and SCCA events has been very competitive as drivers learned the cars, with the Kappas setting some track/class records. On the autox circuit, Solstice/Sky are considered quite competitive cars, with some Mazda drivers arguing for putting them in a different class so they don’t “kill off” Miatas.
The autox boards are lit up with all sorts of caterwauling about the mayhem the Kappa cars are inflicting in Miata’s former turf. As one veteran racing poster said, “I’d hate to see a similar thing happen to the Miata that happened to the S2000 – if the Solstice is left to kill off the Miatas, then two of the largest stock classes will have been killed by GM products in the last three years. At least this time it is with a current car, instead of a 10-15year old car(referring to C4 Corvette, which is a very effective autox car)!”
There are linear miles of debate, discussion and the usual trash-talking available via your browser for anyone who wants to dive into it. But you have to wonder how a car that C/D, R&T, MT and others claimed won’t run with a Miata ends up disrupting the amateur racing circuit where people drive what they’re racing to the track. No don’t wonder. Solstice handles.
The Kappas are competitive despite their weight. They aren’t Miata clones. They are modern Triumphs to Mazda’s MGB.
In the sports car market, it’s all about choosing your flavor. Style trumps utility and while some drivers prefer balance over muscle, others will take a little more muscle over ideal balance. Trunk space barely registers as a consideration.
Phil
So Mr. Ressler believes that selling only 20,000+ vehicles per year gives GM a pass to do a second-rate job. No problem.
I will go so far as to defend Mr. Ressler’s commitment to that loser’s philosophy. If Bob Lutz wants to live in a world where his idea of 98% equates to about 50% for the rest of us, let him.
It doesn’t have to matter, because fortunately, the free market provides an alternative to GM’s mediocre = impeccable mindset: In this segment, it’s called the Miata. It manages to provide solid service without seal leaks and all of the other problems that plague the Solstice.
My point all along has been that if you want to live on the sale of Excuses and Alibis, then you are going to sell fewer vehicles.
So fine, keep fighting for your right to be second-rate. To preserve that right, the obvious alternative would be to restructure GM as a smaller company that can be profitable by selling fewer vehicles, perhaps by specializing in fleet and low-priced vehicle sales to less choosy customers. Let Toyota and Honda lead the market, and resign yourselves to going toe-to-toe with Hyundai for whatever’s left.
So this basically sums up the type of person were discussing here. Uninformed, “bigoted” against domestics, and clearly against ones best interest not to support the Big 3 (you can’t possibly argue that someone living IN Detroit doesn’t have self interest in the Big 3’s success.) Clearly I don’t know how many are out there, but it happens. She may have ended up in the Altima anyways, but didn’t even bother looking at some decent alternatives.
“She never has given a clear reason for it’s purchase other than “I liked it, and it has push button start, how cute.” Clearly not the savviest of consumers. As for how good of “friend”, well she’d like to be better but I “can’t be seen with no import driver” (j/k obviously).”
Maybe it sums up Ford’s marketing. e.g., not very good. It’s funny she’s never heard of Fusion/Milan but she’s heard of Nissan Altima. Is it really all her fault? Or is Ford just not getting the message out? Surely she watches TV, listens to the radio, reads papers, reads magazines, surfs the net, so how is it she never heard of Fusion?
It’s ok to call this woman uninformed – she demonstrably is uninformed. But she still ended up with a great car. So as far being unsavy, I’m not so sure.
One thing the D3 is up against is the fact that it simply isn’t necessary to shop. Your freind could have bought an Accord or a Camry instead, and she’d likely be happy. Would she be just as happy with an Aura or Malibu? Quite possibly, but not happier. Several hundred posts ago I asked what I missed out on by not shopping around and just buying Hondas. My purpose was to point out that even if the gap has been closed, Detroit hasn’t pulled ahead so the customer really doesn’t loose out, or act against his (or her) self-interest by not shopping the D3.
Of course, if you want to add in the socioeconomic factors, then yes, someone living in Detroit is going against their own interests buying a transplant. While there is nothing wrong with Phil advocating that people consider socioeconomics as part of their buying decission, in reality, it’s not going to happen with most customers.
As for Lincoln, blame the silly alphabet soup model naming. Why would a customer care what an MKZ, ABC, LMNOP is? What was wrong wtih Continental, Mark (III, IV, etc.) ? Give a car a name.
In the sports car market, it’s all about choosing your flavor. Style trumps utility and while some drivers prefer balance over muscle, others will take a little more muscle over ideal balance. Trunk space barely registers as a consideration.
Which eliminates it from consideration for those considering it as their only car. The vast majority of these things are not bought by people looking to autocross them. Perhaps the solstice is competitive in autocross, that’s great but it doesn’t make for a competitive mass market product.
KBW “Which eliminates it from consideration for those considering it as their only car. The vast majority of these things are not bought by people looking to autocross them. Perhaps the solstice is competitive in autocross, that’s great but it doesn’t make for a competitive mass market product. ”
I’m going to disagree on the trunk being a major concern even if it’s a daily driver. If trunk space is the top priority, you aren’t shopping this segment period. It’s a compromise. Personally, regardless of who made either car I’d take the Skystice any day on looks/power over a Miata as it is too feminine looking for my taste. And if anything, I should be biased towards the Mazda as a Ford employee.
But you hit it on the head, it’s not a mass market product, so I’m still amazed at how much discussion there’s been around it. There is really only one competitor even.
RLJ676: “She never has given a clear reason for it’s purchase other than “I liked it, and it has push button start, how cute.” Clearly not the savviest of consumers. As for how good of “friend”, well she’d like to be better…”
You’d better not belabor the point with her but the question remains, how did she come to consider an Altima her #1 pick? I’d bet that she went for a ride in one and liked it enough to ask what it was. I know quite a few people like that. They don’t know anything about cars, have no interest in them whatever but they do recognize a nice vehicle when they’re in it. And they will ask what it is and, if they’re coming to market soon, they’ll remember and go look for it. And reliability counts with these people. They expect the car to be trouble-free.
As for not being savvy – sez who? Not everyone wants to agonize over their choice of car. She knew enough to know that she liked the Altima, for whatever reason, felt the price was a value and didn’t need to waste her time in a bunch of sleazy dealerships getting the hard sell.
Consumers will do what consumers will do.
The Fusion will sell if, every time someone gets in one, it’s nice enough that they’ll ask, “hey, what kind of car is this?” ‘A Ford?! You’re sh!tting me!” If it’s not giving that sort of impression, well, it should be.
RLJ676: “… but I “can’t be seen with no import driver” (j/k obviously).”
Except, once upon a time, that wasn’t a joke. One of the reasons people avoided Japanese cars was the possibility that the UAW might redecorate it for you if you happened to park it where it came to their attention. Even within the last year or two there was some discussion about confining import cars to second-class parking at GM’s HQ (I forget the details – it was on TTAC, I believe).
Phil sometimes refers to “social pressure” (an alien concept to me in car buying) as advancing import bigotry but he neglects to explain how this “social pressure” eventually came to overcome “fear,” how it took root to grow.
In a survey done in 1980, 60% of people asked said they were reluctant to buy a Japanese car for fear of backlash from someone who was offended by the purchae. All the numbers in this paragraph should be considered correct because they were picked for “clarity.” No other reason or source citation is therefore necessary.
So Mr. Ressler believes that selling only 20,000+ vehicles per year gives GM a pass to do a second-rate job. No problem.
The entrenched entry market leader for sports cars, Mazda Miata, had a 2006 U.S. sales unit volume of 16,897. Depending on what month you look at this year, they might be on track to break 20,000. For GM to sell 20,000 1st generation competing cars in a crowded niche market that includes an 18 year in-market competitor is a very fine debut. The car is different, but not second rate.
Saturn sold 8,153 Sky in the first 8 months of 2007.
Honda sold 6,271 S2000s in the US in all of 2006.
the free market provides an alternative to GM’s mediocre = impeccable mindset: In this segment, it’s called the Miata. It manages to provide solid service without seal leaks and all of the other problems that plague the Solstice.
If you think there are no leaking differentials on Miatas you’d be wrong. Solstice’s debut has gone no worse or better than common new sports car introductions. The problems are narrowly confined, easy to fix, and GM is addressing it. What happens going forward will tell the tale.
Which eliminates it (Solstice/Sky) from consideration for those considering it as their only car. The vast majority of these things are not bought by people looking to autocross them. Perhaps the solstice is competitive in autocross, that’s great but it doesn’t make for a competitive mass market product.
Well it doesn’t appear to be “eliminating” it from consideration. True that most people don’t autox. Most sports car buyers are heavily driven by style. Solstice owners know the trunk limitation and choose it anyway, even people who have it as their only car. I once had an MG Midget as my only car. You’d be surprised how well you can get along with almost no storage space when the payoff is insane amounts of fun. You might also be surprised about what fits in a roadster when you put the top down. It can even get you through a trip to Home Depot.
Look at the sales numbers above and tell me again how the “mass” sports car market is rejecting these cars. Note that in the first 8 months of this year Solstice alone outsold Miata.
Phil
kixstart “Even within the last year or two there was some discussion about confining import cars to second-class parking at GM’s HQ (I forget the details – it was on TTAC, I believe).”
Good, they should. If you work at Sprint how do you think they “frown” on your Verizon contract? They actually have their building’s set up to only recieve their signal. I strongly believe in driving the car of the company you work for. (to the point of trading in a 6 month old 3 series for a mustang, that’s irrational).
Everyone is aware of the anti-japanese movement from the past, this is not the same. There is room in the market for all makes and no one is hoping they go under or away, but there is also a chance of domestics failing. Anyone who is still trying to argue this please reference the Mulally article on TTAC.
As to this lady’s Altima, for all I know she drove by the lot and bought it, that’s the impression she’s given me. It may have been her choice anyways, but as a Detroit native you think a rational person would at least check out a domestic?
phil “Look at the sales numbers above and tell me again how the “mass” sports car market is rejecting these cars. Note that in the first 8 months of this year Solstice alone outsold Miata.”
Well there you have it, according to PCH’s logic the Solstice is the BEST car in it’s class, the market has spoken. Anyone in the market for a two seater would be foolish and irrational to consider the miata now, as it has been shown inferior by the sales volume comparison. Can’t argue with the always right consumer and market.
Seriously, this has been his argument.
Which leads to what are you driving PCH? It’s irrelevant until you have made it so clear how the market decides which car is an individual’s best choice by its sales performance.
In a survey done in 1980, 60% of people asked said they were reluctant to buy a Japanese car for fear of backlash from someone who was offended by the purchase. All the numbers in this paragraph should be considered correct because they were picked for “clarity.” No other reason or source citation is therefore necessary.
Pertaining to your “clarity” reference. My 1,000,000 number of import bigots for conversion was rounded for a target. Rounded *down* that is. “One-million” has clarity as a headline. I’m sure the import bigot population is *larger* than one-million buyers per annum. I’m only looking for a million of them knowing one can’t open all those closed minds at once!
As for the circa 1980 “backlash” fear pertaining for owning a Japanese car, the generation that fought WWII was still in their car-buying years. That generation with vivid memories of the War was +/- 60 years old then.
Now they are largely gone or leaving all too fast. Their car market attitudes were waning rapidly as early as 1985, receding all through the 1990s. The social momentum against Detroit’s products was fueled by Boomers as we pushed into our mainlining consumer years and saw our careers on the rise. GenX continued the trend. The Echo Boomers might turn back to Detroit. They show signs of grasping the issue I’ve outlined. Product that engages them will help. But the original import bigots, their younger siblings and their kids whom they influenced are where the numbers lie to make a difference for the Detroit 3 now.
The prime culprit in this import bigotry, social pressure, social momentum phenomenon as part of car buying has been Boomers, particularly those who comprised the original subset coterie that came to be known as “Yuppies.” Certainly not every individual in there, but that’s where the non-rational, bigoted anti-Detroit sentiment germinated in volume. Out of scale to relative product deficiencies, too many minds snapped shut and have stayed shut even as Detroit has been changing.
Phil
(double post)
according to PCH’s logic the Solstice is the BEST car in it’s class, the market has spoken.
You continually misunderstand the concept, but whatever.
If GM can get away with selling a car with leaking seals, that’s fine, I really have no problem with that. If the Miata gets passed up, let it.
However, we already see Solstice sales falling. Year-to-date sales deliveries are down 17% from last year. The car went from being a hot item to a dust gatherer at dealerships in no time flat.
I suspect that the initial buyers were seduced by the styling and the more masculine appeal of the design as compared to the Miata, and that those who wanted one for its looks have already bought one. Those who want a reliable, enduring roadster or cute convertible will increasingly know to go somewhere else.
The long-term question is whether the Solstice will help to build Pontiac as a brand and/or GM as a parent brand. (That is the reason for building these cars in the first place.) The answer to both questions would be “no.”
The Solstice may be sexy (I personally find it to be more aesthetically appealing than the Miata, and I am sure that I am not alone). But I also know that it is not a particularly well-built car. The Solstice proves that GM is generally incapable of combining desirability and trustworthiness into one product.
It shows Bob Lutz to be either inept or a liar, neither of which are good qualities for someone in charge of spearheading product development for General Motors. Market share will keep falling, and the Solstice will not have sent that signal that Bob Lutz claimed that it would.
PCH “The long-term question is whether the Solstice will help to build Pontiac as a brand and/or GM as a parent brand. The answer to both questions would be “no.” ”
How do you figure? It doesn’t appear the owners who have issues are angry and leaving, GM’s handling their issues it appears. Further, it has a “halo” effect of getting people in a showroom. If they come in to just check out the Solstice, but then notice the G8 or G6 than it has helped. Especially as I find the G8 to be a rather compelling vehicle when it arrives.
Of course it could be improved and will be, but it is helping build the brand, as it does promote the “driving excitement” image. But what do I know, you are the “market expert” obviously.
How do you figure? It doesn’t appear the owners who have issues are angry and leaving, GM’s handling their issues it appears.
Year-to-date deliveries are down over 9% compared to last year. The sales leader of the Pontiac brand is the G6, a fleet queen among GM’s rental leaders. So the brand pretty much sucks.
If the Solstice had proven to be the wonderful vehicle that Lutz promised us two years ago, then yes, Pontiac would have earned some bragging rights that it could point to. But it didn’t.
GM obviously has a reputation for building unreliable vehicles. The only way to lose the reputation is for GM to build highly reliable vehicles across the board so that consumers begin to learn of the improvements, tell their friends, and encourage better word-of-mouth. Then and only then can the brand-building begin.
The Solstice only proves GM to be incapable of building quality, and its executives to be inept or dishonest. Since quality has obviously been the stumbling point, the problem for the brand has not been solved.
This should be a no-brainer — only to a domestic fanboy are these basic marketing concepts such a challenge. The fact that it is such a challenge only proves that these companies cannot likely be fixed.
Quality should be instinctive, yet for you, it is a battle. No reason to hand the consumer’s valuable money to someone like yourself, just for you to squander it and the goodwill that came with it.
However, we already see Solstice sales falling. Year-to-date sales deliveries are down 17% from last year. The car went from being a hot item to a dust gatherer at dealerships in no time flat.
We’ll know more at the end of the year, but this isn’t the full story. A big factor here is that 2007 is the first full year of production for Sky. We should look at GM’s combined sales. Saturn is ahead month-over-month compared to months it was available last year. Second, Pontiac reduced its dealer inventory of Solstice from 158 days on 1 August to 115 days about six weeks later. Miata sales are down 6.7% ytd. It’s normal for the second year of a fashion/sports car to dip to sustaining levels after initial pent-up demand is satisfied. Still, Solstice alone is ahead of Miata for the year so far, and the Kappas together sold 20,020 against Miata’s 12,558. It appears the Kappa twins will outsell Miata + S2000 combined, this year. By volume the Solstice is the Kappa in greater demand, but by inventory, the Sky is the hotter car with only 37 days of inventory as of mid-September.
But I also know that it (Solstice) is not a particularly well-built car.
And how do you know this? Have you *ever* driven one? Been under it? Under the hood? Read a repair manual? I’m guessing not, and if not yours is a completely uninformed opinion. Don’t tell me a differential seal condemns a whole car’s build quality.
Phil
“But I also know that it (Solstice) is not a particularly well-built car.”…And how do you know this?
It is simply astounding that you would even think to pose that question after the discussion above.
pch “This should be a no-brainer — only to a domestic fanboy are these basic marketing concepts such a challenge. The fact that it is such a challenge only proves that these companies cannot likely be fixed. ”
Gee, you’d be right again if reliability was THE determining factor in the two seat roadster sector. I’ll guess it’s not, and sales seem to support that.
“Quality should be instinctive, yet for you, it is a battle. No reason to hand the consumer’s valuable money to someone like yourself, just for you to squander it and the goodwill that came with it”
No really, what do you do? Statements like this blow my mind. You must be the quality czar at Toyota, because you ARE the expert, and you could clearly do better (or is marketing, because you are THE expert on that as well). You have yet to show where I don’t think quality is important. Because one niche vehicle does relatively well despite one issue does not lead a logical person to believe your statements.
Again, you are full of it for the sake of argument. There’s more to a purchase than quality numbers and you know it. You won’t even admit to what you drive because you know this.
Gee, you’d be right again if reliability was THE determining factor in the two seat roadster sector. I’ll guess it’s not, and sales seem to support that.
Your interpretative skills are about as solid as Pontiac’s branding.
Obviously, some buyers of the Pontiac are drawn to the styling — I specifically said this more than once.
But I also pointed out that those who value reliability will not be drawn to the Solstice. And its sales are declining, so it seems that those buyers swayed by styling and other non-reliability factors are starting to run out.
Furthermore, the halo effect is lost when the branding deficiencies aren’t fixed by the halo vehicle. Pontiac’s image problem comes largely from its lack of reliability, something that the Solstice didn’t fix.
And reading Bob Lutz’s comments doesn’t convince me that a fix will be with us anytime soon. Is there something in the water in Michigan that makes mediocrity so addicting?
It is simply astounding that you would even think to pose that question after the discussion above.
Which I take to mean you won’t — no, make that can’t — answer.
Phil
Gee, you’d be right again if reliability was THE determining factor in the two seat roadster sector. I’ll guess it’s not, and sales seem to support that.
Perhaps, but when someone sees a unreliable solstice they don’t see an unreliable sports car, they see an unreliable Pontiac, which further degrades the image of the brand. It is also bad for long term customer retention. The fact that you do not understand this concept speaks volumes. You may make one sale because the car looks pretty, but you’ll lose 10 when it leaks oil all over the driveway.
but you’ll lose 10 when it leaks oil all over the driveway.
Have you ever seen a pinion seal leak in a differential? This is not like busting open your oil pan on a rock or a ladder dumped on the freeway. “Oil all over the driveway” isn’t the result. This does not strand a car. It is easily taken care of during a regular service interval. And GM is honoring warranty, and fixing in-production.
If we begin to see dead Solstices along the road or cars that don’t start, yes that will damage the Pontiac brand. An infant failure pinion seal leak is a containable problem for which response can be brand-enhancing to its owners.
Phil
PCH, none of that backs up anything. A halo vehicle is rarely about reliability, how can a market guru not understand that. What on earth even is your point anymore. The solstice is a good car that needs some improving. The sales are good, people are happy with it, but you can’t accept that. You just are so anti-American car you will go to any length to argue pointless bits. It seems you have given up even trying to relate to the original article and pick up any statement you can to take out of context.
When a “more reliable” car is the best seller, than you declare the market has spoken, why look at anything else, the market has chosen the best. Other attributes just don’t matter, it’s best for all.
When a less reliable car is the best seller, than it’s “well look at all the issues” and whatever the hell else you are trying to say. So, what happened to it’s the best because the market said so?
You than basically go on to try and attack the people you disagree with as “mediocre” etc, because you don’t even have a point. You stand for nothing except to be pain in the ass. If I stated things the way you’re allowed to I’d have my comments edited (more) so I hope this gets my point across.
Again, if you’re the expert you are, get a job in the industry and show ’em how it’s done. I guess that’s not as easy as spending all day on the internet being “an expert” in arguing in circles.
Which I take to mean you won’t — no, make that can’t — answer.
Seriously, you’re joking, right?
We just devoted perhaps 50 posts to discussing the Solstice’s issues in detail. If that wasn’t enough to educate you, I don’t believe that another 50 posts will do anything to breach that moat of denial that surrounds you.
Perhaps, but when someone sees a unreliable solstice they don’t see an unreliable sports car, they see an unreliable Pontiac, which further degrades the image of the brand. It is also bad for long term customer retention. The fact that you do not understand this concept speaks volumes. You may make one sale because the car looks pretty, but you’ll lose 10 when it leaks oil all over the driveway.
That was a fine explanation of a basic branding concept. But it’s disconcerting to see that such an explanation would even be required…
Seriously, you’re joking, right?
We just devoted perhaps 50 posts to discussing the Solstice’s issues in detail.
You outlined one issue, which I showed you’ve overblown, which even your data source says is not representative, and that problem is being addressed the way you continually claim Toyota or Honda would handle it.
So, no. You haven’t made the case for Solstice being a poor quality car. A pinion seal does not condemn the quality of the entire car.
Phil
You haven’t made the case for Solstice being a poor quality car.
I didn’t have to. JD Power and Consumer Reports already took care of that for me.
The owners and the TSB’s validate what those two sources have already publicized. Even the fanboys admit to the problems.
Of course, we all know how much you dislike surveys. In the world of Ressler, only Ressler-sourced anecdotes have any value.
Well,
while I haven’t been around for the last couple of hundred posts (read: few days), I feel that as a recurring presence in the thread that I should congratulate Phil and all the rest on breaking the 1000 post mark.
As for the Pontiac Solstice and relaibilty, the answer is simple:
“The Solstice, bringing back the real british roadster experience”
It’s character not poor reliability
As for the Pontiac Solstice and reliabilty, the answer is simple:
“The Solstice, bringing back the real British roadster experience”
It’s character not poor reliability
When my friends who drive Solstice/Sky are carrying two extra fuel pumps, a voltage regulator, a spare generator bearing, a 12v soldering iron, some spare wire and a couple rolls of electrician’s tape, socket set and an assortment of open spanners, I’ll let you know. That was my road kit in my Brit car days. So far, they aren’t even packing a wrench in their cars, which tells you the Britishness of this sports car remains strictly in the open cockpit motoring. This is one reason the Solstice trunk seems amply large to former Brit sports car owners like me.
Phil
“The prime culprit in this import bigotry, social pressure, social momentum phenomenon as part of car buying has been Boomers, particularly those who comprised the original subset coterie that came to be known as “Yuppies.” Certainly not every individual in there, but that’s where the non-rational, bigoted anti-Detroit sentiment germinated in volume. Out of scale to relative product deficiencies, too many minds snapped shut and have stayed shut even as Detroit has been changing.”
Only a tiny percentage of import bigots are responding to social pressure, or social momentum, and of course the large majority of import buyers are not yuppies.
I didn’t have to. JD Power and Consumer Reports already took care of that for me.
Yes, the milquetoast set that doesn’t understand sports cars nor their markets, and which use “problem” data without differentiating nature of problems.
The owners and the TSB’s validate what those two sources have already publicized. Even the fanboys admit to the problems.
A tiny sample of owners the poll author himself views as skewed and unactionable, plus TSBs, which tell us nothing about incidence and which are *otherwise* considered evidence of responsiveness and customer care.
Of course, we all know how much you dislike surveys.
Yes, the bogus variety. On the other hand, sales say the market has put your skewed data in perspective.
Phil
Only a tiny percentage of import bigots are responding to social pressure, or social momentum, and of course the large majority of import buyers are not yuppies.
As for the first, we disagree. Regarding the latter, from where and whence it began we come to understand what it’s become.
Phil
“As for the first, we disagree. Regarding the latter, from where and whence it began we come to understand what it’s become.”
Except that one has to have accurate understanding to begin with, otherwise, we misunderstand what it’s become.
Except that one has to have accurate understanding to begin with, otherwise, we misunderstand what it’s become.
Yes, and I do.
I’m beginning to think that Mr. Farago may be pulling a prank on us, and that this thread is intended to be some sort of automotive humor piece. Some of these lines may as well come from a Writer’s Guild comedy workshop:
This comment is just classic:
Yes, the milquetoast set that doesn’t understand sports cars nor their markets
I love it. In the original article, you claimed that there was no reliability gap. Then, you argued that there was a gap. Then, you changed your mind and returned to arguing that there was no gap.
But now, we’ve arrived at a whole new level — you’re actually proud of the reliability gap! The inability to keep fluid in a differential is actually now heralded as a mark of virility. I guess that we can just buy Miatas if we aren’t feeling so tough…
What’s funny is that this rip-roaring Solstice “sports car” has the motor of a Cobalt and the (leaking) rear diff of a Cadillac. You would have thought that these garden-variety components would be trusty, given their rather non-sporting uses within the GM (dysfunctional) family. Yet oddly enough, they don’t work well in those other cars, either. I guess that Bob Lutz saw fit to spread that virility around a bit…
I love it. In the original article, you claimed that there was no reliability gap. Then, you argued that there was a gap.
You’re just simply wrong about this and you willfully distort what people say. I argued in the original article that the reliability gap is either absent or not significant on *competitive* Detroit 3 cars. That’s a subset. Subsequently, when this was incorrectly extrapolated to more than was intended, I made clear that I accept that there has been a reliability gap in some models, still may be in some older models, but that *I* have always been able to buy around that gap and others could have / can too.
But now, we’ve arrived at a whole new level — you’re actually proud of the reliability gap! The inability to keep fluid in a differential is actually now heralded as a mark of virility. I guess that we can just buy Miatas if we aren’t feeling so tough…
And this is pure fabrication. The “milquetoast set” comment is directed more at the trunk space and manual top complainers, and the two organizations you cited for not categorizing problem types and understanding the higher incidence of debut bugs in specialty sporting cars.
What’s funny is that this rip-roaring Solstice “sports car” has the motor of a Cobalt and the (leaking) rear diff of a Cadillac. You would have thought that these garden-variety components would be trusty, given their rather non-sporting uses within the GM (dysfunctional) family. Yet oddly enough, they don’t work well in those other cars, either. I guess that Bob Lutz saw fit to spread that virility around a bit…
The base car has the Cobalt Ecotech and it has so far been reliable in this application. It is a rear-drive adaptation of the engine. The performance version uses the 2.0L turbocharged Ecotech, which is not the same. A field issue has surfaced regarding the rear differential and it is not catastrophic, not high volume, is being handled properly by GM and fixed in production. So far you’ve been asked at least three times to ante up a significant Solstice problem apart from the diff issue already discussed and handled by GM. So far, you’ve come up with nothing further, and you’ve ignored or dismissed the fact that GM is outselling the incumbent.
Phil
Yes, the milquetoast set that doesn’t understand sports cars nor their markets, and which use “problem” data without differentiating nature of problems.
Than clearly a hardcore sports-car like the S2000 would rate very poorly. Its loud, “unrefined” and has a suspension made of bricks and yet it manages to make the list of most reliable cars. This new assertion by Phil is like many of his other assertions, utterly false.
You’re just simply wrong about this and you willfully distort what people say. I argued in the original article that the reliability gap is either absent or not significant on *competitive* Detroit 3 cars
You had go better tell Bob Lutz that. He thinks that the 98% Solstice is just “impeccable.” Yet there it is, swimming along the bottom of the reliability pond.
Than clearly a hardcore sports-car like the S2000 would rate very poorly. Its loud, “unrefined” and has a suspension made of bricks and yet it manages to make the list of most reliable cars. This new assertion by Phil is like many of his other assertions, utterly false.
Yes, the S2000 is reliable in the sports car context. I haven’t said otherwise. Its design attributes — consciously chosen by Honda — limit
its appeal to a narrower market and its sales reflect that. I’m sure Power and CR drove and evaluated it like an appliance and pronounced it reliable.
Even so, it isn’t perfect either:
Honda S2000 Trouble Spots (2000 – 2007)
Consumer Guide’s® Auto Editors have scoured repair bulletins and questioned mechanics to search for commonly occurring problems for a particular vehicle. In some cases we also give possible manufacturer-suggested solutions. In many instances these trouble spots are Technical Service Bulletins posted by the manufacturer, however, we have our own expert looking at additional vehicle problems.
Air conditioner: Condensation from the air conditioner drips onto the passenger foot well requiring resealing of the heater housing lower seam. (2000-01)
Check-engine light: “Check Engine” light may glow on vehicles used where salt is used on the roads because the EVAP solenoid fails. (2000-03)
Clutch: As the vehicle accumulates miles, the clutch gets noisier. A redesigned clutch is available that is initially a bit noisy but does not get louder with age.
Gear clash shifting from 1st to 2nd requires replacement of both gear sets including new synchronizers. (2000)
Convertible top: These cars should not be washed in automatic car washes or with a high-pressure washer because water can leak inside or damage the convertible top. (2000-02)
Convertible top: The rear window on convertibles is easily creased when the top is lowered, scratched by paper towels or clouded by road grime and other environmental factors. (2000-02)
Consumer Guide® Estimated Repair Costs
This table lists costs of likely repairs for comparison with other vehicles. The dollar amount includes the cost of the part(s) and labor (based on $50 per hour) for the typical repair without extras or add-ons. Like the pricing information, replacement costs can vary widely depending on region. Expect charges at a new-car dealership to be slightly higher.
Item Name Repair Cost
A/C Compressor $670
Alternator $340
Automatic Transmission or Transaxle $0
Brakes $400
Clutch, Pressure Plate, Bearing $465
Constant Velocity Joints $990
Exhaust System $800
Radiator $200
Shocks and/or Struts $815
Timing Chain or Belt $180
NHTSA Recall History
2000: Lenses of side marker lamp and side reflex reflector in taillamp assembly do not comply with federal standard.
2000: Seatbelts may not retract properly when top is down and seats are pushed all the way back.
2000: Under certain conditions, the seat belt retractor can deform and become frequently locked rendering the seatbelt inoperative.
+++++++
Normal low-production, specialty sporting car bugs just like the Kappas.
Phil
Did the S2000 ever get the lowest rating possible on the CR reliability survey, as did the Solstice? (I think that we all know the answer to that.)
Meanwhile, in the JD Power vehicle dependability survey, the Miata gets 5 stars in all four reliability categories. Such a shame that they don’t have the virility of their domestic counterpart.
In any case, the point is that Pontiac can’t lose its bad reputation if it continues to build products that earn it that kind of reputation. It’s not just perception, it’s reality. You can see it or shut your eyes — your choice — but the sales will keep falling until somebody sees it and does something about it.
I predict that the Miata will still be in the Mazda lineup long after the Solstice has disappeared from Pontiac’s. And while Mazda will probably maintain fairly stable retail market share, Pontiac will continue to shrink. If that’s what happens, you know who to blame for 98% of it.
In fact…..
http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/autos/reliable/5.html
In any case, the point is that Pontiac can’t lose its bad reputation if it continues to build products that earn it that kind of reputation. It’s not just perception, it’s reality.
It’s perception if the headline only gets play and not the context. For instance, from KBW’s link:
Most reliable (Best score first)
Lexus SC
Toyota Camry Solara (4-cyl.)
Subaru Impreza WRX
Honda S2000
Mitsubishi Eclipse*
2006 Mini Cooper hatchback
Least reliable (Worst score first)
Pontiac Solstice*
Mercedes-Benz SL
Mercedes-Benz CLK
Mercedes-Benz SLK (V6)
Chevrolet Corvette
Porsche 911 Carrera
Ford Mustang (V6)
What’s the reliability difference between the Most Reliable and Least Reliable? It’s not given. So is this data actionable? Who knows? A V6 Ford Mustang — a dependable and what most owners experience as a reliable car, scores low. The Corvette is the best selling sports car in America and has been for a long time and in this context is experienced as a dependable car. Three successful Mercedes models with a reputation for glitches but which most people experience as acceptable. Solstice, which so far only an easily-fixed diff pinion seal problem has been cited as significant in this thread. Did a little water get inside the cabin in a car wash? Is that a “reliability” problem? No one knows.
Meanwhile, the top group includes the Honda S2000, problems already cited but it’s been in the market 8 years and bugs have been progressively wrung out. Lexus SC? Did someone make a mistake classifying it as a “sporty car?” 2006 Mini Cooper? Gosh, I don’t know a Mini owner who’d agree with that, much as they nevertheless love their cars. A Camry Solara ranked in a sports car group? Silly. OK, let’s add a 5.3L Buick too.
The key point is knowing what’s the differential. Is this alleged reliability gap wide enough to be actionable or is it merely esoteric to actual experience? It looks like a category with very little separating best from worst. Moreover, how about a look at the nature of problems informing these scores. Are they weighted for effect on dependability? For risk? This kind of ranking is useless for predicting your ownership experience or understanding the nature of risk.
Is best better than worst? Sure. But worst may not be separated from best here by any amount that’s meaningful to a buyer’s decision or experience.
Phil
I’m just stunned that the Solstice is being panned for reliability when other, glaring flaws are immediately obvious after 30-90 seconds of seat time.
While anyone could overlook Ecotec thrashiness as part of a rip-roaring, hairy-chested good time in a sports car, the Solstice is uncomfortable, its powertrain delivers power in a totally unrefined manner, its top is perfectly symbolic of GM’s time-warped management paractices, it has no useable trunk with the top down (and after you take the top down, you don’t want to spend the customary 45 minutes to put it back up…).
Of course, none of this applies to the MX-5 Miata, but it’s still passable considering a Solstice is not a car bought for practicality.
However, The Solstice then commits the CARDINAL SINS of small roadsters: Its handling sucks and it is heavy. Forget the skidpad numbers, the car feels as heavy as an Impala and inspires almost no confidence beyond 7/10ths.
To me, the only person who buys a Solstice after knifing an MX-5 through the hills is a heavy imbiber of the G.M. kool-aid.
Oh, and then, there’s the reliability.
—-
The Solstice is just another 7/10ths car for 7/10ths handling for people who want to pay 7/10ths the price.
Like the previous Camaro/Firebird, the Cobalt SS, every Pontiac adorned with the GXP or GT badge since I was born (1980), it is just another sports car G.M. left unfinished and tried to hawk on the masses.
Each time you think they’ll learn the lesson that is patently obvious: 7/10ths of the work results in zero satisfaction.
Even Lisa Simpson’s rat eventually learned how to avoid the electric shock.
Soon, only the kool-aid drinkers, GM Employees and fleets will buy these turdmobiles.
the Solstice is uncomfortable
Personal. It’s uncomfortable for me since I don’t fit in it. But I know people who can happily drive it straight though a full tank of fuel without feeling any need to get out of the car until the needle’s hovering on E.
its powertrain delivers power in a totally unrefined manner
Is your impression based on the 2.4L or the 2.0L turbo car? This, by the way, doesn’t bother me in the base car. I’ll take power delivery even if it’s a little roughter over less power. 167 lb.ft@4500 vs. 140 lb.ft.@5000. The GXP? Yeah, I’ll take that.
its top is perfectly symbolic of GM’s time-warped management practices
Not SOTA and an afterthought for sure, and still its owners continue to love the car.
it has no useable trunk with the top down (and after you take the top down, you don’t want to spend the customary 45 minutes to put it back up…).
A briefcase fits, plus a notebook computer. A weekend roll. What else do you need? Last time a Solstice owner visited me, the top was up and fastened in under 3 minutes.
The Solstice then commits the CARDINAL SINS of small roadsters: Its handling sucks and it is heavy. Forget the skidpad numbers, the car feels as heavy as an Impala and inspires almost no confidence beyond 7/10ths.
Handling sucks? Tell that to the weekend racers bullying Miatas in autox. It has badger grip. It’s a little heavy but it’s solid. The steering is communicative if you just “listen” to it. You have to use the throttle a little more authoritatively than Miata to power-rotate and overcome the 350 lb. weight penalty, but that’s not so hard. Confidence beyond 7/10ths? I think that’s just a matter of getting sustained time with the car.
To me, the only person who buys a Solstice after knifing an MX-5 through the hills is a heavy imbiber of the G.M. kool-aid.
Or people who like to run down Miatas on weekends. Or prefer a more expressively-designed car. Or like a little more torque with their spin. The modern day equivalent of the kind of people who preferred Triumph to MG. Or Corvette to Porsche today.
Honestly, the Miata is a nifty, slick car. It ought to be having 18 years of noodling. And it’s informed by Mazda’s insight on car dynamics. It’s a classic design, balanced and loaded with finesse for relative pocket change. It’s underpowered but you can make the most of it. It’s a beautiful machine if you like it. But it’s only one formula for a sports car. More of the market is buying something else because some people want a spicier ride. However, I hope the Miata persists in the market. It’s a great centerpoint, a reference against what else can be done.
Phil
Phil – somehow you don’t get that these responses aren’t arguments “against” the domestic car, per se, but are reasonably well documented experiences having to do with a model which you agree represents only the interim step in GM’s return to truly first rate products across the board. I happen to like the Solstice/Sky as styling exercises, but find it unacceptable that a couple cannot weekend in one with the top down.
I had a 1990 Miata and still own a 2003 S2000 and my wife and I have enjoyed both cars not simply for a quick dash to the beach, but also as a getaway vehicle for a lovely weekend. Luggage space in both is minimal when compared to any sedan, but is sufficient that we can and have driven with the top down and a weekend’s worth of clothing/shoes/jackets tucked away in the trunk. This is not a flaw which is easily overlooked, yet someone, perhaps even Maximum Bob himself, decreed that the look of the top was more important than the usefulness of the car.
And the weight issue is nothing more than pulling it out of the oven before it was well and truly baked. The Corvette released on a similar timetable (granted that the chassis was already sorted) is 17 inches longer, an inch wider, carries a V8 which is three times larger by displacement, and the whole car is only 12% heavier despite the need for larger everything to deal with the massive differential in both power and performance.
I think Maximum Bob got it right – it’s a 98% solution, while the Miata/MX5, S2000 and C6 are all 99.9% solutions. The original Miata had a top one could raise with one hand while sitting in the driver’s seat and one could store actual grocery bags in the trunk, top up or down. It has been renowned for being a bulletproof design and neither the original nor the current version are by any measure slow, unless one compares them to larger, far more expensive and more powerful cars.
I attend BMWCCA track weekends from time to time and there is a woman instructor who drives a normally aspirated, but race prepped 15 year old veteran Miata. As a credit to both her driving skill and to the basic chassis, this 1600cc car routinely passes far more powerful and more sophisticated sports cars, including the odd GT2 on R compound rubber. And it seems to always run.
This is of course anecdotal, but there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of battered old Miatas tearing around race courses every season, belying the idea that it is a slow car.
If we fast-forward ten years, it is possible that we will see the Solstice/Sky twins in a similar mission, but they will be penalized by needing more brakes and more breathing on the Ecotec to keep up with the much-lighter Miata/MX-5. I will be impressed with the Solstice/Sky after GM removes the unwanted girth and develops a top for the car which allows it to be used as other than a daytime boulevard cruiser. The frustrating thing about this car is that GM is proven to be capable of building class-leading engines, yet chose not to. They are capable of class-leading packaging, yet chose not to. And they are certainly capable of creating a convertible top which is easily lowered and leaves a modicum of room for luggage, yet chose profile instead. These choices, all of which were consciously or unconsciously made for a dramatic roadster, are proof that they were simply trying to create the illusion of a real car as a means to draw people into the dealership.
The reason that neither Ford nor GM are in the small car game is that they decided early on that it was not worth the trouble to find a way to make a profit when the low hanging fruit of optioned-up Oldsmobiles, Lincolns and trucks were there for the picking. Don’t you find it more than a little frightening that Ford’s partner is able to sell Mazda3’s here at a profit, while they lose money on the totally inferior U.S. Focus? Isn’t it a little scary that the Astra “business plan” includes importing them and selling them at a loss in order to establish an entry into the small car business? And, after all of the money that was poured into Saturn, they no longer have a basic small car which can be produced in the U.S. and sold competitively at a profit?
I know that you will answer that both the Focus and the Cobalt/Ion are examples of the ‘old’ Ford and GM. Yet I read the news on what’s coming from both, and we have nothing from Ford and GM is tantalizing us with Volt-vapor and reborn but thoroughly late-to-the-party Camaro.
You did concede the point that there are times when the accountants hold too much sway in Detroit, and the Solstice/Sky is more evidence.
Maybe the new Malibu and Aura are heads-on winners; perhaps the CTS is ready to take on BMW, Lexus and Infiniti for the top rung of the entry luxury field. All of this is just unproven at this point. In the meanwhile, having the Solstice come out on the bottom of the CR study, will prove disastrous to follow-on sales. Having a Solstice out there which folks will rent, only to find out that their mad weekend includes luggage storage in the passenger’s lap should they be so weird as to want to go somewhere in a roadster with the top down, will also shorten the public’s attention span on this vehicle.
This one was Mr. Lutz’ first big imprint on the “new” GM, and it is a 98% solution by his own definition.
You’ve made a great point that we should consider American alternatives. The lady who ended up with an Altima after not considering a Fusion (assuming it didn’t lose its Mazda6 roots on the way to the Ford store) missed what is undoubtedly a decent car. I’ll agree that it is possible I missed a decent car by buying a BMW before the new CTS was out. The Solstice, however, should not get anyone excited about going to the Pontiac store. It does not demonstrate superiority in its class in the way that the C6 does.
Finally, I suspect what has kept this thread going for over 100 pages has a great deal to do with the argument that a bunch of car nuts shouldn’t have at least a little skepticism when imagining themselves in a domestic car. As much as we would like to see it happen, I doubt anyone is missing the fact that GM and especially Ford squandered vital development money on trucks and other businesses at a cash-flush time when they had the opportunity to come up with a killer Impala or Taurus. Both of these cars had tremendous brand loyalty and could have within one model cycle totally changed the way that people felt about American cars. Instead, money was squandered on the two (D)Hummers, a revised Explorer and ever-more ridiculous looking pickup trucks.
It really is difficult to understand how a niche player like BMW managed to build a small FWD car which is admittedly not a major source of profit, while Detroit keeps on with the mediocrity of the Fucus and Cobalt. Ferchrissakes, the Mini was the first FWD car BMW ever built and used an out-dsourced Brazilian Chrysler engine!!! So pardon all of us if we’re just a little frustrated that neither GM nor Ford could put the engineering resources in place to build a competitive little car.
A briefcase fits, plus a notebook computer. A weekend roll. What else do you need?
Have you ever travelled with a woman before?
Is your impression based on the 2.4L or the 2.0L turbo car?
Non-turbo.
Personal. It’s uncomfortable for me since I don’t fit in it.
Hrmm… I’m 5’11 1/2 and I barely fit in a Solstice. I fit just fine in both a Miata and an S2000 though. How do you figure the Japanese made two cars better-suited to fat American bottoms than the Americans themselves?
Handling sucks? Tell that to the weekend racers bullying Miatas in autox. It has badger grip. It’s a little heavy but it’s solid.
Auto-Cross is not the real world. It is a track, and it is usually in good condition. It is also committed to the memory of a driver.
In the real world, you have nice, long straights to build up speed and then a turn expectedly sneaks up on you. In these situations the MX-5 is incredibly forgiving and the Solstice, well, it’s scary.
but find it unacceptable that a couple cannot weekend in one with the top down.
I have no issue with you having this as a criterion for acceptance in your case. What’s important to you is what’s important to you. However, in practical use, many convertible owners drive to their destination top up, unload and unpack, explore top down, and then return via freeway top-up. For that kind of person, the trunk space isn’t an impediment.
yet someone, perhaps even Maximum Bob himself, decreed that the look of the top was more important than the usefulness of the car.
I think this was simply a consequence of a decision to develop an “it” car in very little time. I expect the limitation to be corrected when the car is next revised.
And the weight issue is nothing more than pulling it out of the oven before it was well and truly baked. The Corvette released on a similar timetable (granted that the chassis was already sorted) is 17 inches longer, an inch wider, carries a V8 which is three times larger by displacement, and is only 12% heavier despite the need for larger everything to deal with the massive differential in both power and performance.
Yes, the basic work for taking a couple hundred pounds out of the Corvette was done in the long gestation period for the C5. The C6 is refinement of that basic work. It was the C5 that put Corvette in the 3100 pound range.
This is of course anecdotal, but there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of battered old Miatas tearing around race courses every season, belying the idea that it is a slow car.
Miata is a low 7 seconds car. Good by 60s, 70s and 80s standards, OK now. It doesn’t succeed in weekend racing on speed and acceleration — it succeeds on great balance and having enough speed. It’s speed is fine for what the car is. Most drivers aren’t getting 7.2 seconds to 60 in their street driving because they don’t know how to.
If we fast-forward ten years, it is possible that we will see the Solstice/Sky twins in a similar mission, but they will be penalized by needing more brakes and more breathing on the Ecotec to keep up with the much-lighter Miata/MX-5.
I fully expect well before 10 years you’ll see a weight-competitive Solstice. GM’s track record on mass reduction in performance cars supports my optimism. This car is a start, not a finish.
The frustrating thing about this car is that GM is proven to be capable of building class-leading engines, yet chose not to.
Say what you will about the 2.4L, but the 2.0L turbo is a very nice mill.
Don’t you find it more than a little frightening that Ford’s partner is able to sell Mazda3’s here at a profit, while they lose money on the totally inferior U.S. Focus? Isn’t it a little scary that the Astra “business plan” includes importing them and selling them at a loss in order to establish an entry into the small car business? And, after all of the money that was poured into Saturn, they no longer have a basic small car which can be produced in the U.S. and sold competitively at a profit?
Yes, I am unhappy about all these things. If I were giving advice to Detroit, I’d be pushing for a different strategy in the small car game, but I do understand GM choosing to import Astras to place a credible small car sooner. In any case, for near term impact, the small car isn’t where the leverage is for giving these companies some margin for working out the longer term problems.
The Solstice, however, should not get anyone excited about going to the Pontiac store. It does not demonstrate superiority in its class in the way that the C6 does.
It may not get you out of your Miata or S2000, but it is winning so far this year, with a close lead widened dramatically when the Sky is added to the Kappa total. To the people who buy the Kappas, they are superior on aesthetic appeal, and a certain kind of driver prefers its power delivery.
I doubt anyone is missing the fact that GM and especially Ford squandered vital development money on trucks and other businesses at a cash-flush time when they had the opportunity to come up with a killer Impala or Taurus. Both of these cars had tremendous brand loyalty and could have within one model cycle totally changed the way that people felt about American cars. Instead, money was squandered on the two (D)Hummers, a revised Explorer and ever-more ridiculous looking pickup trucks.
True, but now this is behind us. It’s not like other companies didn’t get sucked in too, from Toyota to Porsche. What matters now is, can we be objective enough in sufficient numbers to fuel the reform of the Detroit 3?
It really is difficult to understand how a niche player like BMW managed to build a small FWD car which is admittedly not a major source of profit, while Detroit keeps on with the mediocrity of the Focus and Cobalt.
BMW inherited some Brits who were steeped in the pattern of the Mini. Meanwhile, a lot of people who don’t fit in a Mini do fit in a Focus and a Cobalt. The reason for these two cars is cost. Only a limited number of Americans will pay premiums for upmarket small cars — so far. Detroit could be doing more to accelerate change there. Let’s see some Euro-Fords here.
used an out-dsourced Brazilian Chrysler engine!!!
And a crummy engine it was. The new one is so much better. Yet people overlooked the original cheesy motor because the car had strong emotional appeal.
So pardon all of us if we’re just a little frustrated that neither GM nor Ford could put the engineering resources in place to build a competitive little car.
Consider yourself pardoned. I’ve been frustrated by these companies too. However, I can put that aside to keep my larger interests in mind. That’s what I’m asking others to do too.
somehow you don’t get that these responses aren’t arguments “against” the domestic car, per se, but are reasonably well documented experiences
I do understand that, in some cases. But most of these Kappa comments are by people who don’t have direct knowledge of the car and their commentary is articulated as an attack rather than as criticism. That’s not the case with you, however, so I appreciate that.
Phil
Have you ever travelled with a woman before?
Yeah. Almost exclusively. The women in my life have rolled with the limitations of tiny sports cars when I’ve owned them. Back in the Brit days, we had racks on the trunk lid, too.
How do you figure the Japanese made two cars better-suited to fat American bottoms than the Americans themselves?
Aside from the Euro sourcing and influence, I don’t know. They are all equally too small for me and I’m 6’3″/180. From my perspective, every modern sports car maker has forgotten basic packaging the Brits knew 50 years ago. Well, let’s concede the complexity of modern cars takes space too, but still.
In the real world, you have nice, long straights to build up speed and then a turn expectedly sneaks up on you. In these situations the MX-5 is incredibly forgiving and the Solstice, well, it’s scary.
I live in Los Angeles and drive the canyon roads and the coastal roads upstate at speed. I’ve been on them in Kappas. But I’m a lifetime sports car owner. I don’t find the Solstice or the GXP scary, even with everything about driving position compromised for me. That said, the Miata is more forgiving of an error in judgment or a distraction. I don’t mind the attention the Kappa cars require. But that’s me.
Phil
But most of these Kappa comments are by people who don’t have direct knowledge of the car and their commentary is articulated as an attack rather than as criticism.
As usual, you miss the point. So perhaps providing a few subtitles will help.
You have constantly implored the audience to ignore the past. Even though most of us were raised to believe that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, you believe that the past should be forgotten.
Fine, I decided to indulge you for a bit by playing this game of yours, looking strictly at the present. The Solstice is important for GM today because the present GM management team has touted this car as an indication of what wonderful things GM can do right now. As in today. The time period that you want us to embrace. So goodbye dreaded history, hello tomorrow.
Fine, we’ve examined it, because this product was Lutz’s baby and supposedly a representative of the new “impeccable” GM. And oops, I’ll be damned if the Solstice isn’t just a low performer, but the very lowest performer in the CR reliability survey. It’s #1 at being the worst, how proud Lutz must be for that.
I raised the discussion of the 98% Solstice to show how the GM of today, the one that you would like us to embrace, just ain’t all that. The Aura drives reasonably well, but is unreliable. The Cobalt, a subperformer. The G6 is another mediocre fleet darling. The GTO was a flop. The Lacrosse is reliable, but reliably dull. I’ll give them credit for the CTS, as it seems to be about the only exception among the lot.
And I’ll admit it that I set you up a bit, trickling out information, as I wanted to see how you’d react. Sure enough, you came through like a charm, looking for every rationalization in the book, bouncing from one excuse to the next as you sought to defend the Solstice at all costs.
You blamed the suppliers, the customers, and the very alleged nature of the product type, just about everything and everyone but for the people who actually designed and built the car. Exactly what I expected you to do.
It’s almost as if there is a script at GM Central Casting that you use to come up with this stuff. No matter what happens, the fanboys rush out to defend it. It never occurs to you that by ignoring the problems and digging in for a battle that you actually hurt the company that you love so much because you encourage them to never learn from their mistakes.
It’s really a shame that it has come to this, that one of the world’s largest companies, one that was at the forefront of inventing modern marketing practices, is now actually at the verge of collapse. Unfortunately, it’s the enablers who have led them to this precipice because they have encouraged and indulged the development of weak products that aren’t cut out for the degree of competition evident in today’s market. You wanted a sub par performance, and sure enough, that’s what you got.
Fine, we’ve examined it, because this product was Lutz’s baby and supposedly a representative of the new “impeccable” GM. And oops, I’ll be damned if the Solstice isn’t just a low performer, but the very lowest performer in the CR reliability survey. It’s #1 at being the worst, how proud Lutz must be for that.
I’ve written that I think Solstice is a product of a transitional GM. Sales do not indicate it to be a low performer. Driving it does not suggest a low performer. Most owners are thrilled. The CR survey, as I pointed out, like most of what they publish is not useful absent context of the data spread and some idea of what kinds of complaints inform a “reliability” score. You know my consistent disregard for CR data, so you shouldn’t be surprised that I don’t believe it reflects the reality of owning this car for most people. Once again: for me Consumer Reports has zero credibility in any product category. I do not spend any of my money informed by their findings. More important, what does matter is how is GM responding to any problems that emerge. The record so far is one of responsiveness and satisfaction.
I raised the discussion of the Solstice to show how the GM of today, the one that you would like us to embrace, just ain’t all that.
GM created and launched a niche specialty car on an accelerated schedule and won a following for the two models resulting, and are outselling an 18 year entrenched market leader. By your prior definition, the market’s embrace makes Solstice intrinsically superior. What’s wrong now?
The Aura drives reasonably well, but is unreliable.
I’ve seen nothing to indicate the Aura is “unreliable.” Vehicle reliability in today’s market is not a binary attribute. Reliability is the norm, with degrees separating makers and models. Even the record-keepers recognize this. They’ve had to separate “reliability” from “dependability,” because they know these reliability differences are not translating to meaningful differences in dependability.
The G6 is another mediocre fleet darling.
This is an older transitional product. Have you driven on in any configuration similar to how a retail customer would buy it?
The GTO was a flop.
Low volume specialty car with modest sales goals, with a limited life span and also an earlier transitional initiative that was nevertheless reliable; hampered by a timid design makeover of its Australian bones.
The Lacrosse is reliable, but reliably dull.
Like import offerings in the heart of the market.
You blamed the suppliers, the customers, and the very alleged nature of the product type, just about everything and everyone but for the people who actually designed and built the car. Exactly what I expected you to do.
The people who designed and built the car made controversial design decisions in a fast-track project. No one here has the inside knowledge to understand their full context for those decisions. The carping about why the trunk is small (not a quality issue) or why the car is heavier than Miata (they declared they weren’t aiming for a Miata clone) is nothing more than that — carping in the absence of information. Otherwise, the car has been reliable with one component problem that has both supplier and customer behavior contributors. And it’s being addressed.
It never occurs to you that by ignoring the problems and digging in for a battle that you actually hurt the company that you love so much because you encourage them to never learn from their mistakes.
You are mistaken to think I have any distinct love for GM or that’s what motivates me. I’m driving my first new-bought GM products only now, having made those first GM new car purchases more than 30 years since buying my first car. If I have any emotional affinity for an automaker, my history says it would be Ford, from which I bought about a dozen cars. My interest here is strictly pragmatic. We are self-interested in the retention of these companies as domestically-owned manufacturers.
We’re not giving advice to GM here. We’re discussing Solstice in the context of the original case for abandoning import bigotry and giving new competitive American cars their due in buying consideration and evaluation. Actually, in this case, the sports car market appears to have embraced the Kappa twins. But it’s a small market and a sideshow to the main thrust of my editorial.
Unfortunately, it’s the enablers who have led them to this precipice because they have encouraged and indulged the development of weak products that aren’t cut out for the degree of competition evident in today’s market. You wanted a sub par performance, and sure enough, that’s what you got.
Solstice is a first generation entry into a niche market that shows a GM team’s hand for how they intend to fill a market niche. It’s a start, not a finish. Over the next two generations of the car, we’ll see how GM elects to evolve the car and what of the initial play they choose to improve. I’m certain you’ll see more trunk capacity and a more convenient top. Eventually, both engineering and materials substitutions will trim some of the mass. But I don’t expect it to be a Miata clone any more than GM would abandon Corvette’s unique composition to build a Porsche clone instead.
If beating sales of an 18 year category incumbent with a first-stab product is “sub-par performance” then let’s have more of that. If what was accomplished on a tight resource and time budget with Solstice were extrapolated to the 2008 Malibu, it would sell above or at parity with Camry in its second model year, and when combined with stablemates on the same platform, be the #1 midsize seller. If. So, Solstice isn’t the failure you paint it to be. It is a fast-tracked specialty initiative from a transitional GM that chose to make a play in a segment no one gave it chance of success in, and it performs. Its many fans have been undeterred by the criticism of Miata fans who irrelevantly point out it isn’t a Miata clone. And the fact that they actually have direct experience with the car, and you appear not to, lends owners credibility you don’t have.
I’m not an enabler for dysfunction, nor do I have any connection to or influence in these firms. GM management doesn’t need me for its defense. They are capable for speaking for and representing themselves. What they do need is genuine open-mindedness on the part of customers in their home market, a willingness to put past grudges and resentments aside, and real evaluation of competitive products. If they get that, the product portfolio and improved business practices will do their part to help them claw their way to completion of their reform.
Like every other carmaker, they will not be absent some errors. How they respond to any mistakes will be telling. These companies know the market is watching. Solstice is encouraging, not discouraging. Solstice is winning new business. As a product of a transitional GM, Solstice suggests even better from the output of newer initiatives. Let’s give them a chance, now, today, instead of waiting ten more years.
Phil
While we’re being real here, let’s not forget that GM actually did bring the Solstice to market. It is up to them to refine it, or let it die on the vine as Toyota did after bringing the brilliant if slightly porky MR-2 (2nd Gen) into the market. I have trouble forgiving them for both the “styling” of the 3rd Gen MR-2 and for not putting the 180 hp version of the motor in this car. And, in the tradition of the worst of the auto biz, Toyota abandoned the MR-2 after developing a very light, if ugly chassis.
Phil has pointed out that he is in complete agreement about the past sins of Detroit, yet has had good luck with both the XLR-V and CTS-V; he appears to look for the same spark from Detroit that any other enthusiast does. The fact that there are those who buy both of these cars, which are, whether you like them or not far better than the vehicles they replaced, is proof that somebody at GM is trying to hit a target which we all agree upon. Phil is a classic optimist and in the end wanted to share an experience just so others would think about the progress made from the FWD Allante and STS. There’s no denying the difference between an XLR and an Allante, or between the CTS and old FWD STS. Perhaps with some encouragement, they’ll be building more cars that people want.
In the end, even though I bought the BMW in lieu of the CTS, I did take the time to check it out and found it encouraging. They at least showed up with the Solstice and didn’t leave the market entirely to Mazda, Honda and BMW. And on the other side, if Maximum Bob looks at the current Solstice as a 98% offering, that can also mean that he envisions one which is closer to 100% and that there are others at GM working on just that project.
I don’t know that I’ll ever buy a Corvette, but there is no denying that a lot of car people sweated blood to make the C6 as good as it is, in just the way that other great sports cars were developed. And the goodness of the C6 is proof positive there remains in GM some component who will get around the accountants to produce a quality car.
All of the various surveys, polls and anecdotes aside, the larger picture is that GM and Ford are on the ropes. Most of us car fanatics are asked for our advice by friends. As much as I like what I drive, my neighbor might be highly satisfied with a CTS. And if I suggested that a friend look at a Fusion to compare with an Altima, I might well be doing them a favor. At least they give an American car a fair shot.
The diversity in the market brings us from Porsche’s pumped-up 4-cam turbo flat six to GM’s alloy push-rod V8 which makes more power in less weight. It brings us silky, if thirsty Mazda rotaries, Subaru’s excellent update(s) on the VW boxer theme, Mitsubishi’s hypercharged Evo 4’s and excellent new direct injection sixes from BMW, Toyota and GM. All of these appeal to different people, yet whatever I drive is better because of the competition among these manufacturers. I like Toyotas and will recommend them to friends who seem to fit what Toyota markets, but I’d prefer not to live in a world which is limited only to Toyota offerings. I think Phil’s larger point is just this; we’ll all be a little poorer if Ford, GM and Chrysler tank.
edgett “Don’t you find it more than a little frightening that Ford’s partner is able to sell Mazda3’s here at a profit, while they lose money on the totally inferior U.S. Focus? Isn’t it a little scary that the Astra “business plan” includes importing them and selling them at a loss in order to establish an entry into the small car business? And, after all of the money that was poured into Saturn, they no longer have a basic small car which can be produced in the U.S. and sold competitively at a profit?”
I agree with the Mazda 3 being the superior car to the US Focus, and we all know it’s based on the euro-focus. However, they reap great benefits on the importing of the 3 from Japan due to healthcare cost savings/yen to US exchange shenanigans. Mazda builds cars here, but I don’t think they could pull off the 3 in the US for those reasons. Of course, when Ford will want to build something out of the country, it’s just offshoring, not the only way to compete globally.
edgett “The diversity in the market brings us from Porsche’s pumped-up 4-cam turbo flat six to GM’s alloy push-rod V8 which makes more power in less weight. It brings us silky, if thirsty Mazda rotaries, Subaru’s excellent update(s) on the VW boxer theme, Mitsubishi’s hypercharged Evo 4’s and excellent new direct injection sixes from BMW, Toyota and GM. All of these appeal to different people, yet whatever I drive is better because of the competition among these manufacturers. I like Toyotas and will recommend them to friends who seem to fit what Toyota markets, but I’d prefer not to live in a world which is limited only to Toyota offerings. I think Phil’s larger point is just this; we’ll all be a little poorer if Ford, GM and Chrysler tank. ”
Nicely summarized. People on here are not generally what this article is referencing. Like I have noted, there is a big difference between segments, and this mostly relates to the mid-size sedan people who just need something they like the looks of and has the features they want. “Car people” are very particular, and tend to look for certain things, and there’s no convincing them once they’ve set their mind. Everyone else is an open-market generally, and there ARE domestic options that will fully satisfy them. They just might not know it yet.
As to the solstice, it will never be the 100% car it could be if GM goes under. I personally like having the option of both a miata or solstice, rather than just the “feminine” mazda. Anyone arguing against more choices just doesn’t make sense to me, and isn’t a car person but an “import fanboy” to use the internet terminology.
RLJ676: “… feminine Mazda…”
Feminine? What’s the soft, rounded nose and twin humps on the back of the Solstice supposed to suggest?
Various: Remarked on the power of the GXP and Redline Skystices…
If Mazda wants a Miata to beat the Skystice at the strip, they will introduce a version of the Miata that does that.
kixstart, they must be what you’re suggesting then, cuz it sure seems to appeal to men more.
Also, Mazda may not want to make it, but there are people who want to buy it. The problem is doing it affordably and reliably. (as GM is finding of course)
That’s one thing with which I’ll have to agree with RLJ — the Miata is a “chick car.”
Or more to the point, the Miata is perceived by the marketplace to be a “chick car,” in that many males who might want one probably won’t buy one because of the stigma attached to that perception. This isn’t reflected in the gender ratio of buyers — both the Miata and Solstice skew about 2/3rd’s male — but the age of Solstice buyers is definitely lower, hinting that the Solstice will appeal to the style conscious who like the boy-racer shtick.
Which leads us back to the Solstice and the Sky. The one area in which these have succeeded has been the styling. However, styling is only important to so many buyers.
As is the case with many designs of this sort, it will likely have limited appeal and a limited shelf life. Those who want one will buy one early, and may never buy a repeat.
The problem with the Solstice is that styling is its only superior attribute. If it had great styling AND a reliable drivetrain AND had a motor that didn’t betray its Cobalt “heritage”, then that would have been a home run, and it could expect to own the market for quite some time. But based upon the current trend, the Solstice will be an also-ran in a year or two.
That’s probably why Miata sales are somewhat more stable compared to those of the Solstice (Miata sales are down about 8% year-to-date as of September — not a great performance, but showing more resilient that the 17% decline for the Solstice), and why Mazda’s overall sales are up 9%, versus Pontiac’s decline of 9% — the products and brand have stronger overall selling points.
Right now, the style-oriented who wanted a Solstice have largely bought one. A few like the Sky, which was released somewhat later, and those may sell for awhile longer, too. I would predict that within a year or two that this little run will be over, and the Miata will continue to chug away while the Solstice and Sky are forgotten about.
And again, while the Miata helped the build the overall value of the Mazda brand, neither the Sky nor Solstice will likely do the same for Saturn or Pontiac. The whole point of these cars is to provide a halo that rubs off on other cars, and I doubt that will happen here for GM. Another lost opportunity — can anyone really be surprised?
I just wanted to post a snippet from a WSJ commentary I just read titled “I’m Lovin GM”, comparing McD’s turnaround to the Big 3.
“They also hope a green halo will help solve a tough marketing problem they face: A sizeable contingent of U.S. car buyers simply won’t consider a U.S.-branded car, believing them to be inferior and déclassé.
Cadillac, which has a new Bob Dylan commercial out, has led the way in trying to overturn the “import bigot” syndrome in a niche where the formidable competitors are Mercedes, Lexus and BMW. The results so far have been so-so (though the cars are excellent).”
It feels like he may have read Phil’s editorial here. I guess this adds at least one more person agreeing with the concept. I wonder if his statements could cause over 1000 comments though?
Hmmm, back in 1998 when I bought my Explorer, Ford’s schtick was “Quality is job one”. Give me a freaking break. I bought this car out of guilt of owning and loving my high quality japanese cars, some that refused to die, no matter how hard I tried to make it happen so I could justify a new car. I bought an Explorer figuring Ford had made them so long the usual american car manufacturer credo of letting the customer beta-test the car didn’t apply. They figured you’d give up after a couple years and plunk another $30k on another one. I’ve given up on counting the recalls on this thing. Take to the dealer to get things fixed is a tragic comedy. Their knowledge of cars stops at diagnostic computer readout. You american dealers can stop scratching your heads wondering why no one buys american anymore. I have NO pity for the hole you dug yourselves. Go to a used car lot and compare resale value. American cars are pathetic! The “Big Three” improve and innovate ONLY when they HAVE to in order to survive. American buyers can thank the Japanese makers for forcing them to build better cars, or let’s face it, Detroit would would still be cranking out Vega’s, Escorts, Tempo’s, 4-6-8 Caddys (remember the Catera? yikes!) uhh duhh, ya meen people actually want a HIGH QUALITY SMALL car? Is that why the Civic sells and lasts so well, well DUH! mebee we should try that!!! uh DUHH. I’m the American Auto Industry, and I’m an idiot!
Phil has pointed out that he is in complete agreement about the past sins of Detroit, yet has had good luck with both the XLR-V and CTS-V
And over a dozen trouble-free American cars purchased new and driven hard since 1982.
I think Phil’s larger point is just this; we’ll all be a little poorer if Ford, GM and Chrysler tank.
Yes. Economically, culturally and in terms of a diminished roadscape aesthetic.
Feminine? What’s the soft, rounded nose and twin humps on the back of the Solstice supposed to suggest?
Perhaps the distinction between Miata and Solstice should be put this way: Miata, while a good looking car with pleasing proportions, appears to many in our culture as effeminate. While Solstice, via sexy, feminine shapes, appeals to the masculine regardless of driver gender. Miata gets described as “cute;” Solstice wins “beautiful” or “Gorgeous.”
Except of course to those who don’t like it.
Phil
The problem with the Solstice is that styling is its only superior attribute. If it had great styling AND a reliable drivetrain AND had a motor that didn’t betray its Cobalt “heritage”, then that would have been a home run, and it could expect to own the market for quite some time. But based upon the current trend, the Solstice will be an also-ran in a year or two.
What would define a “home run” in a segment where the incumbent was selling only +/- 20,000 cars? The Solstice alone is beating Miata now. Together, Solstice + Sky have an insurmountable lead for the year. For this year GM not only arrested Miata sales but more important brought new buyers into the segment. The car has had an excellent start in the market, and the drivetrain has not inherited the Cobalt’s earlier problems. It’s a dependable sports car, irrespective of the non-critical reliability glitches noted by CR. The car’s shape isn’t one to tire of, so it’s really up to GM to refine the car annually until a thorough revise. Let’s see what’s polished on the car through 2009 before you write it off.
That’s probably why Miata sales are somewhat more stable compared to those of the Solstice (Miata sales are down about 8% year-to-date as of September — not a great performance, but showing more resilient that the 17% decline for the Solstice),
Time will tell but at least for this year, a major reason for Solstice’s 17% drop has been introduction of the functionally-identical Sky latter part of last year and moving into its first full year of production in 2007. Sky’s Corvette resemblance is succeeding and siphoning off some of the demand satisfied by Solstice last year. While Saturn production is lower than Solstice, Saturn sells more Sky per store than Pontiac sells Solsice per store. From GM’s standpoint, the combined sales are an outstanding debut in a niche sector usually led by a sentimental favorite.
I would predict that within a year or two that this little run will be over, and the Miata will continue to chug away while the Solstice and Sky are forgotten about.
OK, you’re on record and we’ll come back in November 2009 to tabulate.
The whole point of these cars is to provide a halo that rubs off on other cars, and I doubt that will happen here for GM.
These cars have already generated a halo. For example, 6 of the 7 people I personally know who own Kappas never owned a domestic car before, nor had ever been in a GM showroom. Public perception is favorable and when they’re on the streets, these cars trigger positive emotions about a Pontiac. Consumer Reports? Who’s paying attention? Their “worst” list of sports cars includes come category best sellers. It’s more indication that what they are tabulating as reliability issues are in fact too minor to affect dependability, which is what people really care about. Put another way, the difference between best and worst in their indices indicates that from a dependability perspective, you’re hard pressed to buy a bad car anymore from anyone.
+++++
I had to drive to San Diego yesterday to visit a couple of companies and decided to stop in Orange County on the return trip to see a friend. This being SoCal and me covering 150 miles each way traversing L.A., Orange County and then San Diego, I saw a lot of convertibles including Kappas. When I pulled into the parking lot for my friend’s small company, I noticed there were two Solstice and one Sky in the parking lot. The Sky was a Redline and Solsti were one each std. and GXP. My friend drives a German car. I asked him about the GM sports cars in the lot and he told me they were all driven by guys who work with him. I asked whether I could talk to them. He rounded them up and they showed me their cars.
I didn’t mention TTAC or this thread and the editorial that has spawned it. I just said I am interested in their cars and I was curious how these cars are perceived in import-saturated California. They were eager to talk about their whips, and none had seen an XLR-V before so it was a good exchange.
Among the many topics in what became a long and animated conversation, I got short answers to four questions pertinent to recent postings in this thread:
1/ Every reviewer has complained about the top being inconvenient. Didn’t that bother you? The verbatim answer: “Who cares when it looks this cool? Besides, it’s down most of the time anyway.”
And, “Yeah, but it’s easier than people think.”
If the top is improved in a subsequent update, these guys would probably appreciate that, but they don’t see the current top as impediment to buying the car.
2/ Which brought me to my next question: The trunk gets slammed for being tiny. Is that a problem for you? Answers: “I didn’t buy it for the trunk.” and the classic, “I bought it to haul ass, not groceries.” (GXP driver).
3/ I also asked whether they had read any of the chatter on the ‘net regarding the differential pinion seal leak, and whether they’ve had leaks. I got two answers: a) “Never heard of it; don’t know what you’re talking about;” and b) “Yeah, heard about it but haven’t had any problem.”
We all bent over to look for oil drips under each of the three differentials. All dry and tight, not a spot on the asphalt. Diffs quiet when driven.
4/ I mentioned that Consumer Reports ranked it last in reliability among sports cars. Comments returned: “Who reads Consumer Reports?” and “Who buys a sports car on what Consumer Reports says?”
At least here in California, Solstice/Sky are doing for GM what was intended.
Phil
I understand where you’re coming from with the reliability/dependability discrepancy. I too usually take CR with a pinch of salt since there’s no numbers to back up the information. I do wonder what you’d say if the Malibu turned up to be CR best buys someday…it’d be hard to throw that edition out, I’m sure.
I trust Consumer Reports, but not Consumer Review, which is just advertising puppet designed to provide confusion with Consumer Reports, a legitimate publication that actually tests the products it reviews, and polls actual owners of the products. American automakers are afraid of Consumer Reports because it reports dependability data AFTER THE SALE instead the useless “initial quality” ratings the American auto industry hawks because they know they can’t compete with the japanese in long term reliability.
Just wanted to mention I looked at and test drove a Focus and an Impala today. That makes 3 American made cars I’ve tested in the past week.
No, I’m not cross shopping a Focus and Impala, just havn’t decided on the size of car I want.
I won’t do a long winded review. I’ll just say Focus is a pretty good little car, judging it for what it is, but I simply could not bring myself to buy it when I could have a Civic instead.
Impala I just don’t have anything to compare to, it’s been many years since I drove a full sized car. There was nothing objectionable, except the faux wood graining on the dash. If they can’t do it well, maybe it’s better not to do it at all.
I havn’t taken a good look at D’s offerings for several years. I’m impressed with the progress.
I do wonder what you’d say if the Malibu turned up to be CR best buys someday…it’d be hard to throw that edition out, I’m sure.
I’ll take support for the D3 where I can get it. But if CR endorsed Malibu, it wouldn’t change my view that the magazine is not a good reference for choosing a car. I have and will continue to ignore its findings in my own automotive evaluations and purchases.
Macca: I saw the initial version of your post in my email feed from this thread. As answer to your other two comments/questions: 1) I type quickly. 2) Coastal southern California is filled with car people, so you can get a lot of information just by asking. People are usually eager to talk about their cars. Plus, I drive a car that attracts a lot of curiosity, so it’s common for people to engage me. I’m open with people who want to know about my ride, and if I see a car I want to know more about, I just ask.
Phil
Hmmm… now that I think about it, I don’t believe I’ve seen a single Skystice “in the wild.” There’s one (Sky/Saturn) that’s been sitting at the dealership for some months… There was a different colored one there before.
Of course, here in Minnesota (where men are men and so are the healthy women), a futzy top isn’t going to be overlooked the way it might be in SoCal. And we put a premium on cars that start in the winter and don’t go weird and half-drain the batteries overnight because nobody likes to be standing alongside their car in 5degF weather in 2″ of slush trying to jump-start the sumbitch.
Perhaps Global Warming will improve the market for the Skystice here. I do see Miatas, including the latest and the new hardtop.
Of course, here in Minnesota (where men are men and so are the healthy women), a futzy top isn’t going to be overlooked the way it might be in SoCal. And we put a premium on cars that start in the winter and don’t go weird and half-drain the batteries overnight because nobody likes to be standing alongside their car in 5degF weather in 2″ of slush trying to jump-start the sumbitch.
Having owned British sports cars in places with real winter, I appreciate the design and execution of the Miata retractable hardtop. I wish GM had done the same, but I don’t think the current Solstice packaging supports the proposition. That’s a real cold-weather advantage. However, I don’t think you have to worry about a Solstice/Sky starting in the winter. I know two owners who will put them through winter this year in the northeast, so will have a window into that. A relative there owns a Cobalt and another has an HHR, both of which are not garaged and they get through winter fine.
Phil
“Macca: I saw the initial version of your post in my email feed from this thread. As answer to your other two comments/questions: 1) I type quickly. 2) Coastal southern California is filled with car people, so you can get a lot of information just by asking. People are usually eager to talk about their cars. Plus, I drive a car that attracts a lot of curiosity, so it’s common for people to engage me. I’m open with people who want to know about my ride, and if I see a car I want to know more about, I just ask.”
Awesome. Don’t take what I say too seriously – if this were a face-to-face conversation you’d know I’m not a (complete) jerk. Although I didn’t edit that (I know the site did, sorry…).
On a side note – around where I’m from, people aren’t too keen on talking about their cars. I’ve tried it a few times in parking lots and such, and it hasn’t gone over too well. I’ve encountered guys who have no clue as to how many cylinders are under the hood. Seriously. I only know a few folks off hand that are really as in to cars as I am – it’s sad, really. And – in complete seriousness – I saw a Solstice tonight (red, no idea of trim) driven by a dude. If I ever have the chance encounter with a Solstice/Sky driver getting in their car nearby I might just ask a few questions myself.
I got an email update yesterday about a post here that’s not showing up in the thread. It was from “Musah”:
“WHAT HAPPENED TO PHIL AFTER THE BATTERING.
PHIL IF YOU STILL CAN READ THIS LINK, WE, I FOR ONE MISS YOU ALOT!!!”
Well…my end of year professional life inundates me and I have been under water. But I’m coming back imminently. I spent a lot of time at the L.A. Auto show Thanksgiving week as part of pulling my thoughts together on my next editorial and am working on that now. Will be back to TTAC straight away.
Phil
The American automakers will pay huge money to get a customer to buy, then not spend ONE CENT to keep them!
The Japanese are exactly the opposite – people line up to purchase their vehicles and they earn enough profit to look after their customers. They return again and again to purchase more vehicles.
Look at what zero percent financing and all the cash rebates do to the resale of American cars. They aren’t worth anything at resale.