An unfortunate truth. If the Detroit 3 bit the dust, the US parts makers could not automatically start making parts for an expanded Japanese industry in North America. Hond uses Six Sigma quality levels and extremely tight tolerances. So do Toyota and Nissan. The Detroit 3 accept a much lower tolerance and defect rate.
Having said that, the situation is improving, and eventually they will all build to the same standards. The Chinese will have to get on this learning curve as well if they want part of the global action.
The “Why is that so hard to understand statement ?” was not directed at you and the excellent points made by you and others…just a general frustration at the situation our auto companies are in. They are no more or less different than any company, trying to show a profit where they can find it.
A little frustration at the blame game with the squeeze put on GM,Ford, Chry. by the credit crunch. Planned obsolescence is the nature of the beast. Cars that last ARE NOT good for the economy nor should they be.
Cars need to change and evolve in an orderly fashion…and breaking down is part of that process.
Are cars built to a price? Certainly. Could we get cars that last much longer for the same money? I don’t think so. You’re using the tail (observed failure of parts) to wag the dog (cars have to be affordable). It’s the other way around.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. My relatives in the car business tell me this; it’s not my idea (incl. Asian cars by the way) 7 dealerships all together,and they all agree. The dirty little secret the public shouldn’t know or talk about. I repeat, it’s parts and service (incl. finance and ext. warranties) that helps them survive MORE than profit on the sale.
Toyota is no different than GM etc. in where their profits come from.
GM sells as many cars as Toyota world wide; the credit crunch and much greater overhead is killing them. You watch…whether they get the bailout or not, restructuring will cost many thousands their job.
What Henry Ford said years ago is still true today.
“I’d give my cars away if I could have the parts market.” (paraphrase of course)
“Are cars built to a price?” Cars are priced to sell by supply and demand, often having very little to do with their built quality.
As I’ve state before, cars can be made more reliable at little or no cost in many areas.
Certainly. Could we get cars that last much longer for the same money? I don’t think so.
Exactly…And that’s the point…It’s NOT planned obsolesce…but just building to what the consumer can afford. From past experience Toyota/Nissan and Honda have done a much better job at it then GM/Ford and Chryco.
I’m a former service manager for both a Honda dealer and a Lexus/Toyota dealer and I can tell you that I’ve seen them both go way over what was expected to take care of customers. Having said that, I can name you both Honda and Lexus/Toy dealers(as well as others)that I wouldn’t trust if they told me I just needed a 10 cent part to fix all my problems, I’d check behind them and watch them just to feel safe… But sadly the root of the problem with the struts is most likely due to being made in the US(or mexico) not Japan. That is where the quality issues lie with Lexus/Honda.
My Chevy Prisms for outlasted many more expensive cars…incl my SAABs and bros, Mercedes. Sewing machines, tractors house construction, stereo components etc… and cars…all have dubious quality control vs price practices.
Put a Pontiac name plate on a Chevy…jack up the price and for years the customer neither cared nor bothered to research the difference thinking he was getting a superior product.
I’m still convinced from my experiences that price and quality necessarily vary directly. In the case of Mercedes they may vary inversely.
Some of the most reliable cars on the road are some of the least expensive. Corollas, Civics, Sentras etc.
Some of the least reliable cars on the road are some of the most expensive. Range Rover is the poster child for this. They’re in a class all by themselves when it comes to being unreliable.
I wouldn’t put Rover in this catagory because everything is prolematic, but I would say that a BMW 7-series is a good exsample. It has the same drive train as the 5-series, but far worse reliablility. That’s because it has far more gee-gaws to fail, and they do. MB would fit the bill as well (S vs. C series).
Technology increases exponentially, not linearly. Autos have under gone more change in the last 5 years than they did in the previous ten, than they did in the previous 25 and so on. Recyclable cars with modular components and flex fuel capability incl. nat. gas are important technologies to include in the next generation if auto comps. are to be effective. Even at that, the change over will be so rapid that longevity will take a back seat to flexibility . IMHO
"Put a Pontiac name plate on a Chevy…jack up the price and for years the customer neither cared nor bothered to research the difference thinking he was getting a superior product.
Yeah, but the Pontiacs came with 8 A/C vents instead of 4, and GM intentionally put louder mufflers on Pontiacs! So, to the uninformed, the Pontiac was perceived as having a more powerful engine and more powerful A/C. Of course, this was hogwash, but since perceptions sell cars, this worked very well for GM for many years.
And, while GM invested millions into making the doors sound more secure when they were slammed (in order to give the perception of solidity), Japanese competitors were carefully improving their overall quality so that the cars really were better in reality and not just in a perceived manner.
I’m not sure I agree - cars changed much more from, say, 1900 to 1920 than they did from 1988 to 2008. Or, put it another way-a 2008 Mustang is a lot more like a '68 Mustang than a '68 mustang is like a '28 Ford Model A.
If you just look at the IC engine proper, your right.
But I’m including the HUGE increase in computer controlled automatic car functions…example few of us realize that most cars are already flexfuel capable with minimal alterations to fuel system (corrosive nature of alcohol based fuels) and certification by auto companies. The and the plethora of standard safety conveinience features…so what was the first 50 years, the move from mechanical to hydraulic brake lines ?
I counted a dozen electric motors in my standard equipped 04 before I stopped counting. My 90’s cars had a couple…need I go on. just my humble opinion.
As a math major…exponential growth in technology is a safe statement to make in most fields, esp. automotive.
Oh…just to kick a dead horse, the last few years have shown such a dramatic increase in body and safety feature design (due to the computer) we are capable of maybe surviving a crash of 100 mph. You couldn’t say that in the first 90 plus years of auto manufacturing. Sorry for the rant.
In this case, I think it is a matter of opinion. Which do you consider more of an advancement, advancing from a Model T Ford which required the driver to manually adjust the timing as he drove, or the development of ABS, ASM, TCS, and computerized engine management? It depends on your perspective.