GM, Ford reputations take a hit

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

10 years.

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.

Reply to
<HLS
Loading thread data ...

I can remember trying to some warranty work done. It was; " Make an appointment, bring it in a few weeks from now, and be prepared to leave it for 2 or 3 days"

I drove my ( new ) Chevette to the dealers with the light on. When I picked it up 3 days later, the light was still ON. "Oh..... leave it a few more days"....... YEAH !!

You don't even mind paying the fee for a "gentle screwing" as long as the work gets done well. But when they overcharge for a job badly done.....

Reply to
Anonymous

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

Reply to
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

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Yeah...whatever.

Reply to
<HLS

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

Reply to
Jeff

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

Reply to
Some O

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.

Reply to
Edwin Pawlowski

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.

Reply to
Some O

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.

Reply to
Some O

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.

Reply to
Some O

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.

Reply to
Mike Marlow

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.

Reply to
<HLS

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.

Reply to
Steve

The MSRP prices for smaller vehicles are indeed subsidized a by the much higher profit margins on larger cars and trucks. You would be surprise to know just how little more it costs a vehicle manufacture to build a vehicle that sells for 35K, over one that sells for 20K

When Ford introduced the FWD Escort, it cost nearly twice as much to manufacture as the RWD vehicle it replaced.. The Escort was sold to dealers at a loss of several hundred dollars for several years before economies of scale succeed in greatly reducing the build cost. Why was it sold at a loss? Because it was needed to meet the CAFE.

The Taurus, which came to market six years later, was also much more expensive to build than the RWD car it replaced, as well. The selling rate for the Taurus the first year, at over 400K, as well as the higher profit MSRP, made for a quicker cost recovery

Before you ask my source, I worked at Ford on the Escort and Taurus design teams at the time.

You, as you are prone to, are free to believe whatever you chose. ;)

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Any ENGINE damaged as a result of a failing gasket, was the OWNERS fault, so says a Federal court settlement. The fact that any manufacture fixed any car, after the warranty expired, was a PR effort on their part since no manufacturer warrants problems caused by neglect. GM,Ford, and Honda did a much better job of extending warranties on vehicles with gasket problems than did Toyota and Chrysler however

Toyota, GM, Ford, Honda, Chrysler etc all had the gasket problems after the feds banned asbestos, without allowing enough time for the gasket manufacturers to develop a suitable replacement material. The result was a black eye for ALL manufactures not only GM.

The problem for the vehicle manufactures was, depending on which material the gasket supplier used to replace the asbestos, the problem may not occur until years after the vehicles were sold. For others, material failure occurred sooner while still under warranty. Toyota for instance had failures occurring at around 20K, Ford and GM at around 80K, in and out of warranty.

When Ford sued the gasket manufactures, over the failing new non asbestos gaskets required by the feds, the gasket manufactures agreed they were responsible for the gasket failures but not any resulting engines failures. The reasoning was any coolant leaking should have been discoverer long before any damage occurred to the engine IF the vehicle was properly maintained. Leaking should have been detected by the owner and the gasket should have been replaced prior to any engine damage.

The court settlement agreed, since the gasket failure was never catastrophic but actually occurred over time the leak and the resulting coolant loss should have been discovered by the owner. As a result the gasket manufactures were ordered to pay only 80% of the average loss, not 100%. The court settlement with Ford applied to all other manufactures that built engines in the US up to a certain date

mike

.
Reply to
Mike Hunter

Hogwash. The head gaskets never failed catastrophically. I was leaking into the cylinder you simply did not know it.

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

I think even the manufacture do not agree with your assessment of their cars in the sixties. Back then the warranty was 90 days or 4,000 miles WOF. Today 5, or even 10 years, or 100K is not unusual. How many of the cars we bought back then could go 100K or more without needing rings? ;)

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Correct. The Yugo, a car of the 90s, was definitely not more reliable.

Nonetheless, most new cars (say, since the mid-90s) are more reliable than cars of the 60s and 70s.

Actually, newer vehicles have much closer tolerances.

Car makers have been studying how bearings work, different alloys wear, how different coatings can help protect bearings, etc. They did the same thing for chaings, pistons, rings, valves, valveguides, other valve-train parts.

All of the differences I had mentioned are external, but I didn't say there were not internal differences.

The plastics are not wear materials. And you can buy more expensive cars with less pastics. And why do cars not rust as much as they used to?

The painting process has been improved in recent decades.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

US car makers were making a profit on cars a few years ago. Not much of profit, however. Now, they can only make a profit on the highly-marked up trucks.

I do know how much more profit the big 3 make from a truck than a car. Trucks don't cost that much more to make. But they do cost a lot more to buy. This difference is mostly difference in profit.

It's certainly true that Ford and the other big 3 used cars to meet the CAFE. So you are correct that the truck sales did subsidize the cars. Thanks for reminding me of that.

Yet companies like Toyota, Honda, VW, Hyundai, and Nissan are able to make cars in North America at a profit. (Hyundai builds cars in Mexicon, IIRC).

In addition, car makers invest many millions or even billions of dollars to develop cars. So they will often lose money during the first few years. One example is the small car that DiamlerChrysler designed (I think it is called the Smart). It is a really cool little car. And it really smarts. Smarts, as in hurts. DiamlerChrysler has yet to turn a profit from the project.

Obviously, the MSRP is based in large part on the competition. Unfortuantely, the big 3 can't make a car as cheaply as others can. Hopefully, with its new chairman, Ford will learn to fly on this.

Yes, I am prone to believe things that have evidence to back them up ;-)

Funny thing is we agree pretty much on everything here. We put different emphasis on things. We both agree that Ford made these cars at a loss at first and later made a profit. I just wonder if the same it true of the

500/Taurus/Sable (that they will start to turn a profit).

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.