GM market share and stock price and bond ratings are all on a downward
trend. It is a well deserved trend. GM deserves it and may it
So what is the difference between GM and Toyota based on my own
personal experience?? Toyota vehicles are not immune to problems but
it how they handle it that makes the difference. My personal
experience is this.....
I purchase a 1990 4runner. This was the first year for a 4 door
hardtop model. A radical design change from previous years. After the
warranty ran out (about 2 years after) I had a front crank bearing go
out. The dealer shop called me that afternoon to inform me of the bad
news, but the shop manager called Toyota and was instructed not to
charge me!!!!!!! but to go ahead and replace the bearing and
immediately ship it to their research center for analysis. They wanted
to see what happened. This was a $1500 repair that they absorbed.
There were two additional occurances similar to this where I did not
pay though the Toyota vehicles were beyond warranty.
I currently own a 1996 Lumina with peeling paint which is a well known
and widespread problem with vehicles from certain factories due to a
defect in the priming process. The dealer told us that something can
be done. Oh boy what a line. Found out later that to correct anything
on the car we would have to deal directly with the dealer we purchased
it from. In other words we were blown off and they assumed we would go
away. This has been a subject on the NBC news program Dateline and I
found on the web that there is also a class action lawsuit in the
works. There has also been a $500 dollar engine repair due to what the
mechanic told me was an engineering design problem associated with that
particular engine (3.1 v6). Good God! Will this ever end??!!
I have absolutely no sympathy for the eventual demise of GM and its
employees. It is a well deserved fate! GM new vehicles leave me
Get a life!
There are two classes of pedestrians in these days of reckless motor
traffic - the quick and the dead.
~ Lord Dewar 1933 ~
Climbing into a hot car is like buckling on a pistol. It is the great
equalizer. ~ Henry G. Felsen 1964 ~
Wish I can! but I am too busy fixing this chevy and cruising the forums
on the net looking for mechanical solutions for this damn car.
Visited my folks this Christmas holiday and my dad dropped GM from his
short list of vehicles to consider after listening to our story. Hist
short list now consists of Honda Accord and Subaru. Looked at his
issue of Consumer Reports magazine on vehicle reliability reports
(direct from owners) and WOW! I was blown away by the differential in
the ratings between the manufacturers. Check it out!
Dad just got rid of his '88 Caravan SE less than a month ago. The engine
quit. Had 226k and on its second transmission. Just had the fuel pump
replaced in it maybe 2000 miles before that. The problem showed up quickly.
The van started smoking really bad, then oil showed up all over the place.
It went through oil quickly after that. Dad said it needed a tappent. Dad
said that it needed guides to fix the oil leak problem and he wasn't going
to put the money into it to fix it because it was getting to the point where
you couldn't get 1k out of it without spending quite a bit. (Needless to
say, the engine needed rebuilt.) One day, my brother's Intrepid had a flat
tire, so he had to drive the Caravan. Dad said to make dang sure there's
oil in it and fuel. You can guess what happened next... He drove it on the
highway a half-hour away from our house. By the way, he didn't check the
oil but once and it was a quart low, so he put a LITTLE bit in. On his way
back (it was a windy day) he heard funny noises, but he thought it was
probably the wind, so he kept driving it. Then it started losing lots of
speed on hills and the thing would rev up on its own going up hills. The
second time it happened, going up the second hill, he said he pressed on the
gas a little harder because it was losing speed and then all he heard was
tick, tick, tick. He pulled over. There was smoke and oil all over the
place. He called Dad and said, "The van quit." Dad said, "Does it turn
over?" Brother: "Yes, but it won't start." That's all my brother would
say. Dad drives over there and then the rest of the story comes out. Dad
tries starting the van, and he said it sounded terrible trying to start it.
He pops the hood, pulls out the dipstick, and surprise, surprise, no oil
registering on the dipstick. Had it towed home and towed away later that
night. I guess the good news was that Dad already bought his replacement,
which he's already put an extra $1500 into for repairs... A '96 Blazer LT.
He was kind of glad to get rid of the van.
When one buys a used car there is no way to know how it was used
or abused or if it was maintained properly or not. When I
bought used cars I had problems with them as well. Since I
started buying new vehicles, domestic
or foreign made, I have never had a bad one. Perhaps your dad
would be better served if he saved some money bought
a new vehicle?
Travis King wrote:
That's the problem, he couldn't afford to get a new vehicle no matter what
he tried to save up because if he tried to save up, he'd have to use the
money for something else. (Typically for other parts that would go out.)
If you get the impression, we're on the lower end of the money spectrum. He
bought the van used and most of its time before Dad got it was on the
highway. That's why he felt somewhat safe getting it even with high miles.
He probably put about 12k on it a year. We've had it for 7 years. He could
barely afford it and it's a Dodge... Dad used to be an auto mechanic, but
he's not up to snuff with the newer vehicles. His '96 Blazer cost him a
little under $5000 and it had 116k when he bought it and it's up to 117k
now. He needed an SUV or a van that had a 6 cylinder engine because he has
a boat. He went to all sorts of places looking for an SUV that was $5000 or
less. He was trying to get a '97 Blazer with 97k, but he couldn't get the
price brought down far enough. All of the other Blazers for the same price
as his '96 elsewhere had higher mileage for the same price. (Typically 140k
for the same price.) (Believe it or not, his van was used for pulling a
boat during the Summer, as well as transportation from work and back. His
work is a half hour away.) Of course, now that it's Winter, he won't be
doing that, but when late spring comes, it will be happening. Oh well, it's
only a bass boat anyway. Oh, and his van was farely reliable up until about
200k, then you couldn't go a month without a problem. His transmission was
replaced BEFORE it go that high in mileage.
By the way, I have an '88 Pontiac 6000 with the 4 cylinder and it's given me
very little problems under the hood - just a lot of brake problems. The
only thing that was wrong with it under the hood in the past year is a valve
cover gasket blew, but we just used silicone instead and it works much
better that way. Also, the battery. It could use a new fuel pressure
regulator, but it's only died twice in the past several months, so I'm not
worried about that yet. It has 122k (almost 123k). Gave the hood, trunk,
and driver's door a new paint job.
Your experience with Toyota is similar to my 17-year experience with
Chrysler (excellent after sale treatment and will do things for the customer
far beyond what one would expect). Your experience with GM is similar to my
experience with GM ("we already got your money, now go away"). It is odd
behavior for a competitive business and in my opinion is probably one of the
larger contributors to GMs long slide in losing sales to their competitors.
Many people simply won't come back if they don't believe that company stands
behind their product OR appreciated them having given them their business.
But, GM is huge and can hang on this way for decades, I'd bet.
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:35:45 -0500, "James C. Reeves"
Well if they buy enough auto companies in enough countries they can
live on government handouts for generations.
That's what's happening here in N-America and if Vauxhall (AKA
GM/Opel) buys the remainder of Fiat there'll be another group of
taxpayers to help keep them alive.
I drive an '89 1500 V-6 Chevy Pickup. It has a little over 61000 miles
Had to have a short black put in it at 32000. Looks like heck, but ha
a 5 speed and there's been few problems since the short block.
I also have a '94 Chrysler Concorde. Runs like a BOOH, got 28.5 mp
this past Tuesday, and will never buy another Chrysler product
Transmission problems and air conditioning problems out the gazoo. Th
problem is I can not buy a car that will run and handle any better, bu
the reliability sucks big time.
My wife wants a new Toyota. Either the Tundra four door, or the SU
built on the Camry chassis. The problem is Toyota is proud of thei
ShootermanTrackpads.com! Community Forums, Gallery, more! 190,000 Military
Photos, 3,000 Videos and growing! http://www.trackpads.co
If that were true why then do we see so many Toyotas on dealers
used car lots that were traded in on other brands? Why are they
not buying another Toyota. Could it be every manufacture,
including Toyota, makes some that are problematic? I have not
had a bad vehicle, domestic or foreign, in so long I can not
remember when. I'll bet there are plenty of guys in this NG that
have owned GM vehicles, that never had a problem with GM or its
dealers and have driven their vehicles to high mileage's trouble
free as well. ;)
I guess we can assume you don't have one of those Toyotas with
what Toyota calls an oil 'gelling' problem that is eating up
engines. Or a Toyota out of warranty with the reoccurring brake
problem that is eating up rotors or
one with the tranny failures between 40K and 50K. ;)
"James C. Reeves" wrote:
That would be true...never had a Toyota..anything. Although the current
2004 Chrysler Sebring I have has the 2.7 V6 that reportedly has a similar
sludge problem to some of the Toyota engines. So I keep synthetic oil in
that puppy. But then the 2003 Malibu it replaced had the 3.1 engine with
the piston slap and intake manifold issue and various other quality control
problems (water leaking into the car through poorly sealed body seams). So
far I admit being very lucky over the 17 years of Chrysler brands...only a
head gasket problem in the wife's old '97 Neon with the DHOC engine (which
Chrysler fixed even though the warranty had expired). The Dakota's and
Caravan's we had were darn near perfect. Chrysler's product isn't as good
as the experiences I've had (GM's may actually be better). But the Chrysler
customer service culture has been nothing short of excellent in dealing with
the few issues that did come up. I didn't personally have that same
"customer WOW" experience with GM.
But, as you already mentioned...I agree with you that there are probably
some here in this NG that have had the complete opposite experience. So,
one can only look at broad trends in where the customer is going to come to
any general conclusion...and the conclusion is that GM really hasn't turned
things around yet.
Well they must be doing something right, they outsell all other
manufactures including, Ford, Toyota and Chrysler. In fact in the
US GM and Ford together outsell ALL the other, combined.
"James C. Reeves" wrote:
Current sales numbers are useless without looking at those numbers over time
(trend). But, it is why they can go along this way for a fairly long time.
However, if the trend continues at the rate is has been, eventually that
won't be the case. Toyota overtook Chrysler recently and is zeroing in on
Ford. GM will be the last standing for sure...but won't be able to stay on
top unless they reverse the trend. Just doing a elementary trend chart
tells the story of what is in store unless something changes (Toyota screws
up or GM cleans up). It's possible that management isn't concerned since
most of the profit seems to be coming from the finance arm these days
That is correct look at the total sales. When you do you will
find that GM and Ford are selling more vehicles than any time in
history, not less. You continue to make the mistake of not
taking into consideration the expanding market in the US and the
world. Twenty-five years ago when GM had a higher PERCENTAGE of
the US market they sold less than half as many vehicles as they
do today. Both GM and Ford sell more trucks today, where the
market is, than they sold total vehicles back then. The market
then was around nine million, now it is more than twice that.
"James C. Reeves" wrote:
Yes but there are a couple things that are a problem here.
First, if the percentage of market share for GM had maintained the
same, then GM would be selling quadruple more vehicles than back
then, not just double.
Second, market share is extremely important to a manufacturer because
it has a direct effect on pricing. The higher the manufacturer's market
share the less pricing pressure they have on them and the higher they
can price their stuff. And this works right down the line because
not only do they make more money, they make more money for less
work which means salaries for everyone in the company can be
higher and everyone in the company doesen't have to work so hard.
This has a benefit on our economy as well because the workers of
the company who are getting paid more now have extra money that
they pump into the economy which has a secondary beneficial effect.
Today with a smaller and smaller market share, even though they are
selling more cars, it is a lot more work for them and they are paying
their workers less - many of whom in fact have been replaced by
robots - which means those workers have less money to inject
into the US economy to generate secondary economic activity.
Melvin you make a common mistake which is to assume that what
is best for a company is always what is best for our countries economy.
What your missing is that a well-managed company can be run in
such a way that it's going to turn a profit no matter what the conditions
are - but if the major investors of that company aren't in the US those
profits have less chance of being spent here, and if the workers of
that company have been cut to the bone then there's less disposable
money that is going to be spent here.
For many years US Business was run in a manner that was extremely
exploitive of the rest of the world - we regularly came into countries
and put the country to work for peanuts, and extracted all the value
out of the countries citizens for ourselves. Sure, they were all working
but for peanuts. That was -very good- for the US and gave most
citizens here a hugely higher standard of living for very little effort.
Today, the rest of the world has mostly figured out this trick and
they are now doing to us what we were doing to them, and most
of the citizens in the country now are several generations after
our heyday, and lots of them don't even have grandparents now
who were alive before the era of US exploitation. So they don't
even remember now how to really work hard to create value for
themselves and their communities.
So - what we have left is a workforce that mostly puts their energy
into working low paying jobs for national chains who are busy sending
whatever value they create right out of their communities. As a result
their communities are strapped for money and are falling apart as a
result. The workforce of course doesen't understand why their
children have less buying power than they did and they react by
knee-jerks such as cutting taxes which merely hasten the decline
of their local communities all that faster. And in between doing that
the workforce is busy buying every last scrap of consumer goods they
can from foreign suppliers - and bitching that there's no decent jobs
So yeah, I do think there is a problem with GM losing market
share. It's symptomatic of the economic malaise in the United
States. And until the workforce here starts buying locally and
quits pumping money into foreign goods, we are going to be
chronically short decent jobs. Sure as shootin with the current
trade deficit that the rest of the world isn't that interested in spending
their money here.
Not for much longer. GM and Ford have both been steadily loosing market
share for almost 30 years now. That trend has only one logical conclusion
and there has been no sign of either company really turning it around. GM
is doing some things better than they used to, but they still are not
getting ahead of the curve and market share continues to dive.
If the best thing you can say for GM is that they are big .......
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.