 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / March 2006Screw Consumer Reports
I just picked up (but did not buy) the famous Consumer Reports auto issue which claims no American car was worthy of its top ten rating. I am particularly interested in their description of my Ford Freestar van. I have driven most of the minivans for sale right now, and my Freestar is right up there with the best. The foreign ones, such as Toyota minivan, are fine but weird. Some of the controls, such as the shift on the dash, are silly. They have some good features, but are not better vehicles than the Fords. I drove the Freestar and thought the ride and handling were so good it was hypnotic. Mine has the DVD player with headphones, electric doors, three-zone air conditioning, and on and on. I am thrilled with it - and its paint is second to none and superior to the foreign ones. I glance at the CR reports on all of the cars and minivans every time they come out with some new issue claiming to review the field. And every time they have the same tired description of the Freestar van. They describe it as not up to the standards of the competition, noisy and rough engine, and unsettled ride. I have no idea where they got these ideas, but Ford should sue the bejeezus out of them, because it just isn't true. I wonder if the American car industry's problems aren't partly due to reports from idiots such as these. Gary Eickmeier Keep your head firmly buried in the sand and the wicked CR will blow away-and the market share slide continues for the Big Two. >I just picked up (but did not buy) the famous Consumer Reports auto issue >which claims no American car was worthy of its top ten rating. I am [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier > Keep your head firmly buried in the sand and the wicked CR will blow > away-and the market share slide continues for the Big Two. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>are fine but weird. Some of the controls, such as the shift on the dash, >>are silly. The silly "no spare tire" on the AWD Sienna is a hoot, too. And you can't get anyone to repair the tires... which comes out to ~ $300.00 per flat! Not to mention it needs tires every 16K-20K miles too... >>They have some good features, but are not better vehicles than >>the Fords. I drove the Freestar and thought the ride and handling were so >>good it was hypnotic. Mine has the DVD player with headphones, electric >>doors, three-zone air conditioning, and on and on. I am thrilled with it - >>and its paint is second to none and superior to the foreign ones. There's really nothing wrong with the Freestyle & Caravan. CU is reporting for the most part from owner experience... Lexus & Toyota, Nissan & Infinity, Honda & Acura owners are just WAY more vocal & passionate about their purchases - they have to be - to justify spending such ridiculous $$ on vehicles that are really only marginally better if at all than my Taurus. Rob > There's really nothing wrong with the Freestyle & Caravan. CU is > reporting for the most part from owner experience... Lexus & Toyota, > Nissan & Infinity, Honda & Acura owners are just WAY more vocal & > passionate about their purchases - they have to be - to justify spending > such ridiculous $$ on vehicles that are really only marginally better if > at all than my Taurus. The Freestyle is an SUV, mine is a Freestar, which is the minivan, as is the Caravan (by Chrysler). I think CR must be reporting based on some 2003 or 4 road test by one tester. Just very frustrating to read such BS when you own one and know it is not true. Gary Eickmeier >> There's really nothing wrong with the Freestyle & Caravan. CU is >> reporting for the most part from owner experience... Lexus & Toyota, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier YUP... meant Freestar. The last generation Windstar is a great vehicle too. Even the last 96/97 Aerostars had all the bugs worked out as ugly as they were... I miss mine(the interior space esp. w/ seats out) now though, except I can get almost double the fuel economy now w/ the Taurus. Rob Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in news:8HsOf.55963 $g47.54533@tornado.tampabay.rr.com: > I just picked up (but did not buy) the famous Consumer Reports auto > issue which claims no American car was worthy of its top ten rating. I > am particularly interested in their description of my Ford Freestar van. One thing that gets lost in the discussions of 'what's best' is how happy people are with their choices. You're happy, and that should be the end of the discussion for you. My wife and I bought a minivan back in January/december. We had the chance to go to the local autoshow a couple of months before hand and pour over each minivan brand. When we got serious about buying, we removed the Nissan, Honda, and Toyota's from the list. We both agree that the japanese vans are higher quality, better designs, and much more appealing than their american counterparts...... BUT! They were each substantially more expensive when you buy slightly used. We then drove the ford, chrysler and Saturn vans, and ultimately bought the Saturn. Now, for my money, the Ford re-warmed minivan was a far distant third out of three... but my thoughts don't matter! If you bought it, and you're loving your van, that's all that matters. JP > One thing that gets lost in the discussions of 'what's best' is how happy > people are with their choices. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > JP Bingo! We can argue all day long about which product is better quality and quote this report and that opinion spouting the pros and cons of any number of manufacturers. We can argue about market share and financial reports , etc.....ad infinitum. The bottom line is: I am happy with my "brand A" choice, you prefer "brand B". You had bad luck with "brand C", I might not have. I'm not going to try to force feed you "brand A", don't tell me how bad "brand B" is in spite of my experience. I like my choice, you like yours. We're both happy. > Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in news:8HsOf.55963 > $g47.54533@tornado.tampabay.rr.com: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > of three... but my thoughts don't matter! If you bought it, and you're > loving your van, that's all that matters. I almost got the Saturn Relay. I thought it was the last day of the GM employees discount, so I looked at the Saturn dealer and they had one Relay left, nice silver color with leather, etc, so I drove it and almost bought because of the "deal." Then when we sat down with the "closers," I found a few hidden costs and lies about the price which soured me on the whole thing and I skipped. The next day my friend pops up with a Freestar van with everything on it. It was so much nicer than the Saturn I thanked my stars I didn't get sucked into the other deal. Then I learned of the Ford employees' discount plus a rebate, both of which totalled $10,000 off. The salesman found the exact model and color I was interested in, and I couldn't resist. Fantastic vehicle. Powerful, smooth, quiet, dependable, and everything works. Transmission is far superior to all I have ever driven in smoothness and has four speeds. All controls are perfect and the fold down third row is a dream. Mileage isn't magnificent, but on a trip I get 26 or so. Gary Eickmeier <snip> > Fantastic vehicle. Powerful, smooth, quiet, dependable, and everything > works. Transmission is far superior to all I have ever driven in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier Glad you're happy with it. MY preference going to the dealer was for a Ford. I have a Focus, I lust after a Fusion, and somewhere in the past 3 years I gave up on GM and became a "ford guy". That being said (oh, BTW, I DO buy used, and I got both my cars from Carmax. I mention it only because I buy used for the deal; I buy from carmax for the superb treatment (recognizing I could go elsewhere and haggle for more money off.)). Anyway. - We drove the Freestar first and my wife and I both despised it. Engine was coarse, ride wasn't that great, and we truly, truly hated the interior design and cheap-o plastic. MY thought was the GM minivans wouldn't be competitive, and the Ford did ride a bit better (felt lower to the ground) than the Saturn, but we loved the interior design and ergonomics. The Dodge was a close second, but after we discussed it seriously, neither of us trust Dodge products AND as cool as sto-and-go is, we don't know if it's enough to base the decision on. We basically NEVER take the 3rd. row out and need the 2nd row for the kids... So the saturn (silver with dvd system) perfectly fit our needs. Again, I mean no insult here. I'm happy with your Ford, my aunt-in-law has a beautiful blue freestar, and if it just weren't for a couple of preferences we could have had one. The end result? We both end up with good, reliable vehicles we're happy with. now, if I could just get my porsche!:) jp CR just like anybody else is expressing their OPINION, and just like everybody else one is free to agree or disagree. The problem is many choose to accept CRs opinions as fact, it happens in the NGs daily. The more one reads CR opinions particularly as in your experience, where facts as you know them do not concur with their opinion, the more their opinions become suspect and the less likely one will continue to seek their opinion. My personal experience with CR and others like them led me to buy many Toyotas and Lexus vehicles because of their record of overall lower costs of ownership. However after several years of owning a fleet service business that serviced nearly every brand you can name it became apparent in our meticulous records that was in fact a fallacy. I discovered what fleet owner, who keep their majority of their vehicles in service for five years and up to 300K mikes, already knew. Fleet owners look at the total cost of acquiring, insuring, maintaining, repairing and replacing the vehicles they use as just another tool in their business. With all things considered it is Ford motor company vehicles that provide the lowest overall cost of ownership with GM close behind. I switched from Toyota to Ford vehicles in 1998 and I have been saving money ever since. That of course is only my opinion as well, but it is based on the fact I have observed over many years with many thousands of vehicles. ;) mike hunt >I just picked up (but did not buy) the famous Consumer Reports auto issue >which claims no American car was worthy of its top ten rating. I am [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier > CR just like anybody else is expressing their OPINION, and just like > everybody else one is free to agree or disagree. The problem is many choose [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > mike hunt Mike Hunt, huh? "Has anyone seen Mike Hunt?" Funny. Thanks for your response. Very informative, and confirms my suspicions and experience with American cars. There can certainly be some lemons produced in any brand, but by and large American cars are made for morons to drive 100,000 miles without much maintenance. And they will do that, easily. My last van was a Pontiac TransSport, and it was magnificent. The air conditioning finally gave out at the 220,000 mile point, and I never touched the electrical system or the cooling system. Had to redo the transmission. Plastic door handles fell apart twice. Instrument panel soft pad peeled up from heat. But overall, very satisfied and not afraid to get another American car. Did you guys see the Nissan Quest with all of the instruments in the center of the dash? Gary Eickmeier It will be the imports turn for the next 5 years, Consumer Reports believes in giving every auto making country a 5 year good rating. RELAX.. American cars will be featured in 2011. Remember when the Germans bomber Pearl Harbor?????? Buy American! ;) > It will be the imports turn for the next 5 years, Consumer Reports > believes in giving every auto making country a 5 year good rating. > RELAX.. American cars will be featured in 2011. Remember when the > Germans bomber Pearl Harbor?????? Buy American! ;) I hope they can hold on that long. Gary Eickmeier > CR just like anybody else is expressing their OPINION, and just like > everybody else one is free to agree or disagree. The problem is many [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > mike hunt Mike (if that's your real name). Great post. My only addition is that when you're buying for your own personal use, more than just 300k worth of total cost comes into play. For example, I despise the Taurus. Truly a miserable vehicle. Don't flame , it's just my opinion. But I really do hate them. their steering 'feel', ride, interior. yeech. Anyway, most fleet owners don't care about how the 'user' desires their vehicle handling and interior quality/desirability. I dare say most individuals do. In short, I'm willing to bet that you could easily prove to me that the Taurus is a better, long-term ride than the camry, accord, or similar. But it simply doesn't matter if I don't like the car. All that being said, I think this is a good example of what GM and Ford have 'missed' for about 10-20 years - the emotion of driving their sedans. They have great arguements for initial cost, ongoing costs, and easy to clean interiors... but there's a growing number of people who'd feel like I do that it's just not worth saving a few bucks to drive a car you truly don't enjoy. jp as mentioned above, with 10,000 dollar rebates, sounds like if they routinely sold them for less (while still making money), they'd fare much better. 10,000 dollars goes a long way when considering the overall "feel" of a vehicle. >> CR just like anybody else is expressing their OPINION, and just like >> everybody else one is free to agree or disagree. The problem is many [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > jp >I just picked up (but did not buy) the famous Consumer Reports auto issue >which claims no American car was worthy of its top ten rating. I am [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier Pobably, rumors are that back in the day 20 plus years ago many of the American car Execs dissed consumer reports, so to this day CR adds there own little twists to the reports to diss them, then the consumer reads the reports and takes it as the gospel word and goes out and buys what they say they should buy. Strange indeed that Americans have become such sheeple who will follow the Pied Piper off a cliff if he says so. > On 3/5/2006 11:08 AM ... Booboo Baker wrote: >> I just picked up (but did not buy) the famous Consumer Reports auto issue [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > they should buy. Strange indeed that Americans have become such sheeple who > will follow the Pied Piper off a cliff if he says so. The Lemming fits as well. > Pobably, rumors are that back in the day 20 plus years ago many of the > American car Execs dissed consumer reports, so to this day CR adds there own > little twists to the reports to diss them, then the consumer reads the > reports and takes it as the gospel word and goes out and buys what they say > they should buy. Strange indeed that Americans have become such sheeple who > will follow the Pied Piper off a cliff if he says so. Actually, CR is probably held more in disrespect than it is in respect.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Now there's a remarkable statement that flies in the sense of common sense. Why would a publication that accepts no advertising, that actually BUYS the items that it evaluates, that uses well educated/qualified technicians to design and perform the testing, that forbids that it's rankings be used in advertising...and is aggressive about enforcing that, that polls its large user base for reliability ratings...why would such a publication be held in anything but high respect, except by those who get a, deservedly, poor evaluation? I don't care for CR's occasional left-wing politics, myself, but when it comes to objective (and just a little subjective) evaluation of hardware, they are without peer and unimpeachable. - GRL >> Pobably, rumors are that back in the day 20 plus years ago many of the >> American car Execs dissed consumer reports, so to this day CR adds there [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Actually, CR is probably held more in disrespect than it is in respect. I can't remember how long ago this was, sometimes in the mid 90's. CR rated two fords, both had a 5.0 engine, Mustang was one ,and I think the other was a Lincoln, any ways the Mustang got great reviews especially the long term reliability of the 302 engine. They then complained about the Lincoln engine being unreliable, yet it was the same engine. I've caught quite a few fau pauxs like this in many of their ratings, they praise one vehicle, and then demolish another, yet the two vehicles are identical just different badging. > Now there's a remarkable statement that flies in the sense of common sense. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > Actually, CR is probably held more in disrespect than it is in respect. > On 3/5/2006 3:57 PM ... razz wrote: > I can't remember how long ago this was, sometimes in the mid 90's. CR rated [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >>>> >>> Actually, CR is probably held more in disrespect than it is in respect. Wasn't the first time. Omni/Horizon Nova/Corolla Same exact cars, far different reviews of each. CR lost me 20 years ago. Another example in CRs current ratings for the Crown Vic and the Grand Marquis, that have consistently been the most dependable value priced vehicles on the road, which are in fact the same vehicle with different trim. Rating them differently indicates their methodology is flawed and therefore useless. mike hunt >I can't remember how long ago this was, sometimes in the mid 90's. CR rated > two fords, both had a 5.0 engine, Mustang was one ,and I think the other [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> > >> > Actually, CR is probably held more in disrespect than it is in respect. You might consider actually looking at what CR says about cars before you denounce what they say (or more accurately didn't say). Let's see April '06 issue p. 49. The Crown Vic gets an average rating for reliability and owner satisfaction and is recommended. Then on page 63 we have the Grand marquis that gets an average rating for reliability and for owner satisfaction and is recommended. (Both get black dots for depreciation.) Gee, they rate the same. What the heck are you talking about? > Another example in CRs current ratings for the Crown Vic and the Grand > Marquis, that have consistently been the most dependable value priced [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >>> > Actually, CR is probably held more in disrespect than it is in >>> > respect. Apparently not. Actually consumer do NOT go out and buy those recommend by CR, since their top ten vehicles does not mirror the top ten selling vehicles in the US. GM and Ford sell millions more of their vehicles annually in the US than does any import. Chrysler sells hundred of thousands more then the best selling import as well. Seems to me only those easily duped by CRs opinions are buying those suggest by CR as being 'better' vehicles LOL mike hunt the consumer reads the >> >> reports and takes it as the gospel word and goes out and buys what CR >> > says [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > >> > Actually, CR is probably held more in disrespect than it is in respect. CR has been good to us, I have no problems with their recommended best-buys, they tend to hit the nail on the head. We purchased our Club Wagon with their recommendation in mind. We had a Taurus at the time, you know, the model from hell. Well, purchased a Club anyway and have loved it (we had 4 kids then, we have 6 now with 1 on the way). It has been a good van and the problems that we have had were identified by CR so we knew what we were getting into. Maybe there is a lot of emotion behind anti-CR rhetoric. I know I can't afford to have the "BEST" car, that doesn't mean I should get mad at CR. That's stupid. I at least can know the possible problems I will experience on a percentage basis. If 95% or cars are deemed bad, I'm sure that the 5% of those who purchased good cars will strongly disagree. > Apparently not. Actually consumer do NOT go out and buy those recommend > by CR, since their top ten vehicles does not mirror the top ten selling [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> > Actually, CR is probably held more in disrespect than it is in >>> > respect. Actually the percentage of GOOD cars, as reported by CR, is 98 % no mater who builds them. Only 2%, at worst, are problematic over five years, if one interprets their reports properly. ;) mike hunt > CR has been good to us, I have no problems with their recommended > best-buys, they tend to hit the nail on the head. We purchased our Club [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >> mike hunt Uh, you are abusing the term "problematic". It means: Debatable: open to doubt or debate; "If you ever get married, which seems to be extremely problematic" Baffling: making great mental demands; hard to comprehend or solve or believe; "a baffling problem"; "I faced the knotty problem of what to have for breakfast"; "a problematic situation at home" It does not mean trouble-prone as you seem to think. And, again, you are misinterpreting the five year old model reliability numbers that CR publishes. Please read the caption next to the graphs. > Actually the percentage of GOOD cars, as reported by CR, is 98 % no mater > who builds them. Only 2%, at worst, are problematic over five years, if [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>> >>> mike hunt Actually, the Honda Accord is the #2 best selling medium sized sedan. The Camry is #1. The Prius is the best selling hybrid. Honda Odysseys sell very well, although Chrysler may out-sell them (Odysseys are pricey). The Civic sells well in a crowded segment. And gee, no rebates on any of them! > Apparently not. Actually consumer do NOT go out and buy those recommend > by CR, since their top ten vehicles does not mirror the top ten selling [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> > Actually, CR is probably held more in disrespect than it is in >>> > respect. > Apparently not. Actually consumer do NOT go out and buy those recommend > by CR, since their top ten vehicles does not mirror the top ten selling [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> > Actually, CR is probably held more in disrespect than it is in >>> > respect. Japanes cars are overated, my brothers wife has a 2000 Mazda cant rember the model, the one at the top of the line before making the Millinium. The car has maybe a little over 110k miles on it and has been thru 2 transmissions. It rides like a truck with rattles all over the place. It is there second Mazda the first one didnt last either but she still wanted another one...just goes to show how people get brainwashed. > Japanes cars are overated, my brothers wife has a 2000 Mazda cant rember the > model, the one at the top of the line before making the Millinium. The car > has maybe a little over 110k miles on it and has been thru 2 transmissions. > It rides like a truck with rattles all over the place. It is there second > Mazda the first one didnt last either but she still wanted another > one...just goes to show how people get brainwashed. Don't judge all Japanese cars by Ford owned, managed and product shared with Mazda. Actually nobody should judge ANY vehicle, good or bad, by the ONE they may have owned. Particularly if you are a used car buyer. ;) mike hunt >> Japanes cars are overated, my brothers wife has a 2000 Mazda cant rember >> the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Don't judge all Japanese cars by Ford owned, > managed and product shared with Mazda. > Actually nobody should judge ANY vehicle, good or bad, by the ONE they may > have owned. Particularly if you are a used car buyer. ;) > > mike hunt That's right. That's why we all troop down to the library and do research, using publications from organizations that survey LOTS of owners, starting with Consumer Reports. Then we get a CarFax on the prospects, then we have our mechanics check the prospects out, then we buy a Honda or a Toyota. > >> Japanes cars are overated, my brothers wife has a 2000 Mazda cant rember > >> the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Don't judge all Japanese cars by Ford owned, > > managed and product shared with Mazda. Of course, they is always a minority that will believe the opinions of the rest of the others in the minority. mike hunt >> Actually nobody should judge ANY vehicle, good or bad, by the ONE they >> may [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from > http://www.SecureIX.com *** > Of course, they is always a minority that will believe the opinions of the > rest of the others in the minority. > > mike hunt So, according to you, we should not form our opinion based on ONE experience with a vehicle (March 12, 4:27pm) but neither should we do some research using the broadest end-user surveys commonly available (March 13, 1:57pm). What's left? Ouija boards and Tarot cards? Is that your recommendation? Look, if it's any consolation to you, I not only look at personal experience (Fords and VWs suck, GMs are so-so, Toyotas rock) and CR (Fords and GMs often suck, VWs usually suck, Toyotas and Hondas usually rock) but I also solicit the opinions and experiences of my friends (domestics suck, Toyotas and Hondas rock) and my mechanic ("domestics are my cash cows but I really appreciate people who buy VWs and please don't buy that Toyota because I'm trying to send kids to college"). See any themes there? I sure do. > >> Actually nobody should judge ANY vehicle, good or bad, by the ONE they > >> may [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >> > Don't judge all Japanese cars by Ford owned, > >> > managed and product shared with Mazda. You certainly are entitled to your own opinion and can spend your money wherever you wish. If you want to rely on the opinions of others, look at the sales figures. Most buyers do not agree with your opinion or spend their money were you do, or as CR suggests. When it comes time to spend their hard earned money US buyers buy a lot more products for GM, Ford and Chrysler than they do from Toyota, Honda or any other import brand, period. The true test of what is 'best' is in the total annual sales figures. Obviously more buyer believe domestics make the better vehicles mike hunt >> Of course, they is always a minority that will believe the opinions of > the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What's left? Ouija boards and Tarot cards? Is that your recommendation? > You certainly are entitled to your own opinion and can spend your money > wherever you wish. If you want to rely on the opinions of others, look at > the sales figures. Oh, I see, buy GM because they're #1. So, even if we ALL agreed that not only is their overal quality, reliability and longevity lower, that their products were more expensive, less fuel-efficient, less fun to drive, less stylish, less powerful, less useful, that the sheer weight of their previous years' sales numbers would be the reason for buying their products. That's a very intriguing notion. And, actually, that seems to be pretty much the GM executive leaderhip's plan; screw the UAW and lower-level white collar workers (google GM and pension), shovel as much cash into their own pockets as possible and take rapacious advantage of customer loyalty until the wheels fall off the corporation. > Most buyers do not agree with your opinion or spend > their money were you do, or as CR suggests. When it comes time to spend [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > mike hunt Bzzt. Wrong. That's the true test of what is "popular," not what is "best." Which, by the way, would be better? Being #1 in auto sales (worldwide) and losing money? Being #2 in auto sales (worldwide) and making money? Another poster sure nailed it when he observed that GM's unit volume hasn't increased at all in the last 20 years or so of this "ever-expanding US market" (your description and he was using your own figures). It's pretty sad for GM that ALL the expansion in the US market in the last 20 years has been sucked up by other car companies.. Now, why would that be? I have to wonder where GM is going this year. Along my routine walk, to and from work, there's a used-car dealer and a Chevy dealer. Both their inventories are, quite obviously, heavily loaded with trucks and SUVs (the lot also has Caddies). No compacts or economy cars. Friday, an auto-carrier pulled in with an SSR, a couple of Equinoxes and some other large things. Nothing small. I've seen an HHR or two on the road (they're easily recognized, they look like they've taken a long, hot soaking bath in Ugly) but I've never seen an SSR on the road. Is it a big seller? What does it cost to park a $25K truck on a Chevy dealer lot for 6 months? By the by, the new trucks at the Chevy dealer display promotional signs in the high $20Ks and up. Just 50 yards down the road are earlier copies of these trucks ('99's to '01's) with $4K to $9K stuck to their windshields. And the used-car lot didn't pay that for them. You know what actually moves off the used lot? They never keep a 5 to 6 year old pickup truck with a stick, 2WD and a four-banger for more than a few days. If they ever get economy cars, they must move faster, because none have lasted long enough for me to see one. > >> Of course, they is always a minority that will believe the opinions of > > the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > What's left? Ouija boards and Tarot cards? Is that your recommendation? And you clipped the fun part of my previous post... Look, if it's any consolation to you, I not only look at personal experience (Fords and VWs suck, GMs are so-so, Toyotas rock) and CR (Fords and GMs often suck, VWs usually suck, Toyotas and Hondas usually rock) but I also solicit the opinions and experiences of my friends (domestics suck, Toyotas and Hondas rock) and my mechanic ("domestics are my cash cows but I really appreciate people who buy VWs and please don't buy that Toyota because I'm trying to send kids to college"). See any themes there? I sure do. Really, then how does you opinion square with the Camry being the number one selling mid-size sedan? LOL mike hunt >> The true test of what is 'best' is in the total annual sales figures. >> Obviously more buyer believe domestics make the better vehicles [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Bzzt. Wrong. That's the true test of what is "popular," not what is > "best." > Really, then how does you opinion square with the Camry being the number one > selling mid-size sedan? LOL > > mike hunt Make up your alleged mind. Is GM "best" in your universe because it has the highest sales figures or is Toyota "best" because it has the best-selling single model? > >> The true test of what is 'best' is in the total annual sales figures. > >> Obviously more buyer believe domestics make the better vehicles [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bzzt. Wrong. That's the true test of what is "popular," not what is > > "best." You my friend are the person confused, if you do not believe buyers in the US spend their hard earned money on what THEY believe is the best.. GMs vehicles, in the minds of most buyers are the best, that is why they buy more of them than any others. The Camry in the minds of most buyers are the best mid size car, that is why they buy more of them than any others. The true test is what do the most buyers buy, not what CR or you best friend believes is better. That my friend is the point I have been tying to make you understand and your are failing to grasp. The vehicle that leads its segment of the market in which it competes is obviously the BEST since buyers choose it above ALL the other with which it competes. That is why the Civic is the number one selling small car, the Camry is the best selling midsize car, Buick has the best selling large car, The Escape is the best selling small SUV, Explorer the best selling mid size SUV, and Chevrolet sells the number one large SUV. Ford is selling more of its F150 than ANY other vehicle car or truck and has been for nearly 30 years. Dodge sells more minivans than anyone else and has for more than twenty years. The Ford Econoline is the lest selling large van and the list goes on. The reasons more buyers buy those vehicle than any others is because the buyers believe they are the best, period. Not because CR says they should or should not buy them. ;) mike hunt >> Really, then how does you opinion square with the Camry being the number > one [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > Bzzt. Wrong. That's the true test of what is "popular," not what is >> > "best." > You my friend are the person confused, if you do not believe buyers in the > US spend their hard earned money on what THEY believe is the best.. GMs [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>>>Bzzt. Wrong. That's the true test of what is "popular," not what is >>>>"best." What? People buy what they like the best? thats just crazy talk. sorry - just felt left out of this stupid a.s thread, I just had to post in it! :) The SSR is more like a $40,000 truckett. It is no truck. Maybe lard-assed bad-idea, but not a truck. Don't argue with Mike. Waste of time. Accept his logic. Most unit sales + massive losses + sinking market share = highest quality for GM vs. junky brands liked by the idiots at CR such as Toyota. GM's future is assured thanks to Mike's proof that GM quality is the best. And those guys at GM who actually admit their quality is inferior to Toyota? Heck they probably just don't want some poor Toyota exec. to feel bad and have to impale himself on a sword or letter opener or something. On behalf of GM stockholders everywhere, Mike, I thank you for lifting the veil of deceit and despair for us all. >> You certainly are entitled to your own opinion and can spend your money >> wherever you wish. If you want to rely on the opinions of others, look [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from > http://www.SecureIX.com *** Seems you too are confused, as well. What makes you think any opinion that does not agree with your opinion MUST be wrong? I never talked about who is earning what, nor have I ever said Toyota or any other brand sells junk. What I have said, over and over, is that ALL manufactures are building good high quality, reliable vehicles today. The only real deference among them is style and price. Buyers buy the brand, model, style and price they think is best for them. Any other conclusion as to what buyers prefer defies logic. mike hunt > The SSR is more like a $40,000 truckett. It is no truck. Maybe lard-assed > bad-idea, but not a truck. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> at >>> the sales figures. > Seems you too are confused, as well. What makes you think any opinion that > does not agree with your opinion MUST be wrong? I never talked about who [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > mike hunt Taking a break from making disparaging remarks about Toyotas over in the .toyota group so that you can help mis-inform the people who hang out in .gm? You're so considerate. All manufactures are building vehicles with better quality than 20 years or more ago. It's just that some are building better than others and those "some" are most often Toyota and Honda. As long as GM execs are dedicated to lining their pockets rather than building great cars, they're always going to be also-rans in quality, reliability and resale value. Go ahead, check Edmunds on resale value. If Chevy didn't think Edmunds was at least reasonably authoritative and reliable, they wouldn't promote it in their TV ads, now would they? > > The SSR is more like a $40,000 truckett. It is no truck. Maybe lard-assed > > bad-idea, but not a truck. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >>> at > >>> the sales figures. Hey, this is all about the survey results that CR publishes. Those survey results are not based on my opinion (except for my one survey reply), they are based on over a million replies by loads of car owners. Those surveys show that you are dead wrong about brand reliability. There is a HUGE difference between the reliability experience of, say, a Caddy and a Lexus...according to the people who bought the two brands. That is not the only factor that controls buyer choice for all or even most buyers, you are exactly right about that and, as a result, GM sells a lot more cars/trucks in the U.S. than Toyota. But they make no money doing it and that is bad. I submit to you that if it was GM that had the excellent survey results i the CR survey and Toyota had the mediocre or worse ones, we would be discussing how Toyota is going to survive in the U.S. market. > Seems you too are confused, as well. What makes you think any opinion > that does not agree with your opinion MUST be wrong? I never talked [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>>> at >>>> the sales figures. It has come to light that the loss at GM last year was $11.000.000.000 and not just $9.000.000.000 as was previously estimated So with $15.000.000.000 loss this year it will be interesting to see how long they continue paying customers to take cars "Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in news:1142697668.643093.130050 @z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > It has come to light that the loss at GM last year was $11.000.000.000 > and not just $9.000.000.000 as was previously estimated > > So with $15.000.000.000 loss this year it will be interesting to see > how long they continue paying customers to take cars of course, we all wonder where you came up with that fictious, inflammatory $15B figure from. I suspect somewhere dark and dank. JP They probably go bankrupt soon "Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in news:1142758556.676413.321120 @z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > They probably go bankrupt soon Engrish bad. Bankrupt bad. bad, GM, bad. JP:) Thatcher sat at a ceremony at the Chinese capital and asked their prime minister How often do you have elections? Evely night! >You certainly are entitled to your own opinion and can spend your money >wherever you wish. If you want to rely on the opinions of others, look at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >mike hunt Okay Mike. Anecdotal should be shoved aside. Hmm, also don't pay attention to wide reaching surveys. Instead, judge quality and value based on what is the most popular seller. That is what you are saying. Just curious Mike, do you like AOL as an ISP? Boy, they sure are popular. Must be the best, at least by your logic. > Okay Mike. Anecdotal should be shoved aside. Hmm, also don't pay > attention to wide reaching surveys. Instead, judge quality and value [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Just curious Mike, do you like AOL as an ISP? Boy, they sure are > popular. Must be the best, at least by your logic. And like GM is rapidly losing market share. But at least AOL sees the handwriting on the wall and is starting to offer broadband. > > Okay Mike. Anecdotal should be shoved aside. Hmm, also don't pay > > attention to wide reaching surveys. Instead, judge quality and value [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And like GM is rapidly losing market share. But at least AOL sees the > handwriting on the wall and is starting to offer broadband. Marketshare is a fickle thing. Every manufacturer has seen fluctuations in marketshare. That all by itself is pretty meaningless. It only stands to reason that GM would be seeing an impact from all of the recent announcements. I expect they will continue to see some hits for a while. That's the nature of the market. I also expect they'll come out of this in time. I suspect they'll come out with a radically different agreement with the unions, and I equally suspect that's what's behind a great deal of this. Some honest restructuring both within the corporate ranks, the corporate processes, and the union relationships would be good for GM and would position them to be a leader again. Contrary to what the Toyota advocates like to tout, I believe GM has some pretty damned good stuff to be proud of. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Apparently AOLs subscribers think it the best, they are willing to pay the cost. mike hunt >>You certainly are entitled to your own opinion and can spend your money >>wherever you wish. If you want to rely on the opinions of others, look at [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Just curious Mike, do you like AOL as an ISP? Boy, they sure are > popular. Must be the best, at least by your logic. The question was, do YOU personally think AOL is the best national ISP? I sure don't. I know they aren't in fact. But anyway, they are the most popular. That shows me that your logic of best seller = best quality/value is proven wrong. I could come up with many more examples but I really only need but one. >Apparently AOLs subscribers think it the best, they are willing to pay the >cost. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> Just curious Mike, do you like AOL as an ISP? Boy, they sure are >> popular. Must be the best, at least by your logic. Like I said that my be your opinion, but the people that subscribe to AOL think otherwise, obviously. Personally I have been connect for many years, via satellite, to server connected to a high speed a cable network that happens to be the oldest ISP/cable system in the country. mike hunt > The question was, do YOU personally think AOL is the best national > ISP? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >>> Just curious Mike, do you like AOL as an ISP? Boy, they sure are >>> popular. Must be the best, at least by your logic. or the folks on AOL are stuck... :-) > Like I said that my be your opinion, but the people that subscribe to AOL > think otherwise, obviously. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >>>> Just curious Mike, do you like AOL as an ISP? Boy, they sure are >>>> popular. Must be the best, at least by your logic. > > Of course, they is always a minority that will believe the opinions of > the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > See any themes there? I sure do. Sure you 're entitled to your opinion, and I know as fact Toy's are not the most reliable as people make them out to be. I've been a toy mechanic for a few years and they have just as many problems as domestics, granted you don't see as many of them in great droves at the shop, BECAUSE there are fewer of them compared to domestics. Over the years, when you balance the numbers out over domestics, it works out to be pretty much the same ratio. Oh, and toyo's had the head gasket problem, like ford did, pretty much at the same time. That was due to supplier of the gaskets, they both used the same manufacter. I can go on with repeat problems on toyo's, but why bother. Idiots like you, who own them refuse to beleive that they are no better than a domestic. > > >> Actually nobody should judge ANY vehicle, good or bad, by the ONE they > > >> may [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com *** Shooting the messenger won't make Ford's any better. Apparently more buyers already think Fords are better. Better than any others, except GM. LOL mike hunt > Shooting the messenger won't make Ford's any better. Even more recently than that, when the new Pontiac Grand Prix debuted a couple of years back I had considered buying one and decided to check out what CR had to say about the new model (2002, or 2003 I think it was). They dissed the car quite a bit in their "review", and then later in the same review admitted something to the effect that they had yet to drive the new remodelled version. Right then and there I vowed never to buy that magazine again. It's plain that there is an agenda to bash the american cars and promote the import. How can you "review" a vehicle that you have never even driven? If you drive it and then you don't like it, that's your right. To bash it without having driven it, for an "objective" magazine is unforgivable. Need more proof? Look to the recommended used car list. As far back as they go you'll find hardly any American cars on the list, and if memory serves, no GM vehicles. You're telling me that the largest car company in the world has not made a single model in the last 10 or so years that's worth buying? Not one? Whether you're a GM fan or not, with the number of vehicles they produce you must admit that they should put out a winner every once in a while, even if it's by accident. And the avoid list ... Honda or Toyota haven't produced a single lemon in that same time period? Come on ... >I can't remember how long ago this was, sometimes in the mid 90's. CR rated > two fords, both had a 5.0 engine, Mustang was one ,and I think the other [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> > >> > Actually, CR is probably held more in disrespect than it is in respect. > Even more recently than that, when the new Pontiac Grand Prix debuted > a couple of years back I had considered buying one and decided to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > right. To bash it without having driven it, for an "objective" > magazine is unforgivable. I don't have much of a problem with this, especially with GM's history of lightly restyling a product 1/2 through an 8-10 year life cycle and calling it 'new'. If a product is uncompetitive from a powertrain, ride, interior space, reliability, etc. standpoint and you restyle the body, then any one of us would have an opinion to state without driving it. > Need more proof? Look to the recommended used car list. As far back > as they go you'll find hardly any American cars on the list, and if [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And the avoid list ... Honda or Toyota haven't produced a single lemon > in that same time period? Come on ... Hard to believe, but true. Perhaps, but in the US more buyers still choose GM, Ford and Chrysler vehicles over Toyota or Honda. They must believe GM, Ford and Chrysler vehicles are better, no matter what CR believes ;) mike hunt >> Even more recently than that, when the new Pontiac Grand Prix debuted >> a couple of years back I had considered buying one and decided to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Hard to believe, but true. Mike, why do you keep repeating this misinformation? Toyota is #3 right now, unless you have a cite that contradicts the figures I've already posted. nate > Perhaps, but in the US more buyers still choose GM, Ford and Chrysler > vehicles over Toyota or Honda. They must believe GM, Ford and Chrysler [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > > > Hard to believe, but true. > Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > nate Haven't been in this thread before but it would be interesting to look at sales divided into two categories A) People buying personal cars with their own money and B) People buying cars for someone else with public or corporate money (fleets, rentals, etc.) I suspect that GM/DC/Ford would lead in category B and that Toyota and Honda would lead in category A. Don't know that for a fact. Just my opinion. Howard 89 Mustang 5.0 95 Windstar 3.8 > > Mike, > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 89 Mustang 5.0 > 95 Windstar 3.8 You're probably right, in part because most fleet buyers don't even consider foreign cars because they don't want to appear unpatriotic. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the US mfgrs. get back on their feet and start producing cars that people actually want; minimizing the problem doesn't help to solve it though. nate Next time you are at an airport and are picking up a rental car, cruise the lot and see how many Asian brand cars they have. You may be surprised. Korean brands are showing up a lot where I live, probably because they are inexpensive and have gotten pretty darned reliable very quick. And I completely agree with you that it would be fantastic if the domestic makers turn things around. They are having a near-death experience and that does tend to focus the mind...so it may happen. By the way, check out the April 2006 Motor Trend. they interview the guy who is head of Toyota-USA (an ex-Ford guy) and get a surprising, in some ways, look at what makes Toyota tick and so successful. Also some of the chinks in the armor. >> > Mike, >> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > nate > Next time you are at an airport and are picking up a rental car, cruise the > lot and see how many Asian brand cars they have. You may be surprised. > Korean brands are showing up a lot where I live, probably because they are > inexpensive and have gotten pretty darned reliable very quick. I worked for Hertz from 1989-99. About 65% of the fleet was Ford products company wide. The rest was a mixture of of the others, domestic (Chrysler and GM) and import. Lots of Mazda and Nissan, some Honda, Volvo, some Kia and Suzuki. Other locations had imports from other mfgrs such as Lexus, Mercedes and BMW. At one time or other Hertz had cars from every manufacturer who sold cars in thr US. >> Next time you are at an airport and are picking up a rental car, >> cruise the lot and see how many Asian brand cars they have. You may be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > such as Lexus, Mercedes and BMW. At one time or other Hertz had cars > from every manufacturer who sold cars in thr US. When I saw "fleet buyers" I was thinking not rental car agencies but companies that lease "company cars" for corporations, service trucks, etc. Those are invariably American, as are vehicles purchased buy government agencies. The rental fleet is a little more diverse, but still predominately American. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Rental companies are not the same as corporate fleets. A vehicle to corporate fleet is just one more 'tool,' like a computer or a lathe, used in its business. Corporate vehicles generally receive the best in preventive maintenance. Vehicles for a rental company ARE their BUSINESS. Rental companies do not generally keep their vehicles, they are sold off after a year at the most. The amount of maintenance they receive in minimal at best, topping fluids primarily. There was a time not to long ago when they sold off the cars in six months. Currently they must keep them in service for a year or until the intro date for the next model year WOF ore they can loose their fleet discount number. mike hunt >>> Next time you are at an airport and are picking up a rental car, cruise >>> the lot and see how many Asian brand cars they have. You may be [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > nate > Rental companies are not the same as corporate fleets. A vehicle to > corporate fleet is just one more 'tool,' like a computer or a lathe, used in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > mike hunt Sorry to disagree Mike. Maybe the other rental companies are different. All Hertz cars are leased from Ford, et al, for time and mileage specifications laid out in yearly agreements and are (were) 2 tiered. Here's how it worked: 1. Hertz leases 1000 new Towncars. 2. Of that 1000, they are obligated to purchase 200 (20%). This is to cover vehicles that sustain cumulative body/structural damage above a certain amount, totalled vehicles etc. That 20% doesn't apply to particular cars and vehicles are chosen to fill this quota at the end of the lease term. 3. The other 800 (80%) are subject to lease regulations almost like an individual lease. Hertz must provide service and repair records for each vehicle. Service and repair must be maintained within manufacturer guidelines or they will be penalized or the car will be rejected totally. When a vehicle reaches a service interval it is unrentable until the service is performed and documented in the system. Note: Hertz technicians are certified to perform warranty repairs on Ford vehicles. The shop operates very similar to a dealership facility. 4. The 2 tiers I mentioned are time and mileage restrictions. They are normally 12 months\12K miles or 24 months\24K miles. (There are occasionally 6/6 and 18/18 terms) 5. At these times the cars are inspected for dents, dings, glass chips, service records, etc by Hertz personnel. They are returned to the manufacturer (usually to a dealer auction location). 6. The cars are again inspected by reps of the manufacturer and penalties for defects, substandard repairs, or shortages in the service records levied accordingly. If the problems reach a certain limit the cars are rejected and returned to Hertz. Excess mileage penalties are also levied. 5. Of the remaining purchased vehicles: The best are sold via Hertz Car Sales. The cars with heavy cumulative repairs, etc are sent through used vehicle auctions or sold to used car brokers after reaching a maximun of 30K miles. Your comment about limited maintenence is totally untrue. Hertz vehicles are probably maintained BETTER than many corporate fleets. That is true for the vehicles rental cars lease because they do not own them, but not the one they buy and own. We serviced rentals owned by GMAC or Ford Credit for rental companies. The rental car companies did not buy into our service for the ones owned, primary they were fluid topped only in their garages.. Enterprise is the only rental car company that keep all of the car they own in service for three or four years and services them well The only time we saw the ones owned by National Alamo Budget etall was for warranty work or recalls ;) mike hunt >> Rental companies are not the same as corporate fleets. A vehicle to >> corporate fleet is just one more 'tool,' like a computer or a lathe, used [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Your comment about limited maintenence is totally untrue. Hertz vehicles > are probably maintained BETTER than many corporate fleets. What difference does it make who buys their vehicles? I owned a fleet service business up until a few years ago. We serviced thousands vehicle for large and small corporate fleets as well as government fleets, is six eastern states. EVERY manufacture offers specially equipped vehicles to corporate fleets at a discount, of around the same amount $400 to $600 if you buy five or more, and they all try to get more of the corporate fleet business. Few corporate fleets buy very many imports because contrary to what many believe, import can not compete with domestics in the total cost of ownership over the five years, or 300K, fleets generally keep their vehicles because of federal depreciation tax laws. Fleet vehicles get the finest of preventive maintance and are generally used harder than privately owned vehicles. Fleets look at the total cost of acquiring, insuring, maintaining, repairing (they ALL need to be repaired at some point) and replacing the vehicles which are just one more tool used in their business that must be replaced at some point. Ford motor company vehicles are generally the best in that regard, that is why the biggest majority of corporate fleet vehicles are Fords. GM is second. LOOK at the corporate light trucks you see daily, Ford trucks dominate. The only state I know of that buys import brands is Tennessee, they use Nissan trucks that are assembled there. The biggest problem with most imports is acquisition costs, that average 25% higher for the same type of vehicle, and down time because of parts availability. As well as the much higher price of the parts themselves. On the bottom end of fleet car business, imports have a majority of business, however Primary Korean cars that are used as courier cars, others are Corollas, Civics, Neon's, VWs, Focus etc. Courier cars are run round the clock and rarely turned off except for maintenance. They easily accumulate 100K a year or more and are dumped sooner. mike hunt . >> Mike, >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 89 Mustang 5.0 > 95 Windstar 3.8 > What difference does it make who buys their vehicles? I owned a fleet yeah, yeah. We've heard it a bunch that you've owned a fleet business. It *matters* who's buying the vehicles because, as is frequently reported, the fleet or rental business leaves little or NO profit in the cars the manufacturer is selling. Fleet sales can keep a factory busy or artifically boost a vehicles sales numbers, but they do little for the profitability of the company. JP Actually I owed a business that SERVICED fleet vehicles. I guess you missed the part of the post that listed the average fleet discount offered to dealers, to sell to fleets, is only between $400 and $600 among all brands Perhaps you might want to do a bit of research before you choose to comment on a subject of which you obviously have little or no knowledge. Manufactures can not sell directly to corporations or anybody else, that is a violation of franchise laws. Manufactures can only sell to their franchise dealers. The dealers sell the cars to fleets, generally based on bids. The guys that settler for the lower profits to get the fleet business are the dealers. ;) mike hunt >> What difference does it make who buys their vehicles? I owned a fleet > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > JP > Actually I owed a business that SERVICED fleet vehicles. didn't much care. Owned a fleet biz. or owned a biz that services, you're still presenting yourself as a fleet expert. Semantics at this point relative to the discussion. > I guess you > missed the part of the post that listed the average fleet discount > offered to dealers, to sell to fleets, is only between $400 and $600 > among all brands not at all, I just don't believe it. Besides, regardless of the narrow definition you'll choose to use, 'fleet' includes the rental agencies, and that is specifically what I was referring to. I'd be curious to know the relative sales through "fleet" as you define it and rental agencies... ie-what percentage of "fleet" sales in total is to rental agencies. Those are the sales that keep people working with no profit margin for the manufacturer. > Perhaps you might want to do a bit of research before you choose to > comment on a subject of which you obviously have little or no Perhaps you should be less beligerent and a jerk. You're here defending american auto manufacturers and their sagging market share against all logic, reason, and fact presented to you. You won't even acknowledge the other viewpoints, and you weaken your own points along the way. Actually I'm not defending anyone but I am as expert as anybody in the business. I've worked in vehicle design for three manufactures, in top management of retail group for ten years and in fleet service for ten since I graduated from college in 1949. You are free to believe whatever you wish. I am merely point out the facts available to anybody willing to do the search. GM still is the number one selling manufacture in the US, period. In the fast growing market in the US GM, Ford and Chrysler still sell more than ALL of the twenty or so import manufactures that offer vehicle for sale in the US, combined. Those are facts not opinion. Who chooses to buy their vehicles is immaterial. Rental fleets are simply not the same as corporate fleets in how they use and service the vehicles they own or lease and that too is a fact, whether you happen to agree or not. Call any dealership of you choose and ask for the fleet Sales Manger, or the person that sell to fleets for the dealership. Ask him what is the amount of the fleet discount, pretty simple stuff. Manufactures can not sell to anybody but dealerships and that is a fact as well Seems you are the one being a jerk because you do not like that what you believe is being challenged. mike hunt >> Actually I owed a business that SERVICED fleet vehicles. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > logic, reason, and fact presented to you. You won't even acknowledge the > other viewpoints, and you weaken your own points along the way. > Actually I'm not defending anyone but I am as expert as anybody in the > business. I've worked in vehicle design for three manufactures, in top [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > available to anybody willing to do the search. GM still is the number one > selling manufacture in the US, period. Yep. But they're losing ground. In both share and units sold. And they're losing money. > In the fast growing market in the US Fast-growing? Look at India and China. And Toyota will probably be #1 World-Wide next year. Business-as-usual isn't going to cut it. Hmmm... I wonder how many HHRs we'll export? SSRs? You don't even see GM cars in the Caribbean. Bah. > GM, Ford and Chrysler still sell more than ALL of the twenty or so import > manufactures that offer vehicle for sale in the US, combined. Those are [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > logic, reason, and fact presented to you. You won't even acknowledge the > > other viewpoints, and you weaken your own points along the way. What is your point, the discussion was about the US market where buyers buy mostly light trucks, SUVs and a few little cars like those that Toyota sells around the world. The US market is by far the biggest in the world. When GM sold 50% of the vehicles in the US the total market was around 8,000,000. Today, when GM is selling 26% of the market, it is around 17,000,000. You do the math. Me thinks you are just one more of the Toyota owners that find a need to go into other brand NGs to try and justify to themselves why they paid a premium price to buy an under powered 4cy car that they now realize is no better than any of the other cars on the market. ;) mike hunt >> Actually I'm not defending anyone but I am as expert as anybody in the >> business. I've worked in vehicle design for three manufactures, in top [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from > http://www.SecureIX.com *** > What is your point, the discussion was about the US market where buyers buy > mostly light trucks, SUVs and a few little cars like those that Toyota sells > around the world. The US market is by far the biggest in the world. When > GM sold 50% of the vehicles in the US the total market was around 8,000,000. > Today, when GM is selling 26% of the market, it is around 17,000,000. You > do the math. The US may be the largest SINGLE NATIONAL market but its GROWTH is paltry compared to others, where our manufacturers have little presence or brand awareness. Those are all pretty figures but Toyota is poised to be #1 WORLDWIDE. Place your bets. Will GM turn a profit off auto manufacturing in 2006? Place your bets. GM's competition is WORLDWIDE. GM has to make money WORLDWIDE. To shrug off Toyota's increasing market share here as still smaller than GM's shrinking share is foolish. > Me thinks you are just one more of the Toyota owners that find a need to go > into other brand NGs to try and justify to > themselves why they paid a premium price to buy an under powered 4cy car > that they now realize is no better than any of the other cars on the market. > ;) > mike hunt Ummm, my primary "under-powered 4 cylinder car" is a Toyota Sienna V6 that outperformed the domestic products I tried, which were priced almost exactly the same. I tested it last and decided to buy it right after I hit the accelerator. Gas mileage as good or better than the domestic product, too. Of course, I do have two more Toyotas, 4-cylinder Ravs. They're not underpowered but I can't deny that they do have 4-cylinder engines. They get great gas mileage, too. Is that a bad thing? I don't have to justify these cars to myself. They justify themselves to me every time I drive past the Toyota dealership WITHOUT STOPPING. GM - and Ford - must build cars like that. Then they have to start exporting them. > >> Actually I'm not defending anyone but I am as expert as anybody in the > >> business. I've worked in vehicle design for three manufactures, in top [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from > > http://www.SecureIX.com *** No, that is not a bad thing. We know you prefer Toyotas that is why you buy them, you do not need to try to justify your choice to others, you are free to spend your money where you wish. But more buyer still prefer GM, Ford and Chrysler products. Thanks for making my point about Toyota being under power and over priced. however. For what you had to pay to drive home your underpowered 4cy Toyota SUV you could have purchased one of nearly a half dozen other small SUVs on the market that are just a good, but have a more powerful V6 engines and come with more standard equipment, that are also good on gas. After all the number one selling small SUV is not a Toyota or a Honda it is a Ford, and by big numbers ;) mike hunt >> Me thinks you are just one more of the Toyota owners that find a need to > go [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > underpowered but I can't deny that they do have 4-cylinder engines. They > get great gas mileage, too. Is that a bad thing? > No, that is not a bad thing. We know you prefer Toyotas that is why you buy > them, you do not need to try to justify your choice to others, you are free > to spend your money where you wish. But more buyer still prefer GM, Ford > and Chrysler products. Thanks for making my point about Toyota being under > power and over priced. however. Proving your point how? I tested several minivans and selected the Toytoa Sienna (text you clipped) largely because it had the best acceleration. "Underpowered" is relative, at best. If the Sienna's hotter than the others, it's absurd to call it "underpowered." The Rav4s aren't underpowered, either. I drive them where and when I please and keep up or pass as I see fit. Overpriced? Another claim you pulled from your butt. They simply hold their value on the used market, so well, in fact, that KBB says I could sell both my Rav4s for what I paid or more.. The gas price spike of a few months back probably helped that a lot. For people with a functioning brain, automotive expense is what determines value and whether or not something's overpriced. Right now, I have no realizable depreciation on my Ravs. That's pretty good. > For what you had to pay to drive home your > underpowered 4cy Toyota SUV you could have purchased one of nearly a half [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > underpowered but I can't deny that they do have 4-cylinder engines. They > > get great gas mileage, too. Is that a bad thing? Re: Screw Consumer Reports Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 10:44am From: mikehunt2@mailcity.com (Mike Hunter) What is your point, the discussion was about the US market where buyers buy mostly light trucks, SUVs and a few little cars like those that Toyota sells around the world. The US market is by far the biggest in the world. When GM sold 50% of the vehicles in the US the total market was around 8,000,000. Today, when GM is selling 26% of the market, it is around 17,000,000. You do the math.<<<<< I did and the math says that 50% of 8 million is 4 million and 26% of 17 million is 4.42 million, almost the same volume. GM's volume has not significantly increased even thought the market has doubled. Eric |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message