Daniel Howes thinks Detroit is jinxed. In his latest column, “Automakers vexed by external forces,” the Detroit News scribe suggests that The Big 2.8 are latter day Joe Btfsplks, doomed to walk through life with a dark cloud hanging over their collective heads. Just as they're improving their products and cutting production costs, the domestic automakers have become hapless victims of slowing economic growth, rising oil prices and a soft housing market. It's the "Motown curse." Or, as I like to call it, another peg upon which a loser may hang his hat.
"As much as the fundamental gains in this year's contract talks remain," Howes writes. "The queasy reality is that no matter what Detroit's Big Auto and Big Labor managed to achieve, their gains could be swamped by economic forces beyond their control." True but— It’s not bad luck. It’s bad planning. If America’s soaring gas prices and slumping housing market are about to "swamp" The Big 2.8’s best-laid plans, why is Toyota forecasting growth?
Because Detroit’s plans aren’t best laid. They’re, well, I think you know what I was about to say. Despite Howes’ proxy prevarication, Motown’s predicament relative to the current economic downturn isn’t a case of “when a bad economy happens to a good company.” These are simply the times that test an automakers’ soul, and Detroit’s is about to be found wanting. Again. Once again the Big 2.8 are caught flat-footed thanks to their inability to think or plan for the long-term. And in the long term, that’s ALWAYS a recipe for disaster.
Anyone remember the K-car? When the K helped pull the “Crisis Corporation” back from the brink of oblivion, Chrysler took the winning platform and milked it to death, using it for everything from minivans to luxury cars. Management gave two divisions identical vehicles with different badges– and then killed one of them because of plummeting sales. Again and again, great Chrysler products withered from years of neglect. “Cab forward" design anyone?
And what of the Town Car? Lincoln’s passenger product poured billions into Ford’s corporate coffers— which FoMoCo used to purchase brands they didn’t need, whose products then suffered from the cold dead hand of Ford’s erstwhile international brand management and leaden, impenetrable bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the engine of this excess was left to wither and rot on the vine, along with its similarly profitable Panther platform partners.
Mr. Howes might say all this is old news. The “new Detroit” has learned its lesson. And ain’t it a bitch: just when they’ve finally accepted what anyone with half a brain has known all along (like, say, Toyota), BANG! Fate kneecaps them.
Howes’ presupposition is fundamentally flawed. Detroit shows no evidence that it’s learned from its mistakes. Why did the K-car creator just kill the PT Cruiser, a vehicle with a huge following (and no significant update in the last eight years)? Where is the “new” Chrysler 300? While you can't argue with CEO Nardelli's desire to strip and flip rationalize his company's model lineup, where’s the long term commitment to the only thing that can sustain their business: product excellence? The same place it’s always been: nowhere.
Check out Ford’s new Lincoln MKS. It’s yet another travesty-on-wheels: a tarted-up something else rather than a glorious original, a car that embodies the values of a once proud brand, sold at the proper price point. GM’s effort to leverage its global assets to reinvigorate its U.S. brands is equally pathetic. They import cars from here and there without any coherent idea of who should get what and why—as witnessed by their continued insistence on badge engineering everything with even a glimmer of sales success.
"The wild card in Detroit's collective turnaround has never been what it can control," Howes notes. "It's been what it mostly can't, which is everyone else." You can almost hear Warren Zevon belting-out “Poor Poor Pitful Me”— only without the irony. All of us have had to deal with factors beyond our control. But Detroit had control over the decisions that got them to where they are today: a leaf blowing in an economic whirlwind. Or you could say, the stronger your hand, the less trouble a wild card will cause.
Blaming Detroit's current plight on forces beyond their control is like saying it was bad luck that a mountain climber without a map got lost. When times are tough, the weak are the first to go. I feel sorry for all the people caught-up in Detroit’s decline— from Howes’ “poor slobs who hold mortgages” to the downtrodden creatives who know what could have been. But it’s not like survival of the fittest is a new rule. Or that no one in the industry understood that the “fittest” automaker is the one selling the best cars at the best price.
Detroit’s weak because its brand and products are weak. Blaming external factors for this predicament is a loser’s game. One that Detroit’s knows all too well, and shows no sign of abandoning.
You sir, are spot on.
The Big 2.8 have spent too much time and energy focusing on the “next big thing” instead of making efforts to ensure that their entire line-up is competitive.
This is a perfect capsule description of what ails the 2.8:
“And what of the Town Car? Lincoln’s passenger product poured billions into Ford’s corporate coffers— which FoMoCo used to purchase brands they didn’t need, whose products then suffered from the cold dead hand of Ford’s erstwhile international brand management and leaden, impenetrable bureaucracy.”
The trouble I find with Detroit is that they strongly believe in growth through acquiring other companies, rather than organic growth. Honda (for instance) could have acquired a few brands to give them some volume and also purchase Jaguar when it needed a luxury brand (remember, Honda had close ties to the British car industry), but instead decided to create their own brands (Honda and Acura) and let them naturally grow and expand. Slow and steady march. Ford on the other hand, had a good global brand which they decided to saturate by buying Jaguar and Volvo (two luxury car makers encroaching on each other’s cache) and Land Rover. Granted it gave them the volume they needed to achieve higher economies of scale, but it hurt their brand image. And I’m not even taking Lincoln or Mecury into the equation.
Look at GM, they bought Daewoo (which was, actually, a smart move) but then cheapened Chevrolet’s brand by putting these nasty Daewoo cars in its portfolio. In the UK, peoples’ first encounter with the Chevrolet brand wasn’t a Corvette, but a rebadged Daewoo Matiz (think Aveo). So, now in the UK, Chevrolet is synonimous with cheap, nasty cars.
Then, GM decided to buy into FIAT at a time when neither company was doing well. GM already had European brands like SAAB, Vauxhall and Opel, why did they think they’d need another? The end result? $2 billion in the hole.
SAAB is another example of brand mismanagement. GM decided they wanted a european luxury car in the European market. What did they do? Introduce Cadillac when they already had an established euro luxury brand (SAAB). End result? 2 brands nobody really cares about.
My real point is this, when Detroit mismanage brands like this, the end effect is a confused and, possibly, damaged portfolio which puts customers off. And if customers don’t come to you, then profits can’t either*.
The transplants have done well to avoid this folly. Even Hyundai are slowly but solidly growing their “Hyundai” brand. If people trust the brand, they buy the car.
Toyota may have had record recalls, but as long as they keep the image of reliability in the eyes of the customers, then all is well.
* = But remember it’s not all Detroit. The Germans took over Chrysler and bought a big stake in Mitsubishi in order to achieve growth through acquision and look what happened…….
Growth through aquisition – always a clear indicator that management has no ideas, and doesn’t know how to nurture their brand. Make the numbers look good and ignore the reality of declining market share. Don’t fix the product, just fix the numbers -it works, temporarily.
Dynamic- you just hit like a hummer on a nail! bulls eye!
Yeah Howes is right too bad the former big three can’t control how fresh their product line up is, how they treat their customers warranty claims, and how fuel efficient their fleet is.
Hasn’t Mr. Howes at Detroit News heard of a Murphy’s law? The bad things tend to happen at the worst possible time to everybody not just Detroit. The best defense is to make sure you’re not in a position where the law can struck you. Alas Detroit has done the opposite for the last 30-40 years. No wonder that no matter what they do now they can’t escape the Murphy’s fate.
Detroit’s approach for the past 3 decades or so reminds me of someone constantly trying a string of “get rich quick” schemes. Sometimes they work (minivans, SUVs), sometimes they flop, but even when they are successful they end up pissing away any momentum they’ve gained by moving onto the next “new big thing.”
Meanwhile, like the ant in the old fable, Toyota and Honda just keep plugging along methodically, taking their market share bit by bit and car by car.
As a side note, when you see the complaints that erstwhile domestic car buyers have with their US car experiences, a disproportionate number of them are more related to dealer experience than problems with the car itself. IOW, it seems like excessively penny-pinching and warranty-quibbling dealers are the anchor that is dragging down the domestic car makers.
After all, to most buyers, the dealer is the manufacturer and vice versa. So a bad dealer experience can sour someone on a brand even when the product itself is perfectly adequate (or at least is no worse than the competition.)
As a side note, when you see the complaints that erstwhile domestic car buyers have with their US car experiences, a disproportionate number of them are more related to dealer experience than problems with the car itself. IOW, it seems like excessively penny-pinching and warranty-quibbling dealers are the anchor that is dragging down the domestic car makers.
After all, to most buyers, the dealer is the manufacturer and vice versa. So a bad dealer experience can sour someone on a brand even when the product itself is perfectly adequate (or at least is no worse than the competition.)
And here in lies the answer to the question as to why the Malibu’s initial roll-out is so slow and limited. I guess this is one of the changes GM is making. They understand that if the dealer support is not up to the task it will kill sales of this car faster than a lack of inventory.
Frank Williams:
Howes’ presupposition is fundamentally flawed. Detroit shows no evidence that it’s learned from its mistakes.
Agreed. Frankly, I am tired of hearing about all these excuses from the Big 2.8 themselves, as well as from writers defending the Big 2.8. The excuses seem to blame everything BUT the Big 2.8 themselves.
Detroit has shown no evidence that it’s learned from it’s mistakes because the corporate culture of the Big 2.8 has remained just about the same as it has been for decades. In other words, the Big 2.8 still operate with the same archaic, slow, rigid, and inefficient corporate culture.
There are numerous examples to be found daily. Toyota in a few months will release the new Corolla that will get class-leading fuel economy for a compact. Where is Detroit’s answer to this sales monster?
The current old Corolla also gets class leading fuel economy. The Big 2.8 have had years to get competitive in the compact class and they haven’t done much.
Detroiters! go to the magic of a dance, whether michael jackson swooshing the air, or Michael Jordan defying gravity and spitting in face of Einstein. Go to the home hearts of Sicilian mothers, how they make their spaghettis and make their sons swoon over dinnertables. Go to the Oriental japan and look into drawings of sakura tree. the silence , the detail and peace it radiates. Go to the south of france, to the dark dungeons of vineyards, where a wine master smoothly sips the history, no one has rights to divulge. Touch the violin of Paganini, and feel the blisters of master himself. the curvaceous hips of passion woven together by music. lick the salt from Calypso blessed for godsped by jacques Yves Cousteau himself. glance into eyes of mothers how they reflect the star speckled skydome, and singing the honey lullabies to their little cherished ones, dagger through the fiercest gales of winter tales.
what do these all have in common? Nothing.
Just
attitude.
“And here in lies the answer to the question as to why the Malibu’s initial roll-out is so slow and limited. I guess this is one of the changes GM is making. They understand that if the dealer support is not up to the task it will kill sales of this car faster than a lack of inventory.”
Nonsense. How does releasing a new vehicle with an over $100M advertising campaign while not having inventory in dealer’s hands do anything to improve the quality of the customer’s experience at the dealership?
If GM was really focused on improved customer-dealer interactions they wouldn’t have made the Malibu at all, but rather would have poured ever ounce of mid-sized energy they have into the Saturn Aura. About the only thing Saturn has going for it is that Saturn dealers are generally higher rated than Chevy dealers.
GM blew the timing of the Malibu launch synchronization and you cannot spin that into saying that it means GM has gotten religion on the dealer side of things.
Finally, the biggest reason customers have warranty service nightmares with a dealership is that the factory is making the dealer’s life impossible in their interface. Factory tells dealer tough ****, dealer then says the same to customer.
Excuses, Excuses, Excuses! So with the economy being so bad here and the dollar so deflated, why aren’t the Detroit automakers exporting their ‘fantastic’ products for HUGE profits? I guess the rest of the world, just like the rest of the United States, doesn’t see their products as being very desirable.
OK, I’m going to be the devil’s advocate here.
What the Big 3 did is really no different than what the three premiere German manufacturers have done as well. At the time it did make sense because industry consolidation was seen as a foregone conclusion and the launching of brands had been an incredibly expensive and tricky proposition. BMW believed no one would buy a $150,000+ Bimmer, Daimler-Benz realized that they would need economies of scale to compete with the Japanese and Americans over the long run, and VW realized that they could no longer rely on protected markets to sustain their profitability.
All of them bought other manufacturers in a varying scale. BMW bought the least, and ironically did the best overall. Daimler-
Benz had the most insular culture of the three and destroyed two companies as well as $50+ billion in savings, VW has actually been better to many of their wholly owned subsidiaries products than to their own product line. Porsche has more or less infused VW with engineering and economic support for the last several years.
I’m not a big fan of much of what the big three does. But many of their products are truly equal or superior to what Toyota/Honda are putting forward (Enclave, CTS, Corvette, Fusion, Malibu, Wrangler, Silverado) and the subsidiaries to them have usually benefited far more than the parent company.
If there is one salient point to make regarding the current situation, it’s that too many brands will spoil an automaker’s ability to compete. The Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, and Saab brands drain GM’s ability to compete with class leading products across the board. Mercury, Lincoln and Jaguar should be eradicated from the Blue Oval’s portfolio. Chrysler should re-hire Bob Lutz and have him lead a squadron of stealth bombers to rid the world of the Daimler group. Actually, I think Chrysler’s situation has more to do with Daimler’s mismangement than anything else. They were the most profitable and, quite possily the most successful automaker of the 1990’s before Daimler bought them out.
Toyota has experienced troubles with the Scion brand (quality only average for the industry, Xa sales were disappointing and current products are getting shelled by reviewers), and the Lexus brand is getting to be seen as more stodgy and conservative than virtually any luxury brand in today’s market.
Honda’s Acura division has been grasping for an identity ever since they let go of the ‘Legend’ moniker and decided to use numerals and acronyms to describe their vehicles. I’m willing to bet that even today more folks know what an ‘Integra’ is vs. a ‘TSX’.
Nissan ironically got to be succesful, in part, by decontenting their vehicles and adding horsepower. Their quality went down by such a magnitude that they’re typically no longer considered as direct alternatives to the Toyota and Honda products.
Overall, I would say that the elimination of brands is the primary stumbling block for the majority of large automakers today. The Chinese and Indian manufacturers may be the ones who decide to accomodate that reality.
In terms of the company purchases and platform sharing, Ford doesn’t seem to have a half-bad strategy.
I see their ownership of Volvo and their part-ownership of Mazda as essential for what they are doing. The Fusion, Edge and all of its Lincoln-Mercury clones are Mazda 6 clones, the New Taurus/Sable/Taurus-X along with the upcoming Fairlane-Flex-watchimacalit are Volvo S90/V70/whatever clones, and there is enough dis-interest in the Focus to let that languish instead of get the Mazda 3-Volvo S40-clone treatment. I guess there is the Phil/Greg thing in why they offer both the Mazda 6-Edge and the Mondeo-Escape, but I suppose they will sort that out.
And if you can sell Hecho-en-Mexico Fusions and get good quality rankings (Japanese engineering content may have a lot to do with that), what is the problem competing with the Camcord? While the Fusion is not class-leading in fuel economy, the Fusion has Zoom-Zoom while the Camry has Dull-Dull (drive a Taurus and a Camry, and while the Taurus has quirky variable-effort power steering, it handles betters and stops quicker than the Camry out at the limits).
Maybe the one bad element in this is letting the Focus languish. It may not be a high-profit segment, but a lot of recent high-school and college grads with enough income to make car payments are not going to buy a New Taurus right off the bat, and if they are in the market for a Focus and end up buying a Civolla instead, they are lost to Ford as they get wealthier, and if they buy a Focus and the thing is a heap, they are also lost to Ford.
One should admit that the Fusion and New Taurus got off to a slow start. Fusion was slow to get the side air bags and New Taurus was slow to get the stability control to compete on the expected safety features, and New Taurus was slow to get the 3.5 l V6 that most people believe is required for that weight class, CVT’s and 6-speed transmissions left aside.
Johnson they have catch phrases that only fool themselves like that old tired “GM has more models that get 30 miles per gallon than any other manufacturer”.
Steven Lang:
I’m not a big fan of much of what the big three does. But many of their products are truly equal or superior to what Toyota/Honda are putting forward (Enclave, CTS, Corvette, Fusion, Malibu, Wrangler, Silverado) and the subsidiaries to them have usually benefited far more than the parent company.
Nonsense. First off, Toyota/Honda don’t even have any vehicles that compete with the Corvette. Nissan has a direct competitor with the GT-R, and it must be making GM worried. The GT-R seems to be a better car than a Corvette Z06 in almost every way.
By most accounts, the Fusion and Malibu are *not* equal or superior to the Accord and Camry. The CTS is competitive, but not class-leading. The Enclave does not directly compete with Honda/Toyota offerings. The most direct competition to the Enclave is the Veracruz, which arguably is a better vehicle. You could say the Enclave competes with the RX and MDX, but both of those still beat the Enclave in certain aspects. Also let’s not forget the RX is a dated design while the Enclave is all-new. Things will only get worse for the Enclave when the new RX comes out.
Sherman Lin:
Johnson they have catch phrases that only fool themselves like that old tired “GM has more models that get 30 miles per gallon than any other manufacturer”.
Which I believe Toyota cleverly poked fun at by saying that they have more models that get 40mpg or over, or something along those lines.
Katiepukrick says –
“Honda (for instance) could have acquired a few brands to give them some volume and also purchase Jaguar when it needed a luxury brand (remember, Honda had close ties to the British car industry), but instead decided to create their own brands (Honda and Acura)”
Good point – though ironically the first large size luxury car that Honda made (the “Legend”) was co-developed with Austin-Rover alongside the Rover 800 range !
The fundamental reason I have agreed with most of the DW series is that auto companies are by definition cyclical companies, and since no one has been smart enough to remove the business cycle from our economic life, the cycles go on. In the latest cyclical upturn, approximately late 2002 to late 2006, the domestic 2.8 remained allergic to profits (much less positive cash flow). Oops. Instead of banking billions to get them through the cyclical downturn (which may very well be short), they just kept stringing together the losses.
Sooo, now what? The Malibu needs to be a five year million car seller, but GM has fubared its’ introduction. How many of you would like to bet that a potential customer wandering onto a Chevy lot looking for a non-existent Malibu will walk off the lot thinking cheery thoughts of his experience? How about a nice hard sell on an Impala…… You think sales managers are going to allow a customer to walk? Come back later when they have some in stock? Are you insane? Do you think this is a Mini dealership?
I do think the managements of these companies were aware that at some point the economy would bite them in the butt (to a certain extent that is what golden parachutes are for), but they have still ended up unprepared. Inexcusable.
The over all point of the editorial is correct. And the title is brilliant. Dynamic got to the heart of the matter as well. The management are too busy “managing” to actually run a car company.
Unfortunately, no one in Detroit seems to be able to get past all the distractions of union haggling, deal making, and ladder climbing. That’s the real motown curse. There are too many parasites, and not enough hosts.
Growth through aquisition – always a clear indicator that management has no ideas, and doesn’t know how to nurture their brand.
Yup. GM and Ford are, and will continue, to pay dearly for this. Ford, LL, etc. Foreseeable disasters.
If it’s any consolation, I worked in pharmaceutical for years and for about 2 decades M&A was about all management did with their time. I was with one company for five years and they merged 3 times. After I left, they merged with another company that had merged 3 times in five years.
That being said, I am not sure if that’s worse than what GM did (at least in Canada). In an effort to break with the past, they introduced not just new models, but new brands! They have introduced the ones Americans are familiar with (Saturn and Geo) but they also introduced Optima, I think it was (I could go on about that car. It was actually quite comical…so long as you weren’t paying) and Asuna (don’t ask)
@ Johnson: The Camry is not the equal of the Fusion or Malibu. Drive them back to back and tell me what the Camry does better. The Cam-cord moniker does not work anymore—–lumping in the Accord with the Camry is an insult to the new Accord as the Camry does not come close anymore.
Also—early reviews of the “new” Corolla aren’t that promising. MPG’s aside—its so-called update seems to be very “Focus-like” in its execution. Missed opportunity against the class leading Civic seems to be the case here.
Last—Frank—you very well may be correct in your assertion of the new Lincoln MKS—but before your call something a travesty I think it would be fair to drive it first to see what it delivers…or not. Lets judge the car on its merits and not a predisposition of what a true Lincoln should be.
“The Camry is not the equal of the Fusion or Malibu. Drive them back to back and tell me what the Camry does better.”
I agree. I test drove Camry a few times recently and was really disappointed in the car. Heck, the Hyundai Azera is a more impressive car than the present Camry for similar money.
jthorner:
“The Camry is not the equal of the Fusion or Malibu. Drive them back to back and tell me what the Camry does better.”
It is a mistake to think that the average average car buyer gives a damn how his or her car drives.
In this segment, reliability– or the perception of reliability– is far more important.
In this segment, reliability– or the perception of reliability– is far more important.
And on that score, Camry still beats Fusion. Real or imagined, Toyota has the consumer’s trust, and Ford doesn’t to anywhere near the same extent.
The real tragedy is that, no matter what Detroit does, their previous transgressions (for lack of a better word) combined with their hodgepodge recovery plans are too little, too late.
Now that more line workers are canned and CEOs lock in their bonuses/parachutes after years of poor performance, we see their business strategies from the past 10-20 years absolutely stink.
Motown curse? You gotta be kidding me: this complicated issue can’t be distilled to a single source. Especially an external one.
Sometimes I consider myself very lucky that I left Detroit when I did.
The Detroit automakers have been in the same rut since the soon after the turn of the previous century, building body-on-frame vehicles and making substantial profits from them. The introduction of unit body vehicles did little to alter that – more expensive to build and engineer, often in smaller and barely profitable cars. Lincoln Town Car pulling Ford through the 1980’s is just one example of this. In contrast, import automakers were able to make money with unit body vehicles, with the laggards having to withdraw from the US market.
In the 1990’s, a confluence of low gas prices, regulatory loopholes, and perceived appeal gave the Big 3 a Monty Haul of SUV profits. Little money was required to engineer the addition of 2 doors and a fixed cab to a pickup truck, i.e. Ford Explorer, and Detroit went about the same old way, with few exceptions – Jeep Cherokee and its derivatives are unit body vehicles, if I recall correctly. Were profits reinvested in future product? Trucks, yes, but cars not so much. How long did the Chevy Cavalier remain on the same platform? was it 10+, or 20+ years?
This decade, the continued rise of the imports along with the drop in body-on-frame SUV sales means the old formula no longer cuts the mustard. Explorer and other SUV sales are on the decline, less profitable unit-body crossovers are replacing them. Ford’s hoary Panthers won’t be around much longer, having been paid just lip service from an engineering standpoint over the last 30 years. Gas prices and proposed regulations look quite unfriendly to big vehicles in the near future, not to mention the subprime crapstorm. There’s no going back to the good old days.
How the heck are the D2.801 going to move fast enough to survive this sea change, to shift from what has been their profit center for their entire existence? How many MilusionKZ’s is Ford going to have to sell to replace each lost Explorer sale – 3 or 4? and this is with the Mexican non-union discount! The Yukahoe and Aspurango hybrids are an attempt to make money the old way, using the same infrastructure – methinks too little, too late.
RF: “It is a mistake to think that the average average car buyer gives a damn how his or her car drives”
I disagree—otherwise why would one buy an Accord over a Camry? The Accord is a much better ride and is almost BMWesque compared to the Grandpa-like Camry. Net…me thinks that there are alot of folks in this segment that give a damn how their car drives.
Also—as I predicted long ago—-once Toyota became the perceived #1…the US press would be relentless on Toyota’s mistakes. Also, due to the speed of information dissemination from the internet—it won’t take 20 years of Toyota quality problems for their perceived quality advantage to go away—-could be more like 3-5. For those that think they are getting a handle on their quality problems—I think not—the recent Avalon, Camry and Tundra launches have been beset by recalls and other engineering problems—check out the number of TSB’s.
Net, lets see how many people line up to buy the Grandpa like Camry in 3-5 years if the perceived quality advantage goes away.
umterp85:
The Camry is not the equal of the Fusion or Malibu. Drive them back to back and tell me what the Camry does better. The Cam-cord moniker does not work anymore—–lumping in the Accord with the Camry is an insult to the new Accord as the Camry does not come close anymore.
Also—early reviews of the “new” Corolla aren’t that promising. MPG’s aside—its so-called update seems to be very “Focus-like” in its execution. Missed opportunity against the class leading Civic seems to be the case here
Let’s not start this tired old argument again. First off, the Camry still retains a best-in-class rear seat area. Yes, that means the Camry has a better rear seat area than the Malibu, Fusion, and even the new Accord.
The Camry XLE still provides class-leading comfort for 5 passengers. The Camry SE handles just as well as the competition. Motor Trend seems to think the Camry SE handles just as good as the new Accord.
Looking at this segment from only a driver’s point-of-view is narrow-minded. A lot of families buy midsize sedans. You also have to look at all the details.
The Fusion I4 gets beaten in fuel economy by both the Camry I4 and Accord I4. Only the Malibu I4 is competitive. The Fusion V6 is also soundly beaten by both the Camry V6 and Accord V6 in power and fuel economy.
Does the Malibu or Fusion have a true hybrid offering? The Malibu mild-hybrid doesn’t count. Those looking for a “green” midsize sedan only have 2 choices right now: the Altima hybrid with it’s limited availability or the Camry hybrid.
You can criticize the Camry for it’s questionable interior quality, or the issues with the V6 transmission but you also need to give credit where credit is due. The Camry is definitely not the best in everything, but the Camry excels in enough areas to be the better of the Fusion and the Malibu.
Also, what “early” reviews of the Corolla are you talking about? Care to provide some links where they describe the new Corolla as “Focus-like” in it’s execution? There is one thing the Civic is most certainly NOT class-leading in, and that’s fuel economy. The Corolla remains best-in-class when it comes to fuel economy.
umterp85:
I disagree—otherwise why would one buy an Accord over a Camry? The Accord is a much better ride and is almost BMWesque compared to the Grandpa-like Camry. Net…me thinks that there are alot of folks in this segment that give a damn how their car drives.
Also—as I predicted long ago—-once Toyota became the perceived #1…the US press would be relentless on Toyota’s mistakes. Also, due to the speed of information dissemination from the internet—it won’t take 20 years of Toyota quality problems for their perceived quality advantage to go away—-could be more like 3-5. For those that think they are getting a handle on their quality problems—I think not—the recent Avalon, Camry and Tundra launches have been beset by recalls and other engineering problems—check out the number of TSB’s.
Net, lets see how many people line up to buy the Grandpa like Camry in 3-5 years if the perceived quality advantage goes away.
It certainly sounds like you haven’t driven the Camry SE. It’s ride is quite stiff and would be far too sporting for “grandpa”.
What you think is actually quite irrelevant to this segment. You have to look at the reality. The reality is, A LOT of people in this segment prefer a comfortable ride over a stiff sporty ride. Besides, if you want a sporty ride or good handling then the Altima is the car to get. Not the Camry, or the Fusion, or the Malibu. Not even the Accord. The Altima is the sportiest and best-handling midsize sedan out there.
Again, regardless of what you think Toyota IS getting a handle on it’s quality problems. And here’s a news flash: ALL vehicles have TSBs, especially new or redesigned vehicles. You pointing out the some new Toyota models have had TSBs means absolutely nothing.
Johnson—some vehicles have more TSB’s than others. This is not what I think…it is fact. Check out the first year Fusion (2006) vs. the new 2007 Camry
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/tsb/results.cfm
umterp85,
Your link does not work. Also consider do more TSBs indicate more quality problems, or does it indicate that the automaker is willing to be proactive to solve any problems out there? Consider the (now infamous) TSB/recall that Toyota did for floormats on certain models. Most automakers would not even consider that worthy of a TSB, let alone a recall. In fact, it wasn’t even a problem with the floormats. Toyota went totally out of their way to address a problem caused by the ignorance/stupidity of some of its customers.
Regardless, all my other points still stand.
Johnson— sorry try this link. You might find it interesting that my points were not about floor mat defects—rather real defects the likes of which would not be seen on Toyota’s 10 years ago.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/
BTW—my points stand as well. My original reply to RF was merely to state that there is a sizable group of people in the midsize family car segment that DO give a damn how their car drives. That is why they choose and Accord over a Camry. Of course—given the average age of the Camry buyer is quite old (55 years)..you are correct that there are alot of folks that require a Buick type soft and wallowy ride.
Considering the perception of Ford and GM cars among consumers, they have to overcome the Nissan Altima before the Fusion and Malibu can be considered by Camry/Accord buyers.
Johnson: Motor Trend seems to think the Camry SE handles just as good as the new Accord.
And Motor Trend also rates the new Accord higher than the current Camry. It’s best to look at the results for the entire road test, instead of just one specific part of the test.
Also note that in its most recent comparison test of family sedans, Car & Driver rated the OLD Accord ahead of the current Camry. (The Camry also finished behind the Saturn Aura.) The Accord came in first.
Geeber: Even a domestic leaning guy like me recognizes Accords overall excellence. While I question the need to increase the overall size in the new execution—it is the car to beat in the midsize family segment. Net, The CamCord moniker simply should not exist anymore…as there is no longer parity in the Camry vs. Accord product executions.
I have a friend with a new ’07 Accord. He has not once mentioned how it handles. He has mentioned the power (from a 4!), room, quiet, reliability and other factors but he has never said a word about the handling.
So, I’d say there may be several reasons for preferring an Accord to a Camry.
I know that he greatly prefers an Accord OR a Camry to a Detroiter. He ditched a Buick to get the Accord and was considering the Camry.
The reason for the final choice? He got a better deal on an Accord equipped the way he wanted. He appeared to consider the cars equivalent except for price.
“He got a better deal on an Accord equipped the way he wanted.”
Honda delivers a lot of value for the price. One thing Honda does is to greatly restrict options. The car comes in one of several trim levels, but within those trim levels they are all built the same. This has got to dramatically simplify manufacturing and supply chain management. Toyotas are much more like typical American brands with lots of options, lots of options packages and in general high prices if you get it with most or all of the goodies.
Whilst we’re on the subject mid range sedans, you lot think you’ve got problems in the United States? Check out the UK range!
VW Passat: OK car with a good quality interior, but has flaky reliability and is about 20% more expensive than other sedans.
Mercedes-Benz C class: more expensive than the VW Passat, worse reliability and rather boring.
BMW 3 series: Poor interiors and even more boring than C class.
Audi A4: A bit expensive and ropy reliability, but overall, not bad.
Toyota Avensis: Well made, reliable but coma inducing boredom!
Honda Accord: The best of the bunch. Reliable, reasonably priced, nice interior and looks good.
Nissan: Nothing! Nissan in the UK don’t do family sedans anymore. In this segment, they sell the Qashqai which is a CUV.
Ford Mondeo: The second best of the bunch, but the badge doesn’t have much credibility.
Vauxhall Vectra: Boring car, hideous interior and quite expensive for what you get.
So just remember, our choice isn’t exactly any better. Detroit actually scored a big point here with the Mondeo. I’d quite like a Camry or Malibu over here! Instead I can choose between a Ford Mondeo or a Honda Accord. Yippee(!)
yes sirree.
KatiePuckrik :
“I’d quite like a Camry or Malibu over here!”
Isn’t the Aura/Malibu based on the Vectra? If so, you’re probably better off with the Vectra since your choice of engines/transmissions is likely better than what we get in NA. Unfortunately, that also applies to the other cars you listed above… :(
Handling? what’s that – something that actually matters to American car buyers? Looking at a list of top-selling cars and trucks as of 9/07, I’d say hauling [big] butts counts for more. (theautochannel.com)
537,211 Ford F-Series
477,859 Chevrolet Silverado
365,140 Honda Accord
301,879 Toyota Camry
291,981 Toyota Corolla / Matrix
276,978 Dodge Ram
254,955 Nissan Altima
249,713 Chevrolet Impala
218,022 Honda Civic
167,223 Honda CR-V
157,204 Chevrolet Cobalt
152,895 Toyota Tundra
144,480 Honda Odyssey
137,114 Chevrolet TrailBlazer
135,515 Toyota Tacoma
131,946 Toyota RAV4
130,405 Toyota Prius
130,267 GMC Sierra
112,519 Ford Escape
109,644 Ford Focus
I imagine you will see this to the Malibu which is arguably one of the better cars they have produced recently. The old CTS maybe stuck around a little too long, but the new one seems reasonably nice.
Just sad that they are able to manage competent and not excellent even when desperate.
The “Big 2.8″ are not one entity. They are not. they have different bosses, different problems and different products. Gm is the furthest along on the product side and this has been confirmed by many who review their newer products. Also, anyone who says NOTHING has changed in the past few decades is showing their lack of knowledge about the industry. Not only has fit and finish, powertrain sophistication and overall quality improved, the best production practices from Japan have been implemented at Detroit owned plants. You cant say nothing has changed when some Detroit 2.8 plants are more productive than transplant plants run by the Japanese. People who say “no excuses” are often simple minded and are trying to find a way to ignore important details that don’t suit their POV. The truth is the details do matter and its not easy for any of the Big 2.8 to thrive in this market. You can fool yourself into thinking everything could be fixed in 2 years if we could just import a genius CEO from Toyota or Honda but that is just wishful thinking. There are real issues that hamper the ability of the Big 2.8 to compete and those who actually work for these companies actually have to find a way to work through these issues. None of this means they havent been mismanaged in the past. It just means that contrary to Mr. Williams’ somewhat simplified view of the world they are not in an enviable position.
johnson, recent GM products (and some from Ford) are wholly competitive with what Toyota and Honda are making. period. SEVERAL sources have said the Malibu is better than the Camry. Several reviewers have said the CTS is class leading or very close. Where are you getting your information? The lambda SUVS do compete with Pilot and Highlander on price regardless of the size differences. Many seem to indicate the Gm vehicles are equal to or better than their ToyoHonda counterparts. I find it curious that you criticize the Malibu for not having a “true” hybrid offering when the Accord has NO hybrid offering. Furthermore, Nissans model is only available in 8 states so it means little to those in the other 42 states. How is Chevy doing worse than Honda when they offer SOME form of hybrid in their midsize sedan?
Johnson, About the corolla: The focus almost matches the corolla on mileage as does the Astra. The Corolla has one of the smallest and weakest engines in the segment and the trade off is great fuel economy. The Cobalt has more power and less mileage. If you look at the mileage of the 2.4L equipped 2009 corolla you will see its about the same as the Cobalt due to its engine size. The next cobalt will be out in 2009 and we will see if they are able to match the Corolla’s mileage. In case you missed it the compacts from Mazda, Nissan and Hyundai also fall short when it comes to mileage vs the corolla.
Check out Ford’s new Lincoln MKS. It’s yet another travesty-on-wheels: a tarted-up something else rather than a glorious original, a car that embodies the values of a once proud brand, sold at the proper price point. GM’s effort to leverage its global assets to reinvigorate its U.S. brands is equally pathetic. They import cars from here and there without any coherent idea of who should get what and why—as witnessed by their continued insistence on badge engineering everything with even a glimmer of sales success.
Bang! Right on the money about the MK-whatever. And whomever said we should gauge this car on it’s merits after a drive instead of “what a Lincoln should be”….give me a break. For starters, it needs to look good enough that you’ll actually WANT to drive it, but first and foremost it should look MORE like a LINCOLN and LESS like a cheap LEXUS.
And what of the Town Car? Lincoln’s passenger product poured billions into Ford’s corporate coffers— which FoMoCo used to purchase brands they didn’t need, whose products then suffered from the cold dead hand of Ford’s erstwhile international brand management and leaden, impenetrable bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the engine of this excess was left to wither and rot on the vine, along with its similarly profitable Panther platform partners.
A new revised/updated Panther based Town Car should have come first and foremost over anything else in the Lincoln lineup. Instead, it withers on the vine year after year paying for the (then) “new” Lincoln Continental, or the (then) “new” Lincoln LS, and this week, it’s paying for the all “new” MKwhatevers.
Right on the money and a great read!
“It’s yet another travesty-on-wheels: a tarted-up something else rather than a glorious original, a car that embodies the values of a once proud brand, sold at the proper price point.”
I see no reason to call the MKS a travesty. I am not a Lincoln fan but the car looks decent and has a very nice interior. I think part of the problem is that the people who control the automotive press are of a certain age and have all of these nostalgic views of domestic brands. Personally, I dont know much about what Lincoln stood for other than huge cars in the 60s and 70s and I really don’t care. I think Lincoln needs new product that can compete with Lexus (forget abotu BMW) and the MKS seems to do just that. Lincoln isnt going to be able to go after a drastically younger demographic so they need to stick with the more traditional definition of luxury. as for the MKS being unoriginal, the same could be said about the Escalade, ES350, RX350, LX470, etc. I could go on but you get the point. I find it curious that there has been so much criticism of the of MKs for sharing a “lesser” platform when it’s done by many luxury vehicles. Of course since its a Ford product it just has to be wrong so that explains a lot.
sj1204, please provide me some of those links for the CTS and Malibu, and also do any of those sources say WHY the CTS or Malibu are so good? I can give you a step-by-step breakdown of WHY the Malibu is NOT superior to the Camry or Accord, and I can also give you a breakdown of why the CTS is NOT class-leading. I have criticized both the Malibu and the Accord for not having anything competitive to go toe-to-toe with the Camry Hybrid. We do know that the Accord is getting a diesel in a few years.
Even *if* the Malibu has a better ride or a better interior than the Camry (both of which are debatable) it simply CANNOT be called class-leading or superior to the Camry when it’s inferior on many fundamental points. It has less airbags, inferior rear seat space, no rear headrests, an inferior V6 powertrain (in both power and fuel economy) and it goes on and on.
I totally agree that the Malibu is competitive, but it is NOT class leading or superior to the Camry.
In general, many of Ford’s and GM’s recent products *are* competitive, but they are certainly not class-leading.
I’m wondering if you’ve read all my posts. I have criticized ALL competitors in the compact class for not matching the Corolla’s fuel efficiency. That includes the Civic and the Mazda 3.
The current 2008 Corolla (with manual tranny) gets 28/37 EPA mpg. The Focus gets 24/35 mpg (manual or auto). The Astra gets no better than 24/32 EPA, or 24/30 depending on which tranny you get. Sorry, but I don’t see how the Focus and Astra “almost match” the Corolla in fuel economy. The Corolla gets 4 mpg better in city and 2 mpg better highway compared to the Focus, and it gets 4 mpg better city and 5 mpg better highway compared to the Astra. If you want, you can compare the 26/35 mpg the auto Corolla gets, which is still better than either the Focus or Astra.
The 2.4L Toyota engine is thoroughly mediocre, so I won’t even waste my time talking about that engine.
I thought I saw higher ratings on the Astra but they must have been the 2007 numbers. It is a good bit lower than corolla but that is the case for almost every small car on the market. Toyota went for fuel efficiency at the expense of power and torque and others have not followed that lead. I guess other makers feel that decent power is desirable in a small car. If they all started making 1.8L engines they would likely get mileage closer to that of the corolla.
I don’t have time to provide links to all of the good reviews of the Malibu but there are plenty. its also been named to C&D 10Best (not camry) and Automobile Allstars for 2008 (not camy or accord). If you don’t believe the reviews that is your choice. I am only telling you what the industry is saying.
The Malibu does have rear headrests. Check interior pics on any site.
The camry has better mileage and……….thats it. The camry has more power but instrumented testing shows the Aura/Malibu to be no slower than the camry and faster than the new 268hp Accord. If you care about V6 mileage or want a full hybrid the Camry is your only choice. If you are about other things the Malibu is a decent choice. edmunds.com and others have commented the Malibu interior is superior to the camry and is comparable to the Accord. The review on this site stated the malibu has softer materials than the new Accord.
Its impossible to say there is a clear cut benchmark in this class or any other these days because cars are so good. You say GM doesnt have any benchmarks and I say the same could be said for Hyundai, Nissan and with a few exceptions Toyota.
The CTS has been named to 10Best and Karl the editor in chief of edmunds.com said he feels its the benchmark in the class. It is not the best handling car in its class based on its size and weight but when you look at the whole package it is very competitive. It’s also MTCOTY as you know and they put it best by saying its like a 530i for $12k less. Those who say its not a contender for best in class fail to note the car is really the size of the GS or 530 even though its priced like the much lighter 3 series.
when you say none of GM’s products are class leading are you counting the Acadia/Enclave, Escalade, Tahoe, Vette or Silverado/Sierra? I would say all of those vehicles are contenders for class leading. I certainly don’t see a 3 row crossover on the market under $40k that is superior to the Acadia. I hope you dont content the Pilot is better. The CX-9 is nice but lacks the space of fuel economy of the Acadia.
Ford isnt as good as GM but I would have to say the 2008 Edge is the best amongst the 5 seat crossovers. Maybe the 2009 Murano will change that.
here’s a link to a review talking about how inferior the Malibu it vs the camry.
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071121/OPINION03/711210369/1386/AUTO01
Not even close to a benchmark.
“Success is a matter of luck. Ask any failure.”
I don’t remember where that quote comes from, and I’m too lazy to google it.
Johnson: sj1204, please provide me some of those links for the CTS and Malibu, and also do any of those sources say WHY the CTS or Malibu are so good?
Well, Car & Driver just named both the Malibu and the CTS to its annual “10 Best List.” The Accord is also on the list. Meanwhile, not a Toyota in sight…
sj1204: “Toyota went for fuel efficiency at the expense of power and torque and others have not followed that lead. I guess other makers feel that decent power is desirable in a small car.”
I looked on autos.com for the Corolla’s 0-60 time; it’s 8.9 seconds. The Cobalt and G5? 8.8.
I can’t imagine that too many people just gotta have that extra tenth of a second and are wiling to give up a pretty fair amount of fuel economy to get it.
By the way, it could be that other makers “feel that decent power is desirable in a small car” but they don’t act on this impulse much differently than Toyota. Out of nearly 40 compact cars listed (with base engines), only 5 have 0-60 times of better than 8.6 seconds. The two hottest listed are the Mazdaspeed 3 and the Mini. No surprise.
Toyota did build a much more powerful Corolla but quit – must not be all that much demand for it.
Don’t make what people don’t want. That’s smart marketing.
first of all, everyone except Honda offers engines larger than 1.8L in their small cars. Secondly, the Cobalt was timed at 8.4 secs with an auto in C&D when it was new. That is pretty quick for an auto and faster than any time I have seen for an auto civic or corolla. I know the civic auto is about 9 secs. Furthermore the 5-60 times are more indicative of real world situations and the gap between the corolla and larger engined cars will only grow when considering that stat. Testing procedures used by magazines help small engined, torque deprived cars post more respectable numbers. I dont know why other automakers chose not to offer engines as small as Toyota, you would have to take that up with them. It seems to me cars like the 3 are doing OK in spite of not getting 40mpg so its obvious not everyone wants the same thing in a small car. There was no demand for Toyota’s XRS Corolla due to its funny styling and medicore performance provided by the torqueless 1.8L motor. In addition that motor was cancelled because it couldnt meet emissions so the model was doomed from the start. GM, Mazda, Honda and Nissan continue ot offer higher powered compacts so I suspect that some people do want these cars contrary to your assertion that Toyota knows best.
Secondly, the Cobalt was timed at 8.4 secs with an auto in C&D when it was new. That is pretty quick for an auto and faster than any time I have seen for an auto civic or corolla. I know the civic auto is about 9 secs. Furthermore the 5-60 times are more indicative of real world situations and the gap between the corolla and larger engined cars will only grow when considering that stat. Testing procedures used by magazines help small engined, torque deprived cars post more respectable numbers.
Are you saying the majority of buyers in this segment care about a .5 second difference in 0-60 time? I think they made the right trade off here. If people don’t like the power they would migrate to other choices.
sj1204, what you’ve posted is NOT what the industry is saying, it’s only what a select few news sources are saying. Again, most of the news sources praising the Malibu have not specifically mentioned exactly WHY the new Malibu is so good. Most have simply mentioned that it’s competitive and that it’s a big improvement over previous GM offerings.
sj1204:
If they all started making 1.8L engines they would likely get mileage closer to that of the corolla.
That’s debatable. And the Astra has a 1.8L, but is still pales in comparison to the Corolla’s 1.8L fuel efficiency.
Fact is, if other automakers *could have*, they would have … but, they didn’t.
Honda’s 1.8L makes more HP but has a less usable torque curve than the new 1.8L Toyota engine. Also Honda is one of the best in the world when it comes to 4 cylinder engines, yet Honda’s 1.8L does not beat Toyota’s 1.8L in fuel efficiency.
Sorry, but if Honda’s 1.8L doesn’t beat Toyota’s 1.8L in fuel economy, then any 1.8L that other automakers would have come up with likely would have fallen short as well.
sj1204:
If you are about other things the Malibu is a decent choice.
Well, let’s see. If you’re about safety, then the new Malibu is not the best choice as both the Camry and Accord provide better satefy features. If you’re all about having a large and comfortable rear seat area, then the new Malibu is also not for you as the Camry has the best rear seat area in the class. If you want a great 4 cylinder powertrain, the Malibu is not for you as the Accord has a class-leading 4 cylinder offering in this class. If want a V6 powertrain, the Malibu is not the best choice because the Camry V6 offers more power and better fuel economy, and while the Accord V6 might not be faster than a Malibu V6, it *still* gets better fuel economy so the Malibu falls short either way.
You posted an article from Detroit News, one that bashes the Camry and praises the Malibu. This is only one source, and a quite a biased one at that. It called the interior of the Malibu better overall than both the Camry and Accord. One can argue that the Malibu has a better interior than the Camry, but not the Accord. The Accord at the moment has a best-in-class interior.
geeber:
Well, Car & Driver just named both the Malibu and the CTS to its annual “10 Best List.” The Accord is also on the list. Meanwhile, not a Toyota in sight…
Is there an explanation of exactly WHY the CTS and Malibu made the list? Historically, the C&D “ten best” list has been a vague, ambigious list that has mostly been just the opinion of C&D. They rarely go into detail about why each car in the list was chosen.
sj1204:
I dont know why other automakers chose not to offer engines as small as Toyota, you would have to take that up with them. It seems to me cars like the 3 are doing OK in spite of not getting 40mpg so its obvious not everyone wants the same thing in a small car.
I’ll tell you why: it’s because most automakers simply CAN’T make a 1.8L that equals Toyota’s engine in fuel economy. If they WERE able to, they already WOULD HAVE built one.
Because most other automakers cannot compete with Toyota (or Honda) on fuel economy, they choose to focus more on performance instead to somehow differentiate their small car offerings from Toyota/Honda. The problem is most people in the small car segment are not looking for performance.
And again you’re wrong. The Astra features a 1.8L, not just the Civic. How about we look at the GM 1.6L in the Aveo? That’s even smaller than Toyota’s 1.8L so in theory it should be more economical, but it’s not.
The 3 is doing OK because it offers some great style, in combination with a fun ride, good features, decent reliability and a decent price. None of the competition including the Focus, Cobalt, Elantra, Astra offer the same sort of combination the 3 does.
Despite that, the 3 sales are only a fraction of what the Corolla and Civic sales are, as well as only a fraction of what Cobalt sales are at.
No, not EVERYONE wants the same thing in a small car, but the vast majority of people in the small car segment DO want a reliable, economical, fuel efficient, dependable car with minimum maintenance. The Corolla and Civic are still the best choice for the vast majority.
With fuel prices continuing to climb, fuel economy will become even more important to consumers, especially those in the small car segment.