Car Forum / GMC Cars / November 2006
Hot Asian Cars, Designed In Detroit
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Just Facts - 16 Oct 2006 18:22 GMT http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_41/b4004058.htm?chan=sear ch
Hot Asian Cars, Designed In Detroit Toyota and others are hiring as Motown fast becomes an engineering mecca
> The redesigned Tundra, with telescoping rearview mirrors and a center > console that holds hanging file folders and a laptop, may be seen as the > most worrisome broadside in the Asian onslaught against the U.S. auto > industry to date. And it's ammunition for critics who think Detroit is as > hopeless as the woeful Detroit Lions. But the truck was mostly designed and > engineered not in Japan or even Toyota's California studios, but 35 miles > from Ford in the Toyota Technical Center USA Inc. in Ann Arbor, Mich
> The Asian cars and trucks developed and designed within a 40-minute drive of > Detroit read like a list of the most hated vehicles in Big Three boardrooms: > Toyota Camry, Sienna minivan, and Avalon sedan; Nissan's (NSANY ) Titan, > Altima, and Versa; and soon vehicles from Hyundai and Kia. Toyota's E. > Charles "Chuck" Gulash, a former General Motors Corp. engineer who is > vice-president of research and materials engineering at Toyota's Michigan > tech center, . . .
DeserTBoB - 16 Oct 2006 19:35 GMT >http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_41/b4004058.htm?chan=sear >ch [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> most worrisome broadside in the Asian onslaught against the U.S. auto >> industry to date. <snip> Sounds like paid-for spin from Toyota Motor to me. The sales figures of the "old" Tundra are dismal, Nissan's Frontier even worse, and Honda's Ridgeline are non-existant. When Toyota started slapping "1 Ton" stickers on the back of their minitrucks in the '90s and the frames started breaking in half, they got a VERY bad reputation among big truck buyers, and that's likely to hang around for quite awhile, much like the Big 3 have been having big trouble trying to shake their reputation for crappy cars. Like the heavy equipment market that they tried to take over in the '90s, Japan Inc. will only get so much incursion into the Big 3's truck market, for a variety of reasons. Sloppy designs (a la Chevy) and bad reliability could change that over time, however.
Bobby The D - 17 Oct 2006 20:54 GMT > >> The redesigned Tundra, with telescoping rearview mirrors and a center > >> console that holds hanging file folders and a laptop, may be seen as the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > frames started breaking in half, they got a VERY bad reputation among > big truck buyers, and that's likely to hang around for quite awhile, Alas, Toyota seems to be the teflon® auto company...any criticism just seems to slide right off. How many articles in the press do you see where they sound like they were written by Toyota's marketing dept? Agreed, their trucks are wimpy, but their cars are no great shakes either and look at the adulation they receive in the media.
DeserTBoB - 17 Oct 2006 22:46 GMT >Alas, Toyota seems to be the teflon® auto company...any criticism just >seems to slide right off. <snip> Astute observation, and correct.
>How many articles in the press do you see >where they sound like they were written by Toyota's marketing dept? >Agreed, their trucks are wimpy, but their cars are no great shakes >either and look at the adulation they receive in the media. <snip> ...and the "sheeple" fall for it every time. Although no one to my knowledge has compiled the total receipts paid by Toyota USA to ad agencies and the media, just a cursory glance at any TV outlet or newspaper for years tells me that they've been outspending Ford, GM and even DC probably by 3 to 1 or more, and have been giving lots of "under-the-table" graft to writers of such manufacturer's rags as "Motor Trend" and others.
The fact is Toyota's product a no better than the competition, but huge sums of money spent on "spin" and massive ad campaigns make for good sales. They're also quite adept at buying off pissed off buyers whose trucks break in half or engines blow up. I know a guy who had one of Toy's lousy "1 tons" do just that...break in half right behind the cab. He put the thing on a flatbed and paraded all around Los Angeles County, painted with "Toyota Quality...NOT!" and "Ohhh, what a FEELING!" after he got jacked around by Toyota after they skilfully outmaneuvered the state's "lemon law." After a week of that, Toyota USA offered him any new Toyota vehicle of his choice or $25K cash, if he'd just "go away." When's the last time you heard of any of the Big 3 doing that to buy off a wronged customer? Never.
Latest Toyota headache: exploding Lexus V8s in their "Tundra" trucks when towing loads. One up here scattered engine parts all over the road, similar to what Cadillac's first HT4100s did when new.
Bill Putney - 18 Oct 2006 00:23 GMT > ...and the "sheeple" fall for it every time. Although no one to my > knowledge has compiled the total receipts paid by Toyota USA to ad [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "under-the-table" graft to writers of such manufacturer's rags as > "Motor Trend" and others. In 2001, Jesse Jackson did his signature deep-pockets corporate "diversity and inclusion" blackmail routine to the tune of $7.8 billion on Toyota (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40C10F93E5B0C738DDDA10894D94044 82&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fJ%2fJackson%2c%20Jesse%20L%2e).
Perhaps that has had some "hidden hand" part in overly-favorable Toyota press?
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Edwin Pawlowski - 18 Oct 2006 00:47 GMT "DeserTBoB" <desertb@rglobal.net> wrote in message
> They're also quite adept at buying off pissed off buyers > whose trucks break in half or engines blow up. Not such a bad thing. If GM would have fixed my heated seat, (2 years but over 36k miles) I'd be driving a Lucerne instead of a Sonata. That was the start of a downhill slide with things breaking so after at least 12 GM cars in a row, I went elsewhere.
DeserTBoB - 18 Oct 2006 00:59 GMT >Not such a bad thing. If GM would have fixed my heated seat, (2 years but >over 36k miles) I'd be driving a Lucerne instead of a Sonata. That was the >start of a downhill slide with things breaking so after at least 12 GM cars >in a row, I went elsewhere. <snip> I cannot speak to the Lucerne, but I got stuck with a '93 "Le Slobber," easily one of the worst built cars I've ever owned, and I dumped it post haste. Major gripes: crappy molded door panels whose cheap fasteners would break off in normal use, the usual self-destructing T60E transaxle, mediocre ride, handling, power and economy, general "cheesy" feel to the car. This sled, with a Buick 231 V6, got worse mileage than my old fave, the M-body with a 318, AND had about the same power...amazing, really, considering the Buick had a far superior ECM package, FWD and MPFI, while the dear old Chrysler 5th Avenue has RWD, the usual "computer in the air cleaner" and a Holley 2 bbl. carb.
I note Buick's really trying to "spin" the quality image with their Lucerne ad campaign, but I see precious few of them on the road, and the ones I do see are driven by oldsters who have probably been buying Buicks since their '56 Roadmaster.
Edwin Pawlowski - 18 Oct 2006 03:18 GMT "DeserTBoB" <desertb@rglobal.net> wrote in message
> I cannot speak to the Lucerne, but I got stuck with a '93 "Le > Slobber," easily one of the worst built cars I've ever owned, and I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the ones I do see are driven by oldsters who have probably been buying > Buicks since their '56 Roadmaster. One reason Buick change the names of their cars was to attract new, younger buyers.
My first GM car was a '62 Corvair. I'd probably buy another if they still made them. It was a Monza with comfy bucket seats and was fun to drive with the larger sized tires I put on it. Got me home reliably, even in a blizzard. I later had two, yes, two, Pontiac Tempest with the half a V-8 and flex shaft transaxle.
DeserTBoB - 18 Oct 2006 03:47 GMT >My first GM car was a '62 Corvair. I'd probably buy another if they still >made them. It was a Monza with comfy bucket seats and was fun to drive with >the larger sized tires I put on it. <snip> Just don't spin any doughnuts with it.
>Got me home reliably, even in a >blizzard.<snip> Corvairs, like VWs in the same era, had it all over RWD/front engine cars for drive wheel traction.
> I later had two, yes, two, Pontiac Tempest with the half a V-8 >and flex shaft transaxle. <snip> The 2 speed auto? Those 194s were torque monsters for a 4 banger! Too bad half its output was wasted in that horrible transmission.
who - 18 Oct 2006 09:57 GMT > Corvairs, like VWs in the same era, had it all over RWD/front engine > cars for drive wheel traction. So true. I had a VW that went anywhere with summer tires, but stopped solid when deep snow piled up under it. That was always in my driveway. The Corvair interested me, but early quality problems delayed me buying one, then Nader killed it. The Corvair was just another example of GM not fully developing a car before putting it on the market. Perhaps they did the best they could, but I'm not one to buy a car that is obviously under developed.
Edwin Pawlowski - 18 Oct 2006 11:33 GMT "who" <i@notaspammer.net> wrote in
> The Corvair was just another example of GM not fully developing a car > before putting it on the market. Perhaps they did the best they could, > but I'm not one to buy a car that is obviously under developed. I never found anything that as under developed about it. Nader can kiss my a.s because it handled better than anything else I drove at that time.
DeserTBoB - 18 Oct 2006 19:35 GMT >> Corvairs, like VWs in the same era, had it all over RWD/front engine >> cars for drive wheel traction. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >before putting it on the market. Perhaps they did the best they could, >but I'm not one to buy a car that is obviously under developed. <snip> ...as IF they didn't have enough time! Hell, the pancake 6 engine was first developed in 1936! The problem with GM (even to this day) is a very long, drawnout administrative process to get a new model to market, with too much time being spent on real engineering and testing. Yes, Nader killed the Corvair for its handling faults (which were truly dangerous to the unskilled driver,) but the Corvair also had other problems that GM simply refused to address once the line was on the market.
who - 18 Oct 2006 20:10 GMT > but the Corvair also > had other problems that GM simply refused to address once the line was > on the market. You hit the nail on one of GM's big problems. They put out new models with problems, then are far to slow to correct those problems, if they ever do. Chrysler smokes GM in that regard.
GM is just a big slow moving company. It must be very frustrating to be a creative designer there.
DeserTBoB - 18 Oct 2006 21:49 GMT >GM is just a big slow moving company. It must be very frustrating to be >a creative designer there. <snip> Back in their heyday, whizbang stylist Harley Earle and wizzard engineer "Boss" Kettering could crank out new designs and styles whenever they wished. The Corvair "pancake" 6 was a Kettering idea, but it only took GM 26 years to get it to market!! It took them from 1938 to 1949 to get their first OHV V8s, two separate, competing projects to market...one by Bennett at Olds, one by Barr and Cole at Cadillac...although WW II can be blamed for about four years of that time lag. However, when GM wanted to move fast, they could. "Boss" Kettering got his EMD 567-series 2 stroke diesels and his smaller GM Diesel Division (later "Detroit Diesel" after the consent decree in the '60s) engines to market within 18 months, again with a big push by Al Sloan at the corporate offices. Both came to market in 1939.
In their consumer car lines, GM only took two years for them to get the original HydraMatic to market in the '38 Olds. Reason: Sloan picked the HydraMatic as a pet project to get through the GM central committees for his then-favorite division, Oldsmobile. Originally, the HydraMatic was going to go to Buick (where Sloan "grew up" in GM after being a ball bearing salesman for New Departure), but they refused, preferring instead to try to downsize the Allison bus transmission into the Dynaflow...which again took 10 years to get to market, in 1948! Little did they know that a young John DeLorean was doing the same thing over at Packard in only 18 months, which resulted in the Ultramatic, which copied the GM bus transmission right down to the torque converter clutch (first application of this anywhere, NOT the Torqueflite of '78) and the four element converter. DeLorean rushed the Ultramatic into production with one fatal design flaw...using a bushing with no seal to seal up the torque converter output shaft, which made the Ultramatic one of the most unreliable automatic transmissions ever sold. While many blame the demise of Packard on their continued use of obsolete straight 8 engines while Olds, Buick and Cadillac had modern, efficient OHV V8s, the Ultramatic was the last nail in the coffin that sealed their fate. By the time Packard ponied up their big V8s, it was far too late for them, and they were gobbled up by the Studebaker family. Meanwhile, DeLorean had abandoned Packard, and became part of the problem at GM.
Chrysler trivia: The original 318 "A" engine uses the exact same lifters as the '55-'56 Packard V8s, along with several other piece parts. Why? Chrysler bought the brand new Packard engine plant from Studebaker in late '56, complete with tooling. Why reinvent the wheel? Packard V8 fans routinely rebuild their engines with Chrysler lifters, wrist pins, valve guides and several other indentical small parts. Had Packard survived '56 and fixed the Ultramatic disaster, the Packard V8 would've been a real contender for GM to deal with.
duty-honor-country - 19 Oct 2006 13:26 GMT > >GM is just a big slow moving company. It must be very frustrating to be > >a creative designer there. <snip> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > parts. Had Packard survived '56 and fixed the Ultramatic disaster, > the Packard V8 would've been a real contender for GM to deal with. troll ! pretty pathetic one too...
he drives a 1978 Honda- what would he know about an American car ??
he's a RICER
he recently disassembled an entire 318 engine, when all it needed was a thermostat !
who - 18 Oct 2006 09:51 GMT > I note Buick's really trying to "spin" the quality image with their > Lucerne ad campaign, but I see precious few of them on the road, and > the ones I do see are driven by oldsters who have probably been buying > Buicks since their '56 Roadmaster. It suits them. Not me I'm only 72! Column shift and soft suspension I left back in the 50s, when I went European, but never would have bought one of those ugly dumb port hole monsters anyway.
DeserTBoB - 18 Oct 2006 20:05 GMT >> I note Buick's really trying to "spin" the quality image with their >> Lucerne ad campaign, but I see precious few of them on the road, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >European, but never would have bought one of those ugly dumb port hole >monsters anyway. <snip> Don't forget the purposely ineffecient DynaFlush tranmission, engineered to yield miserable gas mileage "to keep the oil companies happy," as stated by Buick Division's then president. When you look at the entire GM line for '55, Buick surely had the stodgiest styling of them all, especially when compared to the edgier Pontiac and Olds offerings. They knew who they were targeting....richer, upscale conservative men like bankers who were too "humble" to go for a Cadillac, a far better car mechanically.
I think the "fat cat" styling of the Buick had a large part in the decision by the California Highway Patrol to go with their 'Century in a Special body' in '55 over the more efficient and more powerful Olds Super 88. That, and the CHP had experienced bad oil sludging and stuck lifters in '54 with their previous Olds fleet, a problem cured by switching to Texaco Havoline in mid-'54. But the cost to the taxpayers was considerable, when you figure the Olds 88 got 20 MPG average in road patrol service, while the Buick barely got 10! I'm sure Standard Oil of California, who had the CHP fuel contract for decades (and a named co-conspirator in several anti-trust actions with GM), was most grateful for the Buicks.
After the Buicks, the CHP went with Dodge Division, and never went back to GM again until 1967, when Ronnie RayGun's graft-filled administration forced the CHP to buy a fleet of short-lived Olds Delmonts and then some '69 Merc Marquis 428s. Both were disasters in regular beat service and were quickly retired, replaced by more Dodges in mid-year orders. Both GM and Ford, it should be noted, were also huge Republican Party donors, while Chrysler was not. After an exposé in the Sacramento Bee about RayGun's handlers "guiding" CHP fleet purchasing to Ford and GM, the graft stopped, and there were no more non-Chrysler patrol cars until the end of the M-bodies. The City of Los Angeles wouldn't even invite bids from GM and Ford, and never bought anything but Chrysler products for many years. The only thing that upset that long-lived relationship was AMC, who had pleaded with the LAPD to try their Matadors in LAPD beat service, where they were quite successful. The city also went to AMC after the '74 oil embargo for economy cars, and the fleet of LA City Hornets proved AMC could build a relaible, economical car.
who - 18 Oct 2006 09:48 GMT > Not such a bad thing. If GM would have fixed my heated seat, (2 years but > over 36k miles) I'd be driving a Lucerne instead of a Sonata. That was the > start of a downhill slide with things breaking so after at least 12 GM cars > in a row, I went elsewhere. The last GM product I had was a long '71 Van. Basically solid, but several components I won't go into detail on were what I'd call a "Micky Mouse" design. I left GM after that and oh my how long it took for GM to start it's downward spiral.
Previous to the Van I had a '63 6 cyl Chev II. It also was basically solid, but had some quality & design weaknesses. -Valve rocker bearings failed many times before a permanent fix. I felt like I was part of the GM test group. -Leak in the body into the trunk. -front brakes seriously affected by water, pulled car abruptly to either side; dangerous to drive in wet weather.
I also had a '70 Datsun 510. It was well designed, but suffered from a dealer who was just learning it and a body that rusted in rain faster than bare steel.
Then switched to Chrysler in '79, much better design and quality than GM. Improved significantly from '79 to '01- our new car yrs. Also very responsive to THEIR problems, until DC took over. Now Chrysler have become very evasive and expensive for service and have given up building efficient easy to repair vehicles. The Caliper may be a return to Chrysler's better past, but just a bit too small for me.
DeserTBoB - 18 Oct 2006 20:25 GMT >> Not such a bad thing. If GM would have fixed my heated seat, (2 years but >> over 36k miles) I'd be driving a Lucerne instead of a Sonata. That was the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Basically solid, but several components I won't go into detail on were >what I'd call a "Micky Mouse" design. <snip> Those side doors were legendary for failure, as were the window locks.
>Previous to the Van I had a '63 6 cyl Chev II. It also was basically >solid, but had some quality & design weaknesses. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >-front brakes seriously affected by water, pulled car abruptly to either >side; dangerous to drive in wet weather. <snip> The '62 Chevy II wasn't a a very good car in comparison to the Falcon, even though the Chevy II had a much larger but obsolete engine, the 235 "Blue Flame," usually saddled with PowerSlide. The Ford was a weak performer, with the 170 being the largest available and the equally bad two speed "FoMo" trans. Chrysler had the BEST idea, with the A-cars, most of which would outlast any Falcon or Chevy II.
>I also had a '70 Datsun 510. It was well designed, but suffered from a >dealer who was just learning it and a body that rusted in rain faster >than bare steel. <snip> The "box," as we called the 510, was well loved by its owners, despite the usual Japanese bad paint, bad interior and lousy amenities. What turned people on to it was the Ajin Precision OHC 4, many of which would turn 300K miles before having to have the head pulled.
>Then switched to Chrysler in '79, much better design and quality than >GM. Improved significantly from '79 to '01- our new car yrs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The Caliper may be a return to Chrysler's better past, but just a bit >too small for me. <snip> I don't think "Dr. Z" knows what he's doing in the US market. Germans are genetically programmed to overcomplicate and undersimplify anything they build, although their technological abilities can be astounding. German car owners are fastideous about maintenance, while Americans are idiots who think a car is a "turn key" item that never needs service, and get riled when someone suggests they need to change their oil more than once every five years. It's not a good fit at all.
Chrysler needs to get rid of Daimler and return to what caused their glory days of the '60s, when superior ruggedness, dependability and serviceability carried the day. From what I read in here, DC is using overly complicated and fragile digital control systems similar to the awful ones used by VW-Audi and BMW, which need frequent troubleshooting and repair/replacement. Ask any honest Mercedes owner...those cars are shop queens, and have been for many years, and it's always niggly LITTLE things going wrong. I'm seeing that a lot with DC cars now. The troubles with TCMs alone have given DC cars a black eye with buyers, while the transmissions themselves seem pretty hardy overall. The "oil sludging" scare now, from what I've seen lately, is simply a byproduct of the usual American car owners' negligence, something for which Chrysler designed the K car to withstand...somewhat. Despite being beat to death, they'd just keep running!
who - 19 Oct 2006 02:21 GMT > >Previous to the Van I had a '63 6 cyl Chev II. It also was basically > >solid, but had some quality & design weaknesses. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > equally bad two speed "FoMo" trans. Chrysler had the BEST idea, with > the A-cars, most of which would outlast any Falcon or Chevy II. I disagree with regard to the 6 cyl Chev II I had vs the Falcon. I had two friends with the Falcon, a much less solid car with a weak engine. IMO the Falcon was a typical tin can from Ford. The Chev II gave good fuel mileage, equal to the Falcon. I pulled a 1,500 lb camping trailer coast to coast and in the western mountains. About 15,000 miles of towing, in the 95,000 miles I had it. Standard shift of course, had to double clutch to shift down to the non syncro low gear on the very steep (logging road class) hills when towing.
I forgot one ugly design build problem I had. Rubber bushings in the front suspension which wanted to remember where I was. I replaced them with Teflon ones. Also had to add a front sway bar as GM didn't install it in my6 cyl model. What a huge difference these two simple changes made to steering. So after I modified GM's partly completed car, it proved a good solid performer.
DeserTBoB - 19 Oct 2006 05:02 GMT >I disagree with regard to the 6 cyl Chev II I had vs the Falcon. >I had two friends with the Falcon, a much less solid car with a weak >engine. <snip> The 170 was as big as they offered in the "Falcoon" in '62. Still, it was better than the 144 of 1960, especially with the 2 speed FoMo. The spring tower front ends of Falcons were notoriously weak, a problem that carried through on the derivative Mustang and even the Maverick.
>Standard shift of course, had to double clutch to shift down to the non >syncro low gear on the very steep (logging road class) hills when towing. <snip> Standard transmission was the saving grace on your car. '62 Chevy IIs with Powerglide were notoriously slow and fuel hungry. I believe you could also order a Chevy II with overdrive, as you could the Falcon after '61.
who - 19 Oct 2006 02:30 GMT > I don't think "Dr. Z" knows what he's doing in the US market. Germans > are genetically programmed to overcomplicate and undersimplify > anything they build, although their technological abilities can be > astounding. I agree. Have you noticed how much weight Chrysler cars have put on since Daimler took over.
> Chrysler needs to get rid of Daimler and return to what caused their > glory days of the '60s, when superior ruggedness, dependability and > serviceability carried the day. Well Daimler will have to get rid of Chrysler, but the lower costs from Chrysler's volume will hold them back. DC seems to think all Chrysler cars should have a truck front grill. With the 300 Chrysler did return to the 60s. OK for a few years, but they lost their steady customers and can't keep the emotional new ones that bought the 300.
DeserTBoB - 19 Oct 2006 05:13 GMT >Well Daimler will have to get rid of Chrysler, but the lower costs from >Chrysler's volume will hold them back.<snip> Sometimes I think Daimler-Benz bought Chrysler Corp. as a German tax write-off.
>DC seems to think all Chrysler cars should have a truck front grill. <snip> Well, not really...the "crossed bars" grille is a salute to Chrysler's glory days with the letter series 300s of the '50s, but only old timers seem to remember that.
>With the 300 Chrysler did return to the 60s. OK for a few years <snip> The 300M was just another gussied up LH, wasn't it, a la Iacocca's EEK cars. The current 300 is a whole different concept and even has some performance in its hemi form, but as I said, that car has been spoiled by being a "ghetto ride," which scares off buyers looking for a long term car investment. Cadillac's now feeling the problems associated with having that image.
Dave - 19 Oct 2006 14:50 GMT > The 300M was just another gussied up LH, wasn't it, a la Iacocca's EEK > cars. The current 300 is a whole different concept and even has some > performance in its hemi form, but as I said, that car has been spoiled > by being a "ghetto ride," which scares off buyers looking for a long > term car investment. Cadillac's now feeling the problems associated > with having that image. Yes, Cadillac has a problem with sales up about 10 % this year I believe. .
Dori A Schmetterling - 28 Oct 2006 21:40 GMT A few years ago I would receive regularly the monthly mag of the ADAC, Germany's largest motoring organization (equivalent to the AAA in US, I guess).
Annualy they published break-down and repair stats for all cars with more than 10 000 annual sales. In all classes where the Japanese manufacturers (Toyota, Mazda and, I think Honda) were represented they clustered at the top of the reliability tree.
There were anomalies and distortions in the figures. E.g. they were not normalised for mileage, so that cars like the Merc S Class came out worse than they should because their average mileage was much higher than those of other cars, but as a rough-and-ready measure the tables were not bad.
Don't know how it is now. Sadly I don't get the mag anymore.
DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling ---
> "DeserTBoB" <desertb@rglobal.net> wrote in message >> They're also quite adept at buying off pissed off buyers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the start of a downhill slide with things breaking so after at least 12 GM > cars in a row, I went elsewhere. Mike Hunter - 31 Oct 2006 01:53 GMT If one looks at ANY magazines ratings in PERCENTAGES rather than as a LIST from best to worst you will discover they ALL have a defect rate between 1% and 2%. Around 2% is the defect rate for all manufactured products. Paying 20% to 30% more to buy a Japanese vehicle is hardy worth it, considering one chances of getting one of the 1% and 2%
Better for one to look at what large corporate and government fleets buy year after year. Corporate fleets have no brand loyalty. They buy what is the most cost effective to buy, insure, maintain, repair and replace. Like any 'tool' used to operate their business they consider the total cost of ownership over five years or 300K. Federal corporate tax laws require their vehicles to be depreciated over five years and many corporations keep them that long or longer. The brands that get around 80% of the fleet business are Ford, and GM second. Very few buy import brands because of the higher purchase price, as well as insurance, part and maintenance costs. Even stand alone rental car companies, whose cars are their 'product,' rather than their 'tools' that they sell off in a year or less, chose mostly domestic cars and trucks
mike
Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:aOGdnSLlc7asXd7YnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>A few years ago I would receive regularly the monthly mag of the ADAC, >Germany's largest motoring organization (equivalent to the AAA in US, I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling > --- Eugene Nine - 31 Oct 2006 02:47 GMT >Even > stand alone rental car companies, whose cars are their 'product,' rather > than their 'tools' that they sell off in a year or less, chose mostly > domestic cars and trucks > > mike The rental car companies are getting more imports now. Last rental I had was a Kia Optima, that was the worst POS I have ever been in and it was less than one year old with 14k on it.
Mike Hunter - 31 Oct 2006 16:53 GMT The rental car companies must buy foreign cars in that class, domestic do not make midget cars ;)
mike
>>Even >> stand alone rental car companies, whose cars are their 'product,' rather [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > was a Kia Optima, that was the worst POS I have ever been in and it was > less than one year old with 14k on it. Eugene - 01 Nov 2006 02:01 GMT > The rental car companies must buy foreign cars in that class, domestic do > not make midget cars ;) > > mike Strange thing is the Kia Optima is considered a larger car and is Kia's higher end. Wife's 4 years older base Impala is a much nicer car.
Mike Hunter - 01 Nov 2006 16:22 GMT Naturally I was referring to the sub compact size
mike
>> The rental car companies must buy foreign cars in that class, domestic do >> not make midget cars ;) >> >> mike Just Facts - 01 Nov 2006 06:50 GMT > The rental car companies must buy foreign cars in that class, domestic do > not make midget cars ;) > mike Correct. GM imports them from their Korean partner and sells them as a GM product in NA.
Some O - 31 Oct 2006 02:40 GMT > > Not such a bad thing. If GM would have fixed my heated seat, (2 years but > > over 36k miles) I'd be driving a Lucerne instead of a Sonata. That was > > the start of a downhill slide with things breaking so after at least 12 GM > > cars in a row, I went elsewhere. You're VERY SLOW to change.
Just Facts - 18 Oct 2006 09:31 GMT > Alas, Toyota seems to be the teflon® auto company...any criticism just > seems to slide right off. How many articles in the press do you see > where they sound like they were written by Toyota's marketing dept? > Agreed, their trucks are wimpy, but their cars are no great shakes > either and look at the adulation they receive in the media. I hear so much negative here and at GM on Toyota, I feel I should buy one and form my own opinion. Such an increasing number of people buy Toyotas and keep them so long, there must be a few good Toyotas sold. <:)
Mike Hunter - 17 Oct 2006 15:32 GMT GM, Ford and Dodge still far out sell any of the Jap trucks. When it comes to trucks, import brands are an also ran no matter where they are designed ;)
mike
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_41/b4004058.htm?chan=sear > ch [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > . > . DeserTBoB - 17 Oct 2006 17:58 GMT >GM, Ford and Dodge still far out sell any of the Jap trucks. When it comes >to trucks, import brands are an also ran no matter where they are designed >;) Sales figures for all Japanese "full sized" trucks bear this out. They've tried three times now to crack the US full sized truck market, with little success. The Nissan Frontier project hasn't even covered its design costs yet, per Auto Week. I expect that one to be yanked probably next model year.
duty-honor-country - 17 Oct 2006 19:20 GMT DESERTBOB (not its real name) is a troll. It regularly frequents at least twenty news groups, including many rabid/sex/racist/liberal idiot/wannabee mechanic groups.
Normally, it starts off with reasonable, even witty lines, but rapidly drifts into lies, abuse and stupidity. Check its details at Google Groups at this URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=Ohn2FRMAAADKWt-YFW4KG3QbhQogR22 2h-kUg4S0n7nbF1Te82ZIng&hl=en
See it's pathetic picture and myspace page at this URL- as it searches for companionship at age 50- looks like a quart of oil for the car in that hair...
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=30321125
It had 2 Ebay usernames, both banned due to abuse, auction interference, and harassment- they were VOXPOPPER and XCALIBER44- see them here- search history of VOXPOPPER to see how it left (8) negative feedbacks for a seller, for items that cost only a penny each !
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=voxpopper
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=xcaliber44
It is a sad creature, deserving of pity, not anger. Any direct response simply feeds it, but it will go away if you ignore it.
Dori A Schmetterling - 28 Oct 2006 21:44 GMT Is this a full-sized truck?
http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/unitedkingdom/mpc/mpc_unitedkingdom_webs ite/en/home_mpc/trucks/home/news_desk.html
Chrysler's parent is rather good at them.
DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling ---
[...]
> Sales figures for all Japanese "full sized" trucks bear this out. > They've tried three times now to crack the US full sized truck market, > with little success. The Nissan Frontier project hasn't even covered > its design costs yet, per Auto Week. I expect that one to be yanked > probably next model year. Just Facts - 31 Oct 2006 03:32 GMT > Is this a full-sized truck? > > http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/unitedkingdom/mpc/mpc_unitedkingdom_we > bsite/en/home_mpc/trucks/home/news_desk.html > > Chrysler's parent is rather good at them. Just a tidy looking highway car hauler.
In NA Kenworth builds some large highway and logging haulers: http://www.kenworth.com/1000_hom.asp REAL TRUCKS!
This BIG TRUCK used in the Alberta tar sands trumps most: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060 702360.html -trucks that can carry up to 320 tons of tar sands per load, and can do a quick job on that Chrysler(?) pickup. http://psychogoat.com/gallery/miningpics/MVC_001F
The Titan max. sized truck is now retired from coal logging in SE, BC, Canada. From GM's glory days! http://www.bigthings.ca/bc/sparwood.html http://www.bigthings.ca/bc/pictures/truck1.jpg
> It is in the Guiness Book of World Records as the world's largest tandem > axle, rear dumping hauler ever manufactured. > Its maximum load is 350 tons and the box is capable of holding 2 Greyhound > buses and 2 pick-up trucks. Each tire is 11 Feet (3.4 Metres) and weighs 4 > tons. DeserTBoB - 31 Oct 2006 06:23 GMT >The Titan max. sized truck is now retired from coal logging in SE, BC, >Canada. From GM's glory days! <snip> Terex was back when GM was still an engineering/manufacturing company. Now, they couldn't build a Terex to save their a.ses, because they no longer have the manufacturing capability or talent to do so. Hell, they haven't even built a locomotive in the US in about 15 years, mismanaging Electro-Motive Division into a distant second behind juggernaut GE. EMD's attempts to build a 4 stroke, 6000 HP diesel prime mover have failed for years now, and many so-called "convertible" locomotives sold to US railroads still carry their "temporary" 2 stroke 710-series V-20s. Any GM rail motive power sold in the us (principally to transit systems, not even Amtrak buys their stuff anymore) is all built in London, ON, Canada. EMD's La Grange plant is mostly shuttered now, only producing parts, and then only when they feel like it.
Note another fallen good company in that article...Kaiser. Now, down south, Henry Kaiser is remembered almost exclusively for his non-profit health care system, one of the best in the country, and a continual target of for-profit health care providers and Republicans. People don't seem to remember that Henry Kaiser paved Cuba's first roads, was the primary manager of the "Six Companies" which built Hoover Dam, was the prime mover of WW II's Liberty Ships, for which he built a steel mill and shipyards on the West Coast to produce in record time, had the largest aluminum processing operation in the country for years, and who dared challenge GM at their own game, building cars. GM's Sloan found out in short order that Kaiser wouldn't be swatted down as easily as was Tucker in '48.
Sadly, the Kaiser Aluminum operation has been taken over by megalomanic corporate hustler and S&L thief Charles Hurwitz, who has to be the polar opposite of everything Henry J. Kaiser was.
Mike Hunter - 31 Oct 2006 16:57 GMT Trucks so not dig coal they haul it ;)
mike
>>The Titan max. sized truck is now retired from coal logging in SE, BC, >>Canada. From GM's glory days! <snip> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > megalomanic corporate hustler and S&L thief Charles Hurwitz, who has > to be the polar opposite of everything Henry J. Kaiser was. Mike Hunter - 31 Oct 2006 17:08 GMT GM did not need to swat down Kaiser/Frazer, their cars simply could not compete in economies of scale. Kaisers and Frazers were merely assembled cars. Kaiser never really made cars, only bodies. The complete drive train and accessories were purchased from other manufactures, GM, Bendix, Continental, Frigidaire etal.
mike
> Note another fallen good company in that article...Kaiser. Now, down > south, Henry Kaiser is remembered almost exclusively for his [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > building cars. GM's Sloan found out in short order that Kaiser > wouldn't be swatted down as easily as was Tucker in '48. DeserTBoB - 31 Oct 2006 18:36 GMT >GM did not need to swat down Kaiser/Frazer <snip> Kaiser-Fraser
>their cars simply could not >compete in economies of scale. <snip> True, but sales of the Henry J and Caribbean gave GM fits, as did Nash's early Metropolitan. At the time, GM had nothing in their line to compete with small economy cars, and the GM (and Ford) dictum of "mini cars, mini profits" was under attack. After K-F started marketing the Henry J under the Allstate name through Sears, K-F started having lots of trouble getting bearing assemblies from New Departure, transmissions from Saginaw Gear or any ignition parts from Delco Remy, as well as Hydra-Matics from Detroit Transmission for the Caribbeans.
>Kaisers and Frazers were merely assembled >cars. Kaiser never really made cars, only bodies. The complete drive train >and accessories were purchased from other manufactures, GM, Bendix, >Continental, Frigidaire etal. <snip> Also true, but Kaiser-Fraser was developing their own OHV V8 engine by 1951, and that DID get GM's attention. After Henry Kaiser got the Willys line away from GM, who'd originally wanted it, he knew that competing against GM and a resurgent Ford with cars was futile, and concentrated instead on Jeeps all the way until the line was sold to AMC. For "economy" cars at a low price, the Continental 4s and 6s were more than adequate at the time K-F was still producing cars, but the writing was on the wall that if they wanted to compete, they'd need a lot more than Oldsmobile-equipped Caribbeans and flathead Henry Js to keep afloat.
The Kaiser V8? It was also sold to AMC after K-F got out of the car business and became their 327 by the late '50s, a move that later put Kaiser at a disadvantage when customers started wanting V8 power in their Kaiser produced Jeep products. Prior to that, the only V8s the new AMC had were leftover Packard V8s that wound up in their big '56 and '57 Nash and Hudson models, which disappeared the next year. Meanwhile, Studebaker had taken over the Packard name, and the '57 Packard was just a rebadged Studie President with their 289 V8 and Borg-Warner transmission. Studie wanted no part of the Packard drive train at all, although once the bugs were worked out of it, it was indeed a fairly good engine....just HUGE by 1956 standards. The '56 Packard V8s were larger than even Cadillac's, which upsized in '56 to a 365 that was riddled with cooling and vapor lock problems, mostly caused by heat generated from the new water cooled Dual Coupling Hydra-Matic.
Mike Hunter - 31 Oct 2006 20:39 GMT You have covered KF pretty well but how could you let out the Darran? ;)
mike
>>GM did not need to swat down Kaiser/Frazer <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > caused by heat generated from the new water cooled Dual Coupling > Hydra-Matic. DeserTBoB - 01 Nov 2006 05:20 GMT >You have covered KF pretty well but how could you let out the Darran? ;) <snip> The Darren was intriguing and made a big publicity spash, especially with the wild (for then) paint and interior colors. Most Darrens were seen running around LA, as they were a hit with the movie crowd.
Now, if you want to talk about rare...how about that Muntz Jet?
who - 01 Nov 2006 06:52 GMT > Note another fallen good company in that article...Kaiser. Yes Kaiser failed, but here their Rocky mountain thermal coal operation and coal loading terminal at Vancouver live on in better hands.
I believe it was the son who lived in Vancouver for many years after starting the BC coal operations.
DeserTBoB - 01 Nov 2006 18:00 GMT >> Note another fallen good company in that article...Kaiser. >Yes Kaiser failed, but here their Rocky mountain thermal coal operation >and coal loading terminal at Vancouver live on in better hands. > >I believe it was the son who lived in Vancouver for many years after >starting the BC coal operations. <snip> You are correct.
The Kaiser industrial empire was mostly scuttled by the kids after Henry J. died in '74, preferring to concentrate on the Kaiser-Permanente health care system, the largest HMO in the US, and one of the few non-profit ones. The Kaiser Jeep operation went to AMC, the Fontana steel mill was sold to the Japanese and its Eagle Mountain pit mine closed. It's quite a crime by them that they allowed Kaiser Aluminum to fall into the hands of a greedy a.shole like Charlie Hurwitz, an a.shole Texan who seems to delight in screwing working people more than anything else...except for his love of violating Federal laws. When Henry J. was still running things, any Kaiser entity was known to be a great place to work with excellent labor relations with their unionized employees. That still lives on at Kaiser-Permanente, but died when Henry did at the other, cast-off operations.
The Fontana mill is still operating, but no longer processes iron ore into steel. After the SCAQMD mandated that Kaiser spend millions retrofitting their coke ovens to cut emissions around 1971, which Henry gladly spent, the family sold off the mill in '76 and shut the mine, citing profitability problems. The real reason was the Nixon Recession of '74, which had priced US steel much higher due to outrageous interest rate increases, while the Japanese, due to Nixon's "laissez-faire" trade ideology, were dumping cheap steel on our markets daily. You'll also remember the shenanigans of LTV, Colt Steel and US Steel about this time, when the old "blasters" of the Monongahela Valley were finally shut down.
Later analysis showed that the Kaiser Fontana mill was still a profitable operation when shut down as a mill and sold to the Japanese, and it was obvious that the family members involved wanted to get away from industrial operations and concentrate on non-profit health care. However, in Pennsylvania, years of management neglect and greed caused the old open hearth mills to continue on using 19th century technology all the way into the '70s...they were set up to fail, and greedy management ripped off the steelworkers' pension funds. That's what caused the ERISA legislation of 1976, which Bush Bird and his handlers have been trying to kill for six years, but now have no chance..
Kaiser had converted to electric furnaces back in the early '60s, one of the first US steel makers to make the transition. After the shutdown/sell off, the former vertically integrated mill is now simply a fabrication shop and rolling mill. After selling the mill, the Japanese cut wages 50%, but were mandated to provide the same health care through the Kaiser-Permanente system. After 20 years, the USWA finally reorganized the workforce there, and wages are on their way back up...a rare scenario these days.
The Kaiser mill was originally built in 1941 to provide steel for Kaiser's shipyards on the West Coast. After the end of WW II, the mill provided sheet steel for the GM Chevrolet plant in Van Nuys, as well as the Ford Terminal Island and Pico Rivera plants. Once the Japanese took over the mill circa 1976, they engaged in predatory pricing of Fontana-rolled sheet steel, thus forcing Ford out of the area, and forcing GM to cut back production at Van Nuys. GM did stick it out until 1992 at Van Nuys producing slow selling Camaro/Firebirds. The "new" Camaro of '93 was produced in Ohio at Lordstown, much closer to domestic steel producers. This also was of dubious wisdom, as the biggest market GM had for Camaros and Firebirds was...California! It costs more to ship finished cars on auto racks 2500 miles than it costs to ship sheet and coil steel from the Midwest to the West Coast. Sure enough, the "new" Camaro/Firebird twins weren't profitable, and GM axed the line rather than admit they'd screwed up...again....still? The economic disaster that followed the closing of Van Nuys is still being felt, as middle class workers were uprooted to make way for hoards of illegal aliens.
GM...the worst there is!
Dori A Schmetterling - 01 Nov 2006 18:58 GMT I see you like a pissing contest... ;-)
Anyway, I was speaking of road-going trucks. A 320 load is illegal on public roads even, I suspect, in the USA....
Whatever, any of these are 'proper' trucks, as opposed to the light, pseudo-offroaders curiously characterised as trucks in the US...
:-) DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling ---
[...]
> Just a tidy looking highway car hauler. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> 4 >> tons. DeserTBoB - 02 Nov 2006 03:02 GMT >I see you like a pissing contest... ;-) > >Anyway, I was speaking of road-going trucks. A 320 load is illegal on >public roads even, I suspect, in the USA.... <snip> Duh...these are MINE trucks, not highway trucks.
>Whatever, any of these are 'proper' trucks, as opposed to the light, >pseudo-offroaders curiously characterised as trucks in the US... <snip> Correct about Japanese and US ½ ton "trucks," which aren't. For decades, a ½ ton Ford, Chevrolet or Chrysler pickup was basically a station wagon drive train in a truck body. When you got up to ¾ ton, then things started getting more serious.
|
|
|