10 Cars That Sank Detroit

[JimD]

I don't know how to fix the U. S. carmakers but having a decent small car wouldn't hurt.

I bought my daughter a new small car in August. We did not even consider a U. S. car because there wasn't one that seemed to be comparable. We could not find a Honda Fit and the Civic is pretty pricey these days. She came home from France a month too late to get a deal on a Toyota Corolla (08's were gone, '09s were not getting discounted yet). She ended up with an Hyundai Elantra. Much nicer car than a PT crusier or a Ford Focus or a Chevy Cobalt - at least to us.

I currently own a 2006 Suzuki Grand Vitara (built in Japan), 2000 Mazda 626, and a 1995 Plymouth Acclaim. The Mazda has required by far the most maintenance. I guess I would buy another one but it wouldn't be my first choice. It needed a clutch at 60K miles, a catalytic at 80K, and a timing belt around 70K miles. Before the 06 GV, I drove a 1997 Sidekick which went 125K miles before I gave it to my son with no mechanical repairs other than a clutch backet. My son is up to 155K with nothing big required. The old Acclaim was purchased used with about 40K miles and is up to a little over 100K now. It needs valve cover gaskets and got a timing belt at around 80K and some tune up parts (wires, cap, plugs) but it has been dependable. It has the Mitsubishi V6, however. We had an Acclaim before that got totaled but worked well to that point.

My wife owned a Pinto when we got married almost 29 years ago. It was pretty bad. To get the oil filter off I had to drive a big screw driver through it. Wrenches just broke or the can came off. The shifter fell off in the middle of an intersection when she was pregnant with our now 26 year old son. We also had a Taurus and like it - same son totaled it before it gave us any real trouble.

You can get a bad car of any make, I believe, but your odds appear better with some types. I do not think Hondas and Toyotas are typically worth what they get for them but if I can get a deal I would would buy one. I think Suzukis and possibly Hyundais are at least as good and significantly cheaper - but used car values on Suzukis are terrible - but good buys if you want one. My experience with Mazda is not so great, no better than a domestic and maybe worst than most. I had a Kia once and it was a very relible car for 8 years and 80K miles (as in nothing other than a timing belt replaced other than tires and fluids). You can also buy them cheap (an Optima was my daughters second choice- it's bigger than the Elantra but not as nicely equipped).

Jim

[fbrend123]

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.

No offense taken, JR. In fact, I should apologize for my rant. I've always been a laissez-faire kinda guy, and get a little irritated when govt gets involved where I don't think they should be.

Case in point, some of the discussion let to European gas prices. When we were over there in '96, gas was equivilant to about $4.00 US/gal. We had a brand-new Opel station wagon with a 1.6 liter engine and a five-speed stick. It must have had a brutal axle ratio on it, because with three of us plus luggage aboard, we did manage to get up past 100 mph, just to keep up with the traffic, and hold it until we got to a hill, and then I had to downshift two gears to get over the top.

Two points:

European gas is expensive as heck, compared to ours, simply because of all the taxes that are tacked on to the price.

The cars are designed to be real gas sippers, but where could you drive one of them on our highways with that axle ratio? At our normal highway speeds, you'd be driving in third or fourth gear all the time.

I'm first generation American. The last thing my parents would ever do is try to emulate European life. That's what they came over here to get away from. I guess it's rubbed off on me.

I bought a small car because market pressures, i.e. the price of gas indicated that such a purchase would be prudent. The govt influencing the market by artificially increasing the price of gas (or any other commodity, for that matter) is a complete anethema to me. Of course, I don't much care for speculators influencing the market, either, but that's another issue.

Same with my heating system at home. I ditched an almost new (7-year old) propane furnace and installed a geothermal heat pump because the price of propane was becoming prohibitive. That decision was strictly economic, based on the cost vs. payback, not on any ecological concerns (although I'm still waiting on Al Gore to buy some carbon credits from me). Again the market at work.

Oops, I'm ranting again. Sorry 'bout that! Forty lashes with a wet noodle, as Ann Landers used to say.

[leehljp]

The irony of it all

The Irony of a funny story
I think everyone here probably has read the following story before, and laughed at it. AND I don't know if it is true or not, but that is irrelevant to the current situation. However, it is funny how things have turned.

At COMDEX recently, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull over to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive, but would run on only five percent of the roads.

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.

7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.

8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9. Every time a new car was introduced, car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again, because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. Oh yeah, and last but not least . . . you'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off!

[sparkeyjames]

Sure blame the guy on the assembly line or the guy that makes the parts. Sure he was in the design meetings and he was the man that put they keystrokes into the design computer. He was the one that approved the designs of parts that went into the cars. All of those problems are management problems. You cannot blame the employee's who assemble a product for the failure of management to engineer a product so it can be accurately assembled nor can you blame them for the aesthetic design of vehicles that look like crap. Quit blaming the UAW for the failure of the management of the auto companies. I am not and have never been in the UAW or any union. I just see the finger of blame being pointed in the wrong direction.

[fbrend123]

Sure blame the guy on the assembly line or the guy that makes the parts. Sure he was in the design meetings and he was the man that put they keystrokes into the design computer. He was the one that approved the designs of parts that went into the cars. All of those problems are management problems. You cannot blame the employee's who assemble a product for the failure of management to engineer a product so it can be accurately assembled nor can you blame them for the aesthetic design of vehicles that look like crap. Quit blaming the UAW for the failure of the management of the auto companies. I am not and have never been in the UAW or any union. I just see the finger of blame being pointed in the wrong direction.

Good point. Our last GM car was an '84 Cavalier station wagon. Towards the end of its life, the fuel pump went out. It was an electric pump mounted in the gas tank. I was ranting about the $400+ bill for replacement (had to drop the tank to replace it), when my son walked into the room. He heard me complaining, and indicated that it was just like that on his Toyota ('79 Celica Supra - what a great car that was!), but that there was an access panel in the floor so that the pump could be changed without dropping the tank.

The poor design on the Cavalier certainly isn't the fault of the UAW or its workers, but rather management, and the accountants, who will gamble on the longevity of the component in order to save a few cents per car. They're gambling that the pump will not fail as long as the original owner has the car, and they won't lose the repeat business. They figure second-hand buyers are a wash, anyway.

That's only one example where the overall ownership experience can be less than desirable. I think where people fault the unions is in the labor cost per unit of domestic cars vs. the Japanese, and the ability to stay competitive. I'm not going to get into the merits of that argument one way or another.

[Russianwolf]

The poor design on the Cavalier certainly isn't the fault of the UAW or its workers, but rather management, and the accountants, who will gamble on the longevity of the component in order to save a few cents per car. They're gambling that the pump will not fail as long as the original owner has the car, and they won't lose the repeat business. They figure second-hand buyers are a wash, anyway.

HEH! What did I do????

Accountants have no control over what goes into a car or anything else. All we do is accumulate data. It the management that makes decisions based on the data. Now if the car has to have a Widget and management decides to use a $50 Widget instead of a better $100 Widget in order to keep the overall cost down, the accountant just updates the data.

Even as a CFO, I have very little actual power. I negotiate contracts, but seek approval from the VP and President before the contract can be signed. Even when the contract increases efficiency and decreases costs substantially, I get approval.

[3thumbs]

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-351179.htm


This is a good part of the reason why Detroit is in big trouble. I think that they make a much better car than they are given credit for. Expensive? Yes, but the URL above may help to explain that.

[Rand]

Rather than relying on anecdotal evidence of vehicle quality and cost to own there are several good websites that have good information.

http://cg.superpages.com/ has quality ratings and shows the trouble spots for cars and trucks.

http://www.edmunds.com pricing info and consumer ratings.

http://www.jdpower.com/ quality and dependability ratings.

From the jdpower site:

For a 14th consecutive year, Lexus ranks highest in vehicle dependability, improving by 25 problems per 100 vehicles since 2007 to achieve a score of 120 PP100. Following in the top five rankings are Mercury, Cadillac, Toyota and Acura, respectively.

Esssentially Toyota, Ford, GM and Honda. Not too bad for the americans.

[fbrend123]

HEH! What did I do????

Accountants have no control over what goes into a car or anything else. All we do is accumulate data. It the management that makes decisions based on the data. Now if the car has to have a Widget and management decides to use a $50 Widget instead of a better $100 Widget in order to keep the overall cost down, the accountant just updates the data.

Even as a CFO, I have very little actual power. I negotiate contracts, but seek approval from the VP and President before the contract can be signed. Even when the contract increases efficiency and decreases costs substantially, I get approval.

Sorry, Russianwolf, I meant what you said, just phrased it badly. When I worked in the auto industry, I was in IT, and my statement could tar myself with the same brush. BTW, the division I worked for had a large parts distribution center in Martisnburg.

[crokett]

For a 14th consecutive year, Lexus ranks highest in vehicle dependability, improving by 25 problems per 100 vehicles since 2007 to achieve a score of 120 PP100. Following in the top five rankings are Mercury, Cadillac, Toyota and Acura, respectively.

Esssentially Toyota, Ford, GM and Honda. Not too bad for the americans.

Looking at the JD power ratings, for overall dependency I see 4 of the top 10 are GM brands. Good for GM. Both Honda brands are there and both Toyota brands. However I'd question any ranking that puts Jaguar in the top 10 for dependability, unless things have changed a lot for Jaguar.

[Russianwolf]

JD Power rate the Jeep TJ at a 2???!!?!?!?!?!?!? What the he........

Sorry, but other than being wrecked we had not one problem with our TJ. Oh, and that my wife broke a nail taking the top down one day.

Sorry, but all respect for JD Power ratings is gone.

I'll grant that the TJ isn't the smoothest riding, most convenient vehicle. IT WASN'T MEANT TO BE!, IT'S A JEEP FOR PETE'S SAKE! The Go anywhere, do anything vehicle.