Toyota's loyalty lead

Page 1 of 2  
"Toyota Motor may be experiencing its share of quality slips and bad press about not being as 'green' as its reputation suggests, but Toyota customers have been re-upping with the Japanese automaker at a rate
that makes rivals envious..."
Business Week article: http://easyurl.net/4c5
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It took 20-30 years of the Big Three producing bad quality crap before they lost their loyal customer base. People aren't so trusting anymore, but I reckon that Toyota will still have about a decade that they can push crap into the customer base before they will start to feel kickback from it.
The thing is, though, is that the profits for selling crap on a good reputation are so high that companies that start doing this end up getting addicted to it. Toyota has slipped on quality before - the Tercel is a perfect example - but managed to pull back from the brink. This time around, only time will tell.
But this much I WILL say. If Toyota is able to maintain high sales volumes with crappy quality for 4 years, by then the internal hubris will be so high that they will never return to building quality until they lose the market and have to start over from scratch (much like the Big 3 are doing now)
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most car companies try to slip on quality but it will eventually get them. Ford sent people to the scrap heaps to see what parts were still good so they could put in cheaper parts. Porsche almost lost on their reputation a few years back and then stopped producing crap and are making it back. Mercedes did the same. Volvo did the same.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed wrote:

GM is only slightly behind Toyota in loyalty. You could have just as easily headlined the article:
"GM Beats Honda, BMW, Ford, Subaru, etc. in Customer Loyalty"
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/06/autos/jd_power_retention_study/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote
Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. 68.9%
General Motors Corp. 64.7%
American Honda Motor Co. 63.3%
BMW of North America 56.9%
Ford Motor Co. 54.4%
Subaru of America, Inc. 51.2%
Hyundai Motor America 50.9%
DaimlerChrysler 50.2%
Nissan North America 47.6%
Maserati North America, Inc. 41.9%
Porsche Cars North America 41.6%
American Suzuki Motor Corp. 39.6%
Volkswagen of America 38.8%
Kia Motors America 32.8%
Mitsubishi Motors 31.7%
Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 1.6%
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/06/autos/jd_power_retention_study/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote
Gets pretty bad down at the other end. I wonder how VW was back in the days of the Beetle and Rabbit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

I owned a 56 VW cabriolet -- back in my college years. 36 hp and no gas guage. In those days, there were'nt very many options. For example, the Renault Dauphine, Hillman Minx, and of course the Corvair. The Toyopet was rarely seen in the States. Saw most of then in Japan. The mid to late 60s saw quite a change, though.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

The Beetle was the best selling car in history, no shortage of loyalty there. The Rabbit also sold well and were fine to own and drive - unless you were fool enough to get a Diesel or gas fuel injected Rabbit. Of course, after about 10 years the window seals in the Rabbits all started leaking and the interior of the vehicle would fill up with a couple inches of water. Great for the travelling mold show.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I work with a bunch of folks who would sooner die than drive something besides a WV. I think they think it "says something about them," but I have no idea what that something is.
I think it says" I like to pay too much for ugly, unreliable cars." Excepting the Beetle, of course... it's not ugly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With the Beetle VW had the only low cost small car that stood up to NA highway driving at that time up to 65 mph and also had excellent straight ahead traction. Snow tires weren't necessary, but added weight in the small front trunk was necessary for front traction. The Beetle was loved by it's owners, me included, although it had several serious shortcomings. For example mufflers were good for only about 2 yrs. I haven't replaced a muffler since the stainless steel ones came out in the late 80s. When passing another VW Beetle it was common to wave.
I family near me drive two restored VW Beetles, I don't understand why, considering the number of much better small cars there are now days. In fact those polluting old VWs shouldn't be used as a regular car.
The coming of the Japanese cars in the 1970s had a serious negative affect on the Beetle. I loved my 1970 Datsun 510! So before I got into the Rabbit, I was gone to better cars.
We did have two Chrysler Horizons with the VW Rabbit engine that had valve seal problems; thank goodness Chrysler soon came out with their much better 4 cyl engine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When was that? <G>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:

About 1979 or 1980- the 2.2L SOHC, although it continued to improve through the era of the 2.2/2.5L "common block" engines of the late 80s/early 90s. It was built for turbocharging from the get-go, and remains the most successful mass-produced turbocharged gasoline car engine to date. The main and rod bearing shells on the 2.2/2.5 are the same size as the 440 and 426 hemi main and rod bearings. You *CANNOT* destroy the bottom end of a 2.2/2.5 if you ceep the oil in it. FWD drag racers run the turbo 2.2 way up over 20 psi of boost and get 400 front-wheel horsepower pretty reliably- most failures are due to letting it lean out and burning a piston. The head clamping force is at its limit around there too, but the bottom end could probably hit 600 horsepower or so. Its a little brute of an engine.
The current Chrysler "world engine" 4-cylinder may be smoother and more refined, but ultimate strength-wise its a piece of play-doh compared to the 2.2/2.5 engines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was a joke. <G>
You're talking about the engine used in the turbo K-Cars, like the LeBaron. Easily recognizable by the trail of blue smoke!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:

Well, it was an attempt at one. :-D

No, you're remembering the Mitsubishi 3.0L v6 not the 2.5 turbo. You used to be able to pick 3.0 powered LeBarons and Minivans out of traffic when you couldn't even see the car! After, oh, 1989 or so about 90% of LeBarons and almost all the minivans got the Mitsu engine. The few people that sprung for the 3.3 v6 were MUCH happier with their minivan... and so were the people that had to drive behind them. Same for the small percentage that opted for the turbo LeBaron instead of the v6.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a smoking 2.2/2.5 unless it was the turbo itself, usually something causing back-pressure in the oil return line.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I'm remembering the 2.5 that was in my mother's '85 Turismo, and a friend's '85 LeBaron.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It happened -- according to my machinist, the valve guides didn't have a tight enough interference fit, and could slip which would cause oil burning.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

True, that can happen with any aluminum head, especially if overheated. The aluminum heads on the 2.2/2.5 also tended to develop harmless cracks between the intake and exhaust seat inserts, which scared the bejeebers out of a lot of people when they first pulled one apart, but they rarely caused problems.
OTOH, you could look at a Mitsubishi 3.0 with your eyes crossed and the guides would fall down and rattle around the valve heads, and dump a quart per 100 miles through the engine and out the tailpipe. Maybe you remember better than I do, but wasn't the final "fix" to that engine to install guides with a machined groove near the top and then install a snap-ring in the groove so they would only drop so far and then stop? Pathetic. I still shudder to think how close I came to buying a '92 Lebaron 5-speed 3.0L when they were closing them out in the fall of '92. Pretty car, cool ergonomics, but rotten Mitsubhishi engine and the turbos were all gone for the year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, I never claimed it was in the same league as Mitsu! I thought the final fix for that engine was to have the car towed to a wrecking yard.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

That is the final fix, not the final factory "fix" :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, the valve guides inserts tended to slip. Didn't affect the basic soundness of the engine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 14, 8:47 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.