10 Cars That Sank Detroit

[fbrend123]

Not to get too political, but if you look at a map of the last election and who voted for whom, you'll see that the upper midwest where I live is solidly one color. The states of Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin basically swung the election. There is no way in h*** the new congress will not bail out the auto companies. To not do so would be political malpractice.

Now whether it's a good idea or not, that's a different question...

Can't respond to that without my BP elevating considerably, except to say that congress in its present form couldn't give a rat's a** about the auto companies per se. Here in Michigan we know where the campaign contributions come from.

[crokett]

Not to get too political, but if you look at a map of the last election and who voted for whom, you'll see that the upper midwest where I live is solidly one color. The states of Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin basically swung the election. There is no way in h*** the new congress will not bail out the auto companies, not to mention Gov. Granholm. To not do so would be political malpractice.

Now whether it's a good idea or not, that's a different question...

[Mods--if you think this is too political you can delete it]

Not deleted since but we are watching it.

[BobSch]

Easy fix for the Big Three? Fire all the executives and replace them with people that have some vision and are willing to take the long view, not just the next quarter's profit.

I wonder what Warren Buffet is up to these days???

[430752]

Here's why

Detroit is in trouble, because when I got my driver's license in 1988 I had been lusting over Japanese steel for years. What, you expected me to drool over the K-Car? The crappy cutlasses, rivieras, and etc. from olds and buick? The ford escort? what about the lebaron with the turbo that cooked after 10K miles? The nuetered mustang of the late 70's or early 80's? or in many ways worse yet the 5.0 mustang that would go like snot in a straight line but that a stick shift civic could beat as long as there was at least one turn involved? What was the difference between the camaro, firebird, trans am and etc. from that time? How could I get excited about putting on plastic body cladding and calling a pinto a pontiac? I can think of only one car I desired from that time, and it was the Grand National. Gone were the cool cars from years past, gone were good looking cars from detroit. Yeah, the game had changed after the oil shocks, etc., but Japan managed to turn out some nice stuff, do did Germany. Detroit was too busy turning out what it wanted and expected us to buy it. I've got no bias against Detroit, and I've since owned two detroit cars in my life, but I've got no fondness, loyalty, affection, desire or dreams for detroit either. All my elders had to be convinced to even give Japan a try, for me the thought never occurred that I wouldn't shop Japan (or Korea for that matter) when looking for a car.

This is all to say they lost a generation of car buyers, you can't recover from that.

[JR]

This is all to say they lost a generation of car buyers, you can't recover from that.

Those are some prety poignant comments.

I might add a word or two. Detroit has come a long way since the 80s. Chrysler can design a car without every touching pencil to paper. All the Big 3 have improved their quality and reliability dramatically since that time.

Unfortunately, they have been focusing American production mainly on big vehicles - minivans, pickup trucks, SUVs. A few years ago this was good stuff. Americans couldn't get enough of these things. Once the gas prices shot up - again, and for umpteenth time - those vehicles looked a lot less interesting to the American driver. Well, it takes a long time to change over to a different set of vehicles, much longer than it takes for oil prices to change.

It seems to me we need some method to assure that the buying public wants American vehicles which are competitive with those made around the world. I'm not sure I know exactly how that is to be done, but here are couple of ideas.

1. Push. Insist American mfrs make higher mileage vehicles, inlcuding SUVs and pickups. I like V8s as much as the next guy, but we don't need them.
2. Pull. Tax higher consumption. Go ahead, buy a gas guzzler. It will cost you (a lot) more to register it each year. This is what happens in Germany and Japan and is a major reason those countries produce good cars with high mileage.

JR

[Russianwolf]

Those are some prety poignant comments.

I might add a word or two. Detroit has come a long way since the 80s. Chrysler can design a car without every touching pencil to paper. All the Big 3 have improved their quality and reliability dramatically since that time.

Unfortunately, they have been focusing American production mainly on big vehicles - minivans, pickup trucks, SUVs. A few years ago this was good stuff. Americans couldn't get enough of these things. Once the gas prices shot up - again, and for umpteenth time - those vehicles looked a lot less interesting to the American driver. Well, it takes a long time to change over to a different set of vehicles, much longer than it takes for oil prices to change.

It seems to me we need some method to assure that the buying public wants American vehicles which are competitive with those made around the world. I'm not sure I know exactly how that is to be done, but here are couple of ideas.

1. Push. Insist American mfrs make higher mileage vehicles, inlcuding SUVs and pickups. I like V8s as much as the next guy, but we don't need them.
2. Pull. Tax higher consumption. Go ahead, buy a gas guzzler. It will cost you (a lot) more to register it each year. This is what happens in Germany and Japan and is a major reason those countries produce good cars with high mileage.

JR

I was reading yesterday a proposal to increase the federal tax on gas by $.01 every month for the next 4 years. I don't think it's a bad idea. Since you know it's in the pipe, you could better budget for it, and it would increase incentive to get higher milage cars on the road.

I hate that gas is back down at $2/gal. Now nothing will get done and it will go back to the status quo. Until the next price hike, and everyone will complain and ask "why aren't we ready for this" when Europe has been living like this for decades.

[dbhost]

1. Push. Insist American mfrs make higher mileage vehicles, inlcuding SUVs and pickups. I like V8s as much as the next guy, but we don't need them.
2. Pull. Tax higher consumption. Go ahead, buy a gas guzzler. It will cost you (a lot) more to register it each year. This is what happens in Germany and Japan and is a major reason those countries produce good cars with high mileage.

JR

First off, V-8 engine powered vehicles CAN be made more fuel efficient. The NUMBER of cylinders has nothing to do with fuel efficiency. Ford Motor Company is dropping the 4.2L V-6 in favor of the 4.6L V-8 in the F150 because the V-8 gets better mileage, produces more power, and has proved more durable. The typical factory tuning, including intake / exhaust /gearing etc... for most vehicles, but particularly American made vehicles is oriented as a compromise between performance, efficiency, and cost effectiveness. A good example is, since I am familiar with the 2004 - 2008 Ford F150. My truck is a 5.4L V-8 Supercab 4x4 with 3.73 gears, 2.5 inch leveling lift, stock tune, stock exhaust, and a K&N drop i filter. I get, on average, 15.4 MPG city, and 20.1 MPG highway. Which I must admit is slightly high for this configuration, the larger than stock tires should reduce the mileage, but didn't.

A friend of mine, with a truck that was otherwise identical before we started modifying our trucks has the following differences.
4.56 gear sets, K&N 77 series cold air intake, Edge Evolution programmer, Fabtech 6" Stage II lift kit, BFGoodrich 35x12.50/17 Mud Terrain tires, Magnaflow cat back dual exhaust. His mileage with all this modification? 17.2MPG city, 22.3 MPG highway.

No it's not the 32MPG highway that my Saturn SL2 gets, but it is certainly not unreasonable for a full size, lifted 4x4 super cab pickup truck that can (and frequently does) tow a 32 foot travel trailer or a 30 foot construction trailer.

I am leaving the tax suggestion alone other than to say I have nothing kind to say about ANY suggestion that there is any legitimate purpose for the Government sucking more out of us.

I agree about the fact that I wish gas wasn't below $2.00 a gallon right now. The pressure is off of the political types to support alternative fuels, so nothing will get done until the next energy crisis. We don't need to eliminate big vehicles, we don't need to raise taxes. We do need to insist on higher efficiency from the bigger vehicles that can be squeezed out of the models in current production, the aftermarket is proving that, AND we need to push HARD for development of some sort of sustainable drop in replacement for gasoline that can be domestically produced....

[fbrend123]

I was reading yesterday a proposal to increase the federal tax on gas by $.01 every month for the next 4 years. I don't think it's a bad idea. Since you know it's in the pipe, you could better budget for it, and it would increase incentive to get higher milage cars on the road.

I hate that gas is back down at $2/gal. Now nothing will get done and it will go back to the status quo. Until the next price hike, and everyone will complain and ask "why aren't we ready for this" when Europe has been living like this for decades.

Sorry, guys, but if the gooberment is going to manipulate my lifestyle any further through taxes, then I'll liquidate everything, hide the proceeds, and go on the dole. I don't fancy anyone telling me what kind of car I can drive, control its use, or mess with any other part of my life. I've been a producer, taxpayer, and contributor all my life (I'm 70), and still working full-time, but if the voters of this country, through their reps, are going to dictate the way I live, then they can darn well be responsible for my maintenance, too. Atlas shrugged.

I think I'll quit this thread. BP is going up, again.

[prlundberg]

I think misperception is as much of a problem as anything.

Somebody mentioned here that a stock 80's Civic could beat a 5.0 Mustang if one turn was involved. I owned an 84 5.0 GT and a 2001 Civic and let me tell you, the Mustang could run circles around that Civic. The notion that an 80's Civic would be better is laughable. But then again the Civic wasn't and still isn't a perfomance car, so that's apples to oranges.

Interesting car, that Civic. Great reviews and ratings from all the press. We bought it new and had it five years and 75,000 miles. During that time the front struts failed, the A/C failed, drivers door weatherstripping was replaced, sunroof weatherstripping was replaced, there were more squeaks and rattles than I could keep track of, the windows wouldn't go up at freeway speeds, the body was full of dings and dents due to very thin sheetmetal, and the transmission was failing when we traded it off. It wasn't a bad car, but it was nothing spectacular. Yet that car still held it's value very well and still is one of the top rated used cars despite well-known suspension and transmission issues.

Now a family man, the Civic has been replaced with a Grand Caravan, which I bought two years old at about a $5000-$6000 discount compared to a similar used Sienna or Odyssey. Been a solid van so far and so much more comfortable for me to sit in than the others I test drove, at least in the front seats (Stow n Go is basically kid's seating). Not to mention the rear suspension can handle a full load while keeping the tires square to the road, no modern Japanese van can claim that. It was a great value and continues to be so.

I keep hearing about how bad the domestic cars are but that just hasn't been my experience. Every car manufacturer has strengths and weaknesses, I think if more people would think for themselves rather than what magazines tell them they would be happier.

Don't get me wrong the big three have made many mistakes. But really, the Astro? That was a very good cargo van and an effective stopgap small van for the few years before GM got the "dustbuster" vans out in 1990, after that point contrary to what the article implies the Astro was not their bread-and-butter van. In the meantime, the Japanese didn't have ANYTHING competive with Chrysler. The article is obviously biased to appeal to the ignorant.

[crokett]

JR, there have been efforts to tax higher gas consumption. The automakers have good lobbyists. What really needs to be done is cut some of the HP levels of these cars. Who really needs a 300+HP family sedan? Knock 100 HP off most of these cars and that would cause MPG rates to rise dramaitically.

Edited to add...

Phil, interesting comments about the Grand Caravan. This past weekend I replaced an '00 Grand Voyager with an Odyssey. My in-laws have an '02 Odyssey. A bit newer but about the same mileage as the Voyager. Their Odyssey drives and rides much better than my Grand Voyager did. No squeaks, rattles, etc. Steering is still tight and crisp. Aside from normal maintenance, a change of brake pads and a new timing belt/water pump at 110k miles, my FIL has put no money into the car. The Grand Voyager had 2 loose strut towers in front and an undiagnosed suspension problem in the rear when I drove it to the dealer. Steering was sloppy. In the last 6 months I've replaced the plugs/wires, new front rotors, new front pads and replaced a rear brake cylinder that was leaking. I've also had issues with a coolant leak and had to replace the lines to the transmission cooler. This year will be the first Christmas in 3 years that when I get to Indianapolis I won't be worried about fluids leaking from somewhere on the van. My perspective is the US cars are not as bad as perception says they are but they are still not as good as Japanese made. I've owned a Chrysler, Ford, Saturn, Nissan, Honda, Pontiac (well actually Toyota), Plymouth and now Honda in that order. The ones that did not have parts break before I thought they should were the Nissan and Honda. It is too early to tell on the 2nd Honda. The first Honda was a Civic we sold for 3k. My first Chrysler was approx same age and miles as the Civic. I sold it for 125 bucks. My Plymoth van was approx same age and miles as the Civic. I sold it for less than 1/3 of that 3K. There's a reason those cars hold their value.

[JR]

First, let me apologize to fbrend123. I really don't want to raise your blood pressure! It's meant to be a friendly conversation with an exchange of ideas.

Now, it's true that what I wrote, with no sugar coating, does mean to a certain extent that the law would "dictate the way I live." My intention was to suggest ways we could assure our vehicles were for the most part more efficient. It doesn't mean we can't have more powerful (less fuel efficient) vehicles, only that it would cost a lot more to have them.

My argument is economic, not social. I'm purposely leaving out the greenhouse gasses, dominance by foreign oil-producing countries, labor cost, and other arguments that get lumped in here. I am suggesting that our car makers need a market in which the fuel economy requirements are fairly stable. Without that stability, the type of vehicle demanded by the public will vary too widely for the mfrs to maintain a steady supply.

The American appetite for less fuel efficiency is fed by relatively low fuel prices. When the prices fluctuate by 100% as they did in the last two years, the appetite suddently changes. Now there are no American vehicles avaialable to match the market requirement. Then the price drops dramatically, and the market reverses itself. We are picking on the Big 3 in this thread. Both Ford and GM, and to a lesser extent Chrysler, are very successful making popular fuel-efficient cars in foreign countries. Even though GM has dozens of models avaialable overseas that could fit the high-efficiency requirement, it takes a long time to qualify a car for US consumption - safety and emissions tests, and so on.

It is my contention, (don't worry, fbrend123, my ideas are almost never viewed by others as having the wisdom I think they have!), that artificially high fuel costs would tend to fluctuate less, or could be managed to fluctuate less, with the result of a more stable vehicle market. Then the mfrs would be competing on more normal issues such as reliability, price, features, etc., the ones that lost 430752 to foreign makers back in the 80s.

And dbhost, I am aware that V8s can be efficient. It is generally true, though, that higher displacement engines consume more fuel than lower displacement ones. There are other measurements that could be used, such as the CAFE ratings we have now, Crocket's HP rating, etc. Now, the fact that you'd plug that beast of a truck into a conversation about fuel efficiency is a whole 'nother matter!

While surfing on this topic I came up with a couple of measurement of US fuel efficiency compared to that of other countries. It's not pretty, IMHO.

JR

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/

"In Europe, cars on average get 40 mpg, compared with 20.4 mpg for U.S. cars."

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...605_110719.pdf

[prlundberg]

David, interesting you mentioned the timing belt, that is one of my pet peeves with modern engines by many makers. The timing chain on my Grand Caravan may make a bit more noise, but I should never have to replace it or worry about a broken belt completely ruining the engine.

You also have to remember that the Chryslers underwent a significant remodel in 2001. So that two years does make a difference. I thought the Hondas had a better controlled ride overall but were on the harsh side. Call me old fashioned, but I would prefer to have a somewhat less refined ride in exchange for a simple, durable, solid beam rear axle that is much better suited to hauling heavy loads, which is why I have a van in the first place.

As far as resale values, there is no dispute there, but there is some dispute to be had about overall value. Like I mentioned, my Dodge cost around $6K less than comparable Hondas and Toyotas. After five years, the resale difference isn't going to be anywhere near that so even factoring in higher maintenance, which so far hasn't been the case, I did get a good value. I learned this after sitting down and figuring out how much money I actually paid over five years for my 4Runner versus what I probably would have paid for a nicer (more comfortable, better towing, better gas mileage) domestic. Of note is that maintenance was less frequent but more expensive and insurance was higher.

I'm not trying to diss your Honda, it is a good van. I'm just saying people need to take a rational look at the big picture. So often I just see mindless bashing of domestic vehicles but the reality is they have a lot to offer. There are really very few bad vehicles being produced these days.

One more note, the Chevy Aveo was mentioned by somebody as an example of poor domestic quality but that is made by Daewoo, which is owned by GM but still not exactly a domestic car. And it's not in the same class as the Corolla.

[crokett]

JR, the only thing I meant by HP rating was simply that more HP always means more fuel. That 300HP V6 @22MPG (or whatever it is) might actually be more efficient in terms of power to gallon ratio but it is still using more fuel than the 4 cylinder that gets 32 MPG. My point is, keep the same engine efficiency and lop 100-150 HP off. The MPG rating will go up considerably.

[prlundberg]

While surfing on this topic I came up with a couple of measurement of US fuel efficiency compared to that of other countries. It's not pretty, IMHO.

JR

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/

"In Europe, cars on average get 40 mpg, compared with 20.4 mpg for U.S. cars."

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...605_110719.pdf

Well, first off, Europeans pay a lot more for gas than we do. And they talk about cars available, not cars sold. Fact is the efficient cars that are available here, with few exceptions, don't sell and therefor aren't profitable for the manufacturers. And many of those highly efficient ones are diesels, which more often than not do not meet US emission standards.

I understand what you are saying. But the US is not Europe. We have different needs and priorities for transportation. We are a suburban society and for better or worse, that reality needs to be recognized. It won't be changing anytime soon, not with the infrastructure currently in place.

[germdoc]

My .02. As with many things in our culture, there is a gap between perception and reality. When I lived in Kansas, in the suburbs, many if not most of my neighbors had large trucks which they never ever used for hauling. They seemed to want to connect with their cowboy past.

Most of us only drive 20-40 miles a day in suburban traffic, rarely haul more than 1 other person or heavy stuff. (I have a fuel-efficient CRV and can pull a trailer if I need to haul plywood, etc.) So for most people having a powerful engine is not a necessity.

Not to knock someone who really needs that F-150 or 250, but if we really thought about how we use our vehicles we could get by with smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Is it really Detroit's fault that since the 1970's Americans have not wanted to buy their small cars?