By Phil Ressler
October 23, 2007
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.
Subscribe to New Content Alerts
Back to Top
End of Comments
October 1st, 2007 at 6:42 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:02 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:04 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:05 am
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.)
October 1st, 2007 at 7:06 am
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.
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:53 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:03 am
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…..!
October 1st, 2007 at 8:05 am
“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”.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:08 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:09 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:10 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:23 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:29 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:30 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:35 am
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).
October 1st, 2007 at 8:38 am
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…
October 1st, 2007 at 8:38 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:39 am
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!!
October 1st, 2007 at 8:39 am
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…
October 1st, 2007 at 8:45 am
“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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:49 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:49 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:52 am
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?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:04 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:07 am
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.
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.
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.
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am
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).
October 1st, 2007 at 9:17 am
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
October 1st, 2007 at 9:41 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:48 am
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…..?
October 1st, 2007 at 9:58 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:04 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:05 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:10 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:13 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:33 am
Thank You.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:37 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:45 am
@ 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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:58 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:05 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:08 am
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)
October 1st, 2007 at 11:11 am
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
October 1st, 2007 at 11:13 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:14 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:17 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:29 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:30 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:40 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:47 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:50 am
Phil, are you 213Cobra?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:51 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:57 am
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:14 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
“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.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
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.”
October 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
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.”
October 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
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
October 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:10 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
” 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.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
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?
October 1st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
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
October 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
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
October 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
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
October 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
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…..
October 1st, 2007 at 4:58 pm
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?
October 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
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
October 1st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
“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?
October 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
“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.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
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.”
October 1st, 2007 at 5:41 pm
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
October 1st, 2007 at 5:48 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:52 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:57 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:59 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:59 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:04 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:09 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:10 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:15 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
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
October 1st, 2007 at 6:49 pm
> 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.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
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?)
October 1st, 2007 at 7:14 pm
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
October 1st, 2007 at 7:24 pm
starlightmica :
Actually, we picked up another 1000 uniques, thanks to the UAW strike. So we're up to 14k a day!
Right. Carry on.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:31 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:14 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:28 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:28 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:31 pm
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!
October 1st, 2007 at 8:41 pm
“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.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:03 pm
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
October 1st, 2007 at 9:16 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:19 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:28 pm
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
October 1st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:42 pm
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
October 1st, 2007 at 9:57 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:03 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:14 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:29 pm
“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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:29 pm
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.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 am
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 am
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:55 am
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 am
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 am
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:01 am
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
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:13 am
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
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:20 am
…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
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:32 am
“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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:43 am
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!
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:44 am
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 am
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”?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 am
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 am
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 am
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?
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 am
@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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
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).
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 am
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 am
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
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?
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
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
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:48 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
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…
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:57 am
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:34 am
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 am
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
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
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
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
…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
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
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!
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:56 pm
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
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”?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
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?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
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
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
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
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
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.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:14 am
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:31 am
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:38 am
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
October 4th, 2007 at 2:59 am
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
October 4th, 2007 at 3:35 am
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
October 4th, 2007 at 9:51 am
“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.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:52 am
“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.
October 4th, 2007 at 10:04 am
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…
October 4th, 2007 at 10:24 am
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
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
October 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
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
October 4th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
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
October 4th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
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.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
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
October 4th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
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
October 4th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
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.
October 5th, 2007 at 1:09 am
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.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:27 am
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
October 5th, 2007 at 2:54 am
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
October 5th, 2007 at 11:12 am
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.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
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
October 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
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.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
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?
October 5th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
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.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
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
October 5th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
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
October 5th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
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.
October 5th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
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
October 5th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
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.
October 5th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
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.
October 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
…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
October 5th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
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.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
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
October 5th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
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.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
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
October 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
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
October 6th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
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?
October 6th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
“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…
October 6th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
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.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
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.
October 7th, 2007 at 2:15 am
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