Actually, this is one area where GM does really well. From the horror show of the early eighties, today’s GM product has a very nicely detailed engine compartment. That Fusion? Note how many items have added insulation, heat shields, etc. Makes me wonder if these parts are going to age well. For those who really put on high mileage or keep them for many years I would be concerned…

For the record – Toyota made due and extended the claim period on the sludge issue – Honda extended transferrable drivetrain warranties to 100k miles (In fact I’ve never read about GM or Ford doing the same for transmission problems and many of their cars had a much higher failure rate).
Toyota did make good on my brother’s sludge induced engine failure, but root canal would have been easier. Since his was one of the early failures, they refused to accept any culpability, instead blaming it on poor maintenance. Seems my brother had his oil changes elsewhere, not at the Stealership.

I am with jolo. Let’s see the 5 and 10 year stories. That would likely also answer Quasi’s question as well. The real problem anyone who let’s their quality fall will have is that once people expect failure, then each little problem reinforces that belief.

I use a 92 Sable to go to the railroad station. 209K miles, and yes, some poor paint. Third ignition switch, a couple of TFI modules, but car has been very reliable. Trans replaced at 160K. Many Ford products make excellent used car values in part because of perceived poor quality. A used Toyota is probably more reliable over the long haul, but the difference in purchase price of the used vehicle will more than pay for a few extra repairs. Check on eBay for used cars. You will see just as many used Fords with high mileage for sale as Toyotas.
BTW, what’s with the Pinto crap? 35 years in the auto industry might as well be the Jurassic Period. Better bring up the rust buckets from Japan, crappy Honda A/C’s and head gasket failures (mid 80’s Civics). We all could go on with this but the pattern is this: The Japanese have overall a better reliability record, but overall long term (150K on up) durability advantage is not so clear. Yes there are notable exceptions. Today the reliability gap is much closer than it used to be. Bigger differences today would be quality of interiors and refinement. The Japanese still are better here then the Americans.

VW’s 1.8T has a larger sludge problem than Toyota.
I know because I have one! Though my car is not sludged I am well aware of the problem. VW is not #1 or threating GM or Ford so the haters on the web give them a “free pass”.

Kixstart: I do not think Ford is planning on mega Toyota-Honda owner conversion now—-if they did they would be dreaming. What I think they are hoping for is to retain current Ford owners , pick off a few conquest conversions to stabilize market share, and start changing perceptions….I think this is a worthy short term goal.

Longer term (3-5 years)—if they are able to continue their quality improvements and design attractive and differentiated vehicles—-then and only then—can they reasonably expect to ask for the business of Toyota and Honda owners and expect consideration and trial.

Once customers are gone, it is extremely difficult to win them back, especially if they are satisfied with their current vehicle.

There are lots of very satisfied Honda and Toyota owners, and unless the vehicles start self-destructing just after the warranty ends, they aren’t going to be swayed by one or two good survey results, even from independent sources (such as Consumer Reports).

Ford, GM and Chrysler have no one but themselves to blame for their current predicament. Ford is making improvements, but changing customer perceptions will take a long time.

Screw that. Personal experience, the anectdotal experience of friends and acquaintances and the broad industry surveys and reports all point to a quality and reliability lead for Toyota and Honda. My Toyotas have treated me well (as has the dealer) and I see no reason to switch.

And it’s hard to believe there’s anything to the much ballyhooed “sludge” issue. I know at least 8 people with that engine – I have one, too – and no one I know has had any troule at all. This contrasts markedly with the number of people I know who were stranded on vacations by blown Ford transmissions or engines.

The article was flawed in a number of ways, as was documented in a Rutgers Law Review article published in September 1981.

First, the infamous memo does not say what Mother Jones said it did. Ford used that cost calculation because the federal government required to do so, and it referred to ALL cars, not just the Pinto.

Second, the article refers to a bladder that could have made the gas tank safer, and castigates Ford for not using it. One problem – I don’t recall ANY car maker using this type of bladder in gas tanks at that time. So why should Ford be singled out for not using it?

Third, the number of actual fire deaths resulting from gas tank ruptures in Pintos was wildly overestimated by Mother Jones. The final tally was not out of line with other small cars of that time period. The Pinto’s overall safety record, when measured in deaths per number of vehicles on the road, was average for ALL types of fatalities, and only slightly higher than average for fire-related fatalities.

The Pinto was designed and engineered when Detroit could make a car light and inexpensive, or sturdy, heavy and inexpensive. Light, strong and inexpensive just weren’t in the vocabulary at that time. Ford chose the former, because it needed the Pinto to have a low price and get good gas mileage (for the time).

It is worth noting that, as the 1970s wore on, the Pinto became progressively heavier as Ford beefed up the ENTIRE structure.

But this was hardly a problem unique to Ford among the domestics. Note that AMC chopped the back end off the Hornet to create the Gremlin because it didn’t have enough money to build a completely new subcompact. The result was a nose-heavy, overweight dog with no traction, because there was no weight over the drive wheels! But AMC did not have the skill or the money to build a truly light, efficient and strong small car. Detroit’s small-car engineering skills were deficient in the late 1960s.

The allegation that the Panther cars have unsafe gas tanks does not hold water when one looks at the details of the accidents. Several of the accidents involved Crown Victoria police cars being hit from behind by vehicles traveling at 70+ mph. There are precious few vehicles that can withstand that type of impact. In many cases the reason the victim lived to suffer from serious burns is because, in other vehicles, he or she would have been killed instantly in such a violent collision. There is no point in worrying about serious burns when the occupants were killed by the initial collision.

Your link regarding the Ford Explorer takes us to a personal injury law firm, which is hardly an impartial source of information. I note that, in the real world, Car & Driver was unable to make an Explorer roll after it deliberately blew out the tires. The SUV came to a stop – upright on all four tires – on its own.

Some of the website’s “articles” are misleading and employ typical legal doubletalk. For example, it says that, in regards to roof strength:

“…Ford engineering supervisor Christopher Brewer stated in a 2003 deposition that Ford didn’t make changes because the U.S. government didn’t require any.”

Translation – the Explorer met the government’s roof strength standards. If the government deemed the Explorer’s roof strength acceptable, one wonders why Ford should be required to spend extra money to make very expensive structural changes.

I’m not denying that Ford has had (very serious) problems. A company doesn’t lose market share and gush red ink when it is building vehicles that people want. Part of the reason that people don’t want Fords is because, during the 1990s and early 21st century, it built too many vehicles with subpar reliability (particularly the Taurus/Sable and Windstar with the awful 3.8 V-6 and guaranteed-to-grenade automatic transmission).

It failed to keep former winners up-to-date (first Taurus, Focus).

The company put far too many eggs in the light-truck basket, which is now coming back to bite it on the butt as gasoline races towards $4 a gallon.

But let’s keep the criticism in perspective, please. I’m not inclined to trust personal injury law firms or Mother Jones when it comes to finding out The Truth About Various Fords.

I do see a major failure still is Mercury and Lincoln which are still outlets for mildly rebaged Fords. I do think Ford did the smartest thing and use Mazda and Volvo platforms in order to get much quicker acquianted with modern platforms and engines versus GM.

The problem then becomes – Do I want to buy a Ford or just go over and buy the Mazda or Volvo that it is based off of? With the Ford you get a bigger rebate or free financing for 60 months but those make the car depreciate faster leaving you with negative equity (and Ford is still stuffing the rental channels as they are moving from a direct fleet sales mix to having the dealers move fleets in order to count those shipments to dealers as retail sales).

In the end Ford is still partly privately owned by the Ford family – they are the true influence for the past and the future (maybe they’ve changed)

Putting the dodgy survey aside. Ford HAVE made big steps in the reliability and quality department. Umterp85 isn’t saying it’s on par with Toyota and Honda, but let’s give Ford some credit.

Ford still have a long way to go, but at least they’re going in the right direction. The next step is to put their money where their mouth is.

As for management, Ford do have some problems. But Alan Mulally has only been in the job for 18 months and in that time he’s:

Forced management to stop running departments like kingdoms and work with each other.

Killing the toxic corporate culture.

Cut some of their bloated portfolio (more on that later)

and ordered refocus on brands (i.e his insistence on making Lincoln a viable luxury marque)

That’s quite an achievement for 18 months. We can’t blame him for past management mistakes (i.e Pintos blowing up)

However, mistakes have been made. They sold Jaguar off and kept Volvo as their global luxury brand. I think this is a mistake as Volvo is a bit of an empty brand now and Jaguar are finding their feet with the XF.

So, in short, Ford isn’t perfect but it’s heading in the right direction. Now what it needs to do is woo customers back. Don’t tell people to buy your cars, make people WANT to buy your cars…..

Best bet – do like Honda and get it mostly right decade after decade.

Those initial quality tests are be really misleading too. I had two initial quality problems with my Honda CR-V in ‘99 when we bought it new. First was a gas strut that held the tailgate glass up. The other was a caster adjustment was that done wrong at the factory. Both were quickly and eagerly fixed by the local dealer (who did not even sell the car to me, was too high on their price by $3K). The car has been flawless since (157K miles now I think). We took care of it and it took care of us. Are either of those items reasons not to buy a car no – not at all but the data doesn’t hint those numbers might really mean.

A X-brand car with a blown engine and then a blown tranny at 5K miles would be counted the same as my car with two very minor mistakes. Besides it’s all under warranty so that changes things for the better. That said I don’t want a car that is going to have to be disassembled multiple times which risks damaging plastics and snap together fasteners which seldom work as well twice as they did the first time at the factory. Plus I never trust the dealer mechanics as much as I do the assembly line guys who put these vehicles together by the thousands. A case in point: my in-laws 2001 Saturn Vue which had the tranny out, the rear suspension out, the exhaust out, and the driveshafts all out within the warranty period chasing a squeak and a drumming sound. Turned out it was a CVT chain that needed adjustment (now making ominous sounds at 81K miles), and a heat shield on the exhaust system rattling at a certain rpm range. At least alot of plastic interior bits weren’t removed and then snapped back together.

There are SO many areas that a car’s reliability can be compromised. Who drives the car and how do they treat it? Who works on a car and whose parts do they use? What is the vehicle used for?

I have found sources for reasonably priced (sometimes cheaper) repair parts for both brands of our cars. In some cases the OEM stuff is cheaper than the aftermarket stuff. I know the OEM stuff lasted ~150K miles, why not use them again? IF I can get OEM at a reasonable price that is (tough to do without the internet).

I used to sell parts over the counter for one of the many FLAPS. After market quality varied WIDELY from white box generic rebuilt parts to full name brand stuff as everyone knows.

Do the quality surveys count any of the cars not dealer maintained? How could they?

Let’s assess the quality of vehicles at 150K miles. That will show people like me how good or bad a vehicle is. That allows owners to test the seats, rattles to develop, a few winters, some summers testing all that is brittle or that leaks, and a generation of little kids crawling all over it’s insides.

So far, the CR-V has been really good. Still wishing for an AWD lock and a 6th gear.

Over a period of 4 years over 9,000 people died mainly due to the Pinto / Town Car – (locating gas tank between rear bumper and rear axles causing it to deform – Ford initially put in a baffle shielding the tank from four sharp bolts to prevent leaking due to likelihood of damage to gas tank in rear end collisions and side impact beams to stop the door from deforming under collision allowing quick escape for occupants – total cost was ($5 per car for the baffle and $15 for the side impact beams) or $20 more per car and this made them much safer to the their customers – they were axed right before production to increase profit percentages and were not retested until later where the infamous memo came about showing the actuarial studies of deaths and payouts to estates compared to adding back in the bladder and side impact beam). Ford didn’t count on the punitive damages of $80 per case – Ford sent out task forces of laywers with NDAs and settlement offers in order to stave off new lawsuits – often visiting the hospitals right after the incident [like they did to a close friends family - my uncle decked that guy upside the head and knocked him out flat]). From Judge Posner’s trial of Ford Pinto – “The result of the Ford Pinto case indicate there is a belief held by most of the public that it is wrong for a corporation to make decisions which may sacrifice the lives of its customers in order to reduce the company’s cost or increase its profits.” http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm

> 300 from Firestone Ford Explorer Rollovers (this does not include other tire brands and rollovers b/c of such. 1/4 of us death toll is from single vehicle rollovers of which it is primarily SUVs). http://www.fordrollover.com/rollover_news.html

You have to consider the corporate culture that breeds these decisions and the makers that allow these to go on. We all know that the Big 2.8 managment lives privileged lives beyond reproach or question – they answer hardly to anyone but their own conscience (or lack thereof). I do applaud Mulally’s efforts and find him a breath of fresh air but in a poisoned atmosphere such as the Big 2.8 he will have little effect. The Accountants will make the decision as their major customers are the shareholders and not those who buy the vehicles.

Three points:

1) Other than a 1988 Mustang—I did not own any Fords until my 2005 Mustang and 2007 Lincoln MKX. So I am far from a Ford Fanboy. Between the ‘88 Mustang and the 2005 Mustang. I owned a wide range of vehicles including 2 VW’s, 2 BMW’s, 1 Chevy, 1 Honda, 2 Jeeps.

2) I feel the need to support Ford now because I do want at least one domestic auto producer to survive and of the three Ford has clearly earned my support due to better leadership (its no secret I like Mulally) improved quality / design and surprise—a great dealership experience. That said—-when they F up I have pointed it out (eg. not bringing current Euro Focus to market, retaining an empty suit like Fields etc) and will continue to do so. Unlike some—I do not cheer for their demise but rather will be glad if they are able to “make it” by focusing on the right things. Accordingly, I applaud those like Geeber and Katie P. that clearly are not Ford fanboys (girls) but balance their Ford criticism with plaudits when warranted.

3) While recognizing past Ford management has made major mistakes that have resulted in catstophic consequesnces for some (I would like you to send me a link that factually states Ford has killed 1000’s)—I cannot hold the current Ford Management team accountable for those errors and accordingly will not withhold my support. Thats like saying I will not buy Japanese or German products for the genocide they inflicted in WW2. Net, I cannot hold current Japanese and German people or companies that were willing accomplices (eg. BMW, VW, Daimler) accountable for those past mistakes…that would be plain stupid as they had nothing to do with it !

So how does Ford get the word out that their cars aren’t as breakable as they were in the past? Hire a firm to suvey them. Who else is going to do the survey, Ford employees?

The idea that the RDA Group fudged the numbers (unless proven otherwise) is ludicrious. They have a reputation to maintain too, and I’m sure if word got around that they’re fudging numbers to cast their customers in a more favorable light they’d be found out in a hurry.

For the record – Toyota made due and extended the claim period on the sludge issue – Honda extended transferrable drivetrain warranties to 100k miles (In fact I’ve never read about GM or Ford doing the same for transmission problems and many of their cars had a much higher failure rate).

They need to release the tests / surveys and statistics they used to create this report. I find it funny that Ford came out on top and they were the major sponsor for it in the first place.

Keep in mind “Things Gone Wrong” can include anything from a missing floormat to an inoperative transmission to some uninformed customer taking the car to the dealer to complain the mirrors won’t work, just to find out the switch was in the center toggle position. The sum total of these survey numbers is meaningless unless you weigh the nature and magnitude of the problems.

There’s no contest. The competition has already been held, and Detroit took the prize. I’m just clarifying the results.

Ford really HAS improved its vehicles over the past 4-5 years. The quality gains have been recorded by independent sources. Let’s at least give credit to one American company that appears to have swallowed its pride, copied what the best of the Japanese have been doing, and is reaping the benefits (and the customers are reaping those benefits, too).

Agreed. There is plenty of data, aside from this survey referenced here, to support the belief that at least some Ford vehicles, such as the Fusion, are quite reliable. It’s a bit early to say for sure — more time is required to evaluate the long term — but so far, so good.

I agree with your larger point – people harp on the Toyota sludge issue because…that is about the only major quality issue with Toyotas. And it really wasn’t that widespread. I have yet to run into anyone who experienced this problem. (It pains me to admit it as a Honda fan, but Honda’s problems with automatic transmissions hooked up to V-6 engines were much more widespread.)

However, to be fair here, this is a Ford thread, and the Dexcool and piston-slap problems affected GM vehicles, not Fords.

And, for what it’s worth, the people I know who have bought GM cars in the last 3-4 years have been having more problems with them than people who bought Fords during the same time frame. (Everyone I know who has a GM car with the 3.1, 3.4 or 3.8 V-6 has experienced the intake manifold gasket failure, which, in one case, required an engine rebuild.)

Ford really HAS improved its vehicles over the past 4-5 years. The quality gains have been recorded by independent sources. Let’s at least give credit to one American company that appears to have swallowed its pride, copied what the best of the Japanese have been doing, and is reaping the benefits (and the customers are reaping those benefits, too).

Now, Ford they could just do something about the styling of the Focus and Taurus…

So what you want to engage in, essentially, is a pissing contest about who can create the bigger screwup. If you want to haunt Ford about this instead of acknowledge (begrudgingly, if you have to) that they’ve taken steps to improve their defciencies, well I guess there’s no further discussion that can take place.

There’s no hyperbole here. Toyota does not have a perfect track record, but in the area of reliability, it has a supremely better one than most of its rivals. As a consumer, I can only play the odds, and it’s obvious who offers better odds.

The sludge references don’t really change those odds much, and they almost invariably attempt to distort these substantial differences between the track records.

“This begs the question: If FoMoCo’s initial quailty is SO good compared to Toyota and Honda (which i don’t believe!) then why are FoMoCo sales dropping every month (down almost 15% last month alone) like they are? *** Give me a Honda any day over a Ford. ***”

You just answered your own question.

BTW—while I lean domestic—you will see a pattern of fact based responses on several threads /topics from me that harpoon and lampoon the domestic 3 when they deserve it….for example…you might want to scroll down my TWAT choices this year, my call for Ford mgmt to can Mark Fields, and my bashing of GM regarding their lack of brand mgmt skills (this is just to name a few).