Re: GM, Ford reputations take a hit
Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Tue, Feb 6, 2007, 2:53pm (EST+5) From:
My father has a 2001 or so Grand Prix. My dad a lot of engine rebuilding
and head repair work for the dealer over maybe 40 years. When there was
a problem with the transmission, most of the costumes<<<<<<<<
What is a "costumes?'
do you mean "customers?"
got a replacement transmission, but had to pay for the labor. However,
because my father knew the people in shop, they got GM to pay for the
whole thing. All the costumers<<<<<
customers not costumers. They're two entirely different things
That's been a major problem for Ford. Ford has been unable to bring out a
profitable car in the $12k segment. So those buyers go to Toyota Yaris,
Honda Fit or a Hyundai. (I don't know what the cheapest Kia or Hyaundai
sells for, but hte cheapest Toyota and Honda I believe are over $10k.) Then,
in five years, when they start making more money and need a new car, the new
car is Toyota, Honda or Hyundai. And it more like a Rav 4 for a Tundra or
Camry, an Accord or Pilot or whatever new and better car comes for Korea.
However, if the first car was a Ford or GM, so might be the second and
Beyond their quality, they have an additional problem that they can't get
control of. Many of their dealers make it pure torture to both buy and own
their products. Many of their enemies were created by the dealers, not the
product or the corporation.
They say they can't really tell their dealers what to do. They're
independent. Personally, I bet there are people everywhere who would be
more than willing to represent them.
Right on, some dealers are downright ugly and many including me won't
enter their business again.
Here we have one rich cat who made his initial fortune on a Gm
dealership. He now has many dealerships of several stripes including
Toyota. Toyota is recent for him, he's a survivor.
His approach is to fire the worst salesman of each month.
This attitude of intimidation is passed on against the customers.
i've tried them 4 times over 20 years; since I don't submit to their
intimidation I leave very soon.
Buying a new car is a tough enough decision, without this as well.
He hasn't taken up a Chrysler dealership.
Actually, they can pull the dealership from a dealer if they don't make
quality standards. One Caddy dealership closed up near where I used to live
(Crea Caddy - maybe Mike knows these people). The new dealer was required to
increase the size of the showroom within a certain amount of time.
If a McDonald's gets a lot of complaints about a particular independent
francise, they will investigate. If there are problems with the way the
restaurant is run (other than the restaurant sells lots of unhealthful
food), McDonalds will either pull the francise or take over the restaurant
if the problems aren't fixed. Likewise, if a dealer refuses to repair cars
with complicated problems (I know of one dealer who was known to try to get
complicated problems sent to another dealer) or gives a really poor costumer
service experience, the car makers should be able to step in.
My dad used to sell and repair Kohler, Tecomsah and B&S engines. If he
didn't meet the quality standards (mostly for training), he would not have
been a dealer for them.
I would be surprised to learn that if a dealer doesn't do an adeqaute job,
that the maker can't pull the francise. I think the Japanese excercise these
rights more often than the big 3.
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.
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.
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. ;)
Ford and GM had to spend bullions to change several of their assembly plants
from building less expensive RWDs to start building FWD vehicles. The 500
was not comparably expensive to bring to market since it was built in the
new FWD plants, off a previous Ford chassis on which it build Volvos.
No import builds or assembles small car in the US, they are all imported or
assembled in Canada of imported parts. Honda, Nissan and Toyota builds
MIDSIZE cars in the US and Nissan builds trucks. In the case of Toyota,
with the exception of those built in the GM/Toyota plant, only assembles
them of mostly imported parts, which greatly reduces the build costs Honda
does not really build trucks, they make their trucks on car chassis and are
more like crossovers than real trucks
Actually, Civics are produced in Ohio and of domestic and globally sourced
parts. Corollas are built in the US.
> Honda, Nissan and Toyota builds
I think that you are missing the point that Toyota and other imports use a
lot parts made in the US. Whether or not it is more than half differs on
model and manufacturer. Toyota spends something like $28,000,000,000 on
parts and supplies in the US. Toyota has two US design facilities, one near
Detroit and the other in California. Car makers want to make their vehicles
with mostly local parts near where they sell their vehicles. For example, VW
was making the old Beetle for years (going into the 90s, I think) in Mexico
and Brasil. Likewise, Ford makes a lot of vehicles for sale in Latin America
in Brasil and Mexico. And it builds cars for Europe mostly in Europe. And
Ford and GM are getting into make cars in India and other parts of Asia.
And, when they do that, that want to get parts made locally, if possible. It
builds goodwill. And it is cheaper than shipping completed parts overseas,
in most cases.
Most of the parts that Toyota uses for their cars and trucks in the US come
from American and Canadian plants. When they first starting building cars
in the US, they used mostly important parts, but most of the parts they use
in US-built cars and trucks are domestic, now. (Nearly 1/2 of all Toyota
parts on its new cars and trucks come from the US; very few Toyota parts
come from the US on cars built outside the US; so that means that most of
the parts on its US-built cars have to come from the US.)
Overall, domestic brands have a higher proportion of their parts built
domestically, though, around 75-80% for US makes vs. 50% to 66% Toyota
(different source give different numbers).
(Do not tell me anything about VINs and domestic content unless you are able
to back your claims with real evidence.)
Yet they get the job done in a manner that suits their buyers. Just because
you don't think that the construction is the best construction technique
doesn't mean they're not trucks. They get the job done. And in the case of
Toyotas, they get to stop on ramps, right in the middle of the Superbowl.
And, Toyotas will run in a few weeks at Daytona! You don't get more American
than that, except, of course, for Ford and GM.
If you don't like the way they are built, buy a different truck.
Toyota has only around 5% of the full size truck market, Nissan around 3%..
Honda does not even offer a full size truck. Ford has more than 35% and GM
has nearly 30%, Dodge nearly 20%. Corollas are assembled in Canada of mostly
Naturally you are free to believe whatever you wish but even Toyota does not
agree with you. Their ads say assembled in the US of world sourced parts.
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.