Re: GM, Ford reputations take a hit

Sorry, Jeff, when it takes GM 10 years or better to correct an obvious problem, then your explanation doesnt wash.

It is not as easy to pull a franchise as you might think. Remember Ford and the "Blue Oval Certified Dealer" fiasco? Ford wanted to identify dealers that met certain minimal standards. A group of dealers in Texas sued Ford saying this wasn't fair - and won. States have very restrictive laws that favor the automobile franchise owners over the manufacturers. State legislatures are a lot more likely to favor local dealers than far off manufacturers. The Japanese manufacturers often have better franchise agreements (from the manufacturer's standpoint) than US manufacturers. They arrived much later and avoided many of the bad ideas in the much older US manufacturer's franchise agreements. The newer brands (Acura, Lexus, even Saturn) have even more restrictive agreements. I was surprised that GM got away with creating the Saturn brand. If I had been running a Chevrolet dealership when Saturn was created, I'd have been very upset if GM granted a Saturn franchise that competed with me. I suppose this is why GM originally set Saturn up as a completely different (but wholly owned) corporation.

Ed

Which problem are you talking about?

Ed

I had to go to the Buick zone representative a few years ago when I encountered a dealership that couldnt seem to repair the serious problem, wasnt interested, and wouldnt listen.

After 5-6 visits to the dealership, with the service manager telling me he couldnt find the problem if is it intermittent, I asked him to let me ride with the mechanic and I would show him what was happening. No dice.

Then I asked if he had checked TSBs on this car. He said he had.

As soon as I called the rep, he knew immediately what was wrong, said that a bulletin had been issued, and contacted the dealership.

Within minutes the service manager called me, all upset, asking why I called zone, that it could get them in trouble. Tough shit!

The owner called me and apologized.

Yes, the manufacturer can demand quality if they want to.

And the big 3 surely have had the oppurtunity to read the Japanese aggreements. They could have failed to renew the francises or put in new terms. The francise aggreements are not for ever.

Jeff

Funny, I think its just the opposite. Car durability peaked in the late '60s. A car from that era (such as the '66 I drive every day) is EXTREMELY rugged. My wife's 93, by comparison, has all the plastic interior bits and exterior trim falling apart. The drivetrain on the '66 went well over 200,000 miles, no problems, until a transmission rebuild. The engine continued well over 270k. I also have a '73 with 450,000 miles. The engine on the '93 so far has 240,000 miles, no problem, but its been through 2 transmissions. Cars used to not last very long because a) they were much cheaper to replace than they are now, and b) things like lubricants have come a LONG way. Much further than the cars themselves. If Mobil 1 had been around in its current form in 1966, things would have been drastically different.

I am specifically referring to the plastic plenum problem which continued for about

The old rusty rot under the rear window problem continued for a number of years too. GM knew about it, chose not to fix it. It was a simple fix which they found more convenient (and perhaps profitable) to avoid, according to people on the inside.

There are others.

The price of a car, as a percentage of income, has not changed theat much over the last 40 years.

and b)

And today's cars are much better. They are more fuel efficient, more reliable, are much safer and pollute far less.

And cars are on the road a lot longer than they used to be, which is way cars sales are going down, even though there are more cars on the road every year.

You're correct that lubricants have improved, but I don' think that explains the longevity of the cars.

Jeff

GM originally set Saturn up as a completely different corporation determine if a small vehicle could be built in the US at a completive price, rather than relying on GM economies of scale to subsides the selling price.

mike

Yeah...whatever.

Saturn and the workers at the plant had their own contract that supposedly let management and workers collaborate to solve problems. Now, Saturn and UAW have gone to the standard GM/UAW contract.

How do GM economies of scale subsidize the selling price, I wonder? They might lower the cost of making a new car by building engines at a plant that is more efficient, but subsidize means to pay part of the cost, like the cost of riding on NYC subways is subsidized by grants from the Department of Transportation. But that is not the same as subsidize.

Jeff

You are saying I should expect design errors to be fixed during the warranty? Well a new weapon for my new car maintenance!

Thinking back to all the cars I owned in the 60's and 70's, I can't agree. Not one of my cars from that era lasted as long or ran as well as my cars from the 90's. Of course, there will always be exceptions.

My experience has been increasing durability over the years. As Jeff says SS exhausts don't need replacement, unless you break them. I used to replace the rear muffler every 2 years, the pipe in front of it every 3 years. My wife's '87 Daytona (first year they had SS exhaust) had it's original exhaust when she traded it at 14 years. Shocks last a very long time, those on my Concord are fine at 90k miles, whereas in the 60s they lasted about 40-50k miles max. The interiors look fine at 10+ years, in fact my 12 yr old Concord's drivers seat looks as new. Upholstery seems to last forever, who now bothers with seat covers. Dashboards now stand our summer sun. Exterior paint lasts well over 10 years looking very good. With clear coat I haven't waxed my cars since pre '86, just use a wash and wax- Turtle wax. Body rust is a thing of the past due to galvanized steel, unless driving is on gravel roads. My previous '86 Chrysler also stood up very well, but not as well as my current '95 Concord. Our engines seem to go forever, not even burning more oil than when new at over 90k miles. We haven't kept one longer than that.

I've read that GM didn't correct that nasty failing intake gasket problem because most were failing after the guarantee period. Unfortunately when they failed the engine was often toast. Great for new car sales if their customers are stuck on GM in spite of having big problems with their cars.

They are also going to standard GM designs, such as metal body sides.

They now get engines from anyone if the price is right, such as the Honda V6 engine.

Well, let's get it right. The intake problem and the plenum problem did not toast engines. Both of these were very survivable even after many, many miles were put on the car in that condition. It took a lot of driving with failed intake gaskets to cause engine problems. The leaks started on the outside of the engine and were visible. But... owners today don't even open a hood unless it's to put windshield washer fluid in, so many never even noticed they had a problem.

Their car otherwise ran so trouble free that no one who might see and pay attention to the leak, ever had occasion to notice. This problem is at once both a plague and a praise to GM.

That isnt my experience, Mike. On our car there was no external leak. Wife drove it home from bridge one day and it was missing badly. Made it to the garage and the cylinders filled with water causing hydraulic lock.

It was sudden, no warning. Had she been on the road, it might have been worse.

More fuel efficient- yes. Pollute less- yes. More reliable- not inherently.

Then what does? The internal clearances and specifications of my 1966 engine are IDENTICAL to those of my modern engine. The bearing materials are identical. The crankshaft material is identical. The block material is identical. The ring materials have changed slightly, but modern replacement rings are available. All the "differences" you mention relate to things EXTERNAL to the engine- specifically the fuel and spark management systems, not to the main mechanical assembly.

I can personally attest that a 1966 engine will last as long or longer than a modern engine, despite being subjected to sub-optimal fuel mixtures on start-up due to being carbureted instead of fuel-injected.

And the materials used in the interior and exterior of the car itself were VASTLY superior to the plastics that are universally used today.