Toyotas & Honda

Page 1 of 3  
Toyotas go too fast, Honda's cant stop
does anyone think auto companies are any different in quality they use the same suppliers, same design shops, same material suppliers, assembled from
parts from all over the world. some use the same tool shops for production tooling, same robot suppliers, etc. I know what the replies will be try and give some constructive feed back, not GM Sucks, UAW problems, overpaid managers,etc
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tc wrote:

That's like saying "There's not much difference between different brands of batteries (or tires as the case may be) - there are only three manufacturers of all of them anyway - they just put different labels on them".
What you're saying is certainly true to a large extent, but the nominal manufacturer can specify certain optional materials, processes, and features from the same part/subassembly manufacturer that can very much affect (and effect) reliability/longevity - just like they can make a tire with a premium rubber compound or a battery with more "guts" in the same plant (on the same line) in which they make the inferior product.
Example: Do you think the nominal auto manufacturer whose headlights turn cloudy after 5 years have them made by a different manufacturer than the nominal auto manufacturer whose headlight assemblies are still almost water clear after 12 years? Not necessarily. What base material did they specify and pay for? Did they pay extra for a premium UV-resistant coating, or did they pinch pennies and have one that is only so-so? I fully expect you can get a variety of equivalent options from any number of the handful of potential OEM suppliers.
In that respect, the nominal manufacturer can choose the quality level of every component based on their own formula of vehicle price point, long-term public perception of their brand, etc., etc., etc.
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/03/2010 5:56 PM, Bill Putney wrote:

True to a point. But take the case of the gas peddle mechanics. The Japanese ones didn't fail, the NA ones did. Toyota likely used the same spec in both. Supplier swap materials? Lower grade?
--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Canuck57 wrote:

The laws of physics are different in Japan and NA. :)
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is being investigated. There is the thought that the Japanese have been hiding some problems. Too soon to tell, I guess.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
---
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As is usually is the case, our friend Canuck57 is wrong again. All Lexus and all of the parts used to build them are Japanese and Lexus models are included in the 9,500,000 vehicle Toyota recall

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
While what you say is true, I believe he was referring to vehicles within the SAME price range, not all vehicles. After all the most common reason one picks a particular vehicle is what it costs.

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

You may be right, as that would explain the high volume of dodge neons and chevy cavaliers on the road, but what brought you to make this statement? I haven't seen any proof of that other than the volume of a certain car on the road, which could be just good marketing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
One of my several jobs in the automobile business in my time was Group Sales Manager, for one of the largest mega-dealerships groups on the east cost. We operated 26 multi-franchised stores in six eastern states. We sold hundreds of thousands of vehicles from just about every manufacturer.
I can assure you the most asked LAST question we would hear from a buyer before they signed on the dotted line was, "How much is my monthly payment?," or "What amount do I need to write on my check?
That is one reason Toyota sells more four door Camrys than Lexus LS four doors cars. If a buyer can afford a Lincoln they are not likely to buy a Ford, unless it is something like a Mustang. Even then is likely a second or even third vehicle. ;)
wrote:

You may be right, as that would explain the high volume of dodge neons and chevy cavaliers on the road, but what brought you to make this statement? I haven't seen any proof of that other than the volume of a certain car on the road, which could be just good marketing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My answer was thorough and flexible enough to address that - IOW, I don't think I ignored that aspect of what he may have intended as you imply. For example, I said:
"...In that respect, the nominal manufacturer can choose the quality level of every component based on their own formula of vehicle price point, long-term public perception of their brand, etc., etc., etc."
That covers cars within a given "class", range, or whatever you want to call it, as well as over all classes/ranges/whatever.
I mean, you have to admit that "etc., etc., etc." is pretty damn broad!! :)
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/03/2010 4:30 PM, tc wrote:

My experience with quality, they definitely do vary from one manufacturer to another, even in models and decades. And they vary on how easy it is to get the problems fixed. However most are generally lousy and some OK.
People catch on to who is shipping junk, and with todays social networking, your mistakes will make it to friends faster than they will to the dealer. Better get the quality up and the costs down as todays age going forward isn't going to be as stagnent as 100 years of Detroit auto.
For getting costs down, get that fat bloat inventory down. Only auto puts billions in stock like that. Look at a bakery, they go from flour to customer in 6 hours or less. Abet an auto is more complex, but no reason I could order on on Saturday and pick it up Friday. Each dealer only needs a demo group, you order the color, the package and go. Maybe even from Walmart. The term is called JIT, just in time. Don't BS it, do it.
One problem with America auto is too much labour. If you can automate it at Japanese or Korean wages, it had better damned well be automated here at our rates. But not just for wages, for the quality and speed of it.
It isn't just auto, the whole continent just lost tons of $40/hr to $18/hr jobs, and with bailout taxes a coming, a bad american credit rating, peopel are not going to spend more on autos this year. Tighten up, this recession isn't over.
--
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Canuck57 wrote:

Yep - when I worked for a supplier to 2 of the then Big 3, they insisted on JIT for *them*, which resulted in huge excess inventory in our plant - meaning that we would have to ship exactly to their pulls, but we had to build *way* ahead to maintain the balance among the various lines we were running in our plant to avoid *huge* financial penalties if were were unable to ship to their pulls and caused them to have to shut their production line down
They knew it was not practical for their suppliers to work to true JIT, but it allowed them to play the game of touting their super-efficient JIT operation.
Like a lot of things (like the quality and cost-cutting programs), it was huge hypocritical joke - they knew a lot of it wasn't practical in the real world, but required you as a supplier to eat all the costs involved (i.e., build excess storage areas and build up huge advance inventories) so they could look pretty, and "modern", and streamlined, and "efficient", and not have to build additional warehousing. Lots of war stories I could tell (don't get me started on GM/Delphi PICOS!).
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/03/2010 7:17 PM, Bill Putney wrote:

Then they didn't know the first thing about JIT. Might have pretended, but didn't know squat.

That is where you start, yuor suppliers. But like most things politicial, you polish a turd to make it nice and shiney.

But at least you know it was a joke. And when a model does not sell or a design change comes through all the inventory is a waste. Yep, and GM & Delphi are bankrupt. Sounds like inept management to me.
--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Once again our friend Canuck57 is telling us the sky is falling LOL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Once again our friend Canuck57 is telling us the sky is falling LOL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/03/2010 4:30 PM, tc wrote:

One more point. Porking the taxpayers with your problems, well, call it brand damage that could last a generation or two if it isn't the kiss of death.
--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
For the reasons you point out, as well as the fact they all must meet the same CAFE, EPA and NHTSA crash standards, is why every manufacture TODAY is making great, low maintenance, long lasting vehicles.
Given the proper preventive maintenance ANY car TODAY will easily last ten years or 200,000 miles and certain will be trouble free for the three to four years that the average NEW car buyer keeps their car then trades it on another new car.
The only real difference among them is style and price. Pick the ONE you like that best suits YOUR needs, then BUY the ONE with best 'total drive home price' that suits you budget home.
More importantly never take the advice, good or bad, from some other person chose, the ONE you buy will NEVER be the same as their ONE car.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
An auto manufacturer must be desperate if they expect people to buy vehicles without talking to others first.
On 17/03/2010 9:35 AM, Mike Hunter wrote:

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.
  Click to see the full signature.
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.