Denting Toyota's sales?

"Jeff Strickland"

Well you can't expect them to show you *all* their cards yet. I'm willing to wait until they get it right.

Natalie

Actually the K car was pretty successful and led to the first Chrysler minivan which was a homerun.

I'm pessimistic because GM rarely produces vehicles rated best in class, the Silverado truck being an exception, and a company on the verge of liquidation needs vehicles that are better than anyone else's best, not just almost as good.

And I'm reminded of the wonderful Chevette (If you want to see a photo of one, just Google "POS") and the even worse AMC-Renault (Alliance?). Not to mention the Corvair, and its Chrysler counterpart, whose name I've blissfully forgotten. Maybe Dodge Dart? One hallmark of the early 60s "economy" cars was the inclusion of the ugliest upholstery fabrics known to man. At least the VW had nice clean vinyl seats that you'd enjoy sitting in, whereas the domestics all looked as if their material was the sort used on the cheapest Levitz or Wickes sofas. awful stuff. I always maintained that it was meant to look ugly, so that even if you wanted economy, you took one look and said "Now, the joke's over so let's look at a standard Chevy or Plymouth or Ford."

Your idea of a failure is different than mine.

Ford sold millions of Pintos. Compared to crap Toyota was pushing on the US in 1971, it was a pretty good car for the money. My family owned two of them. Best value for the money ever.

The Vega also sold well, at least until the engine problems because well know. If GM had not tried to get fancy with the engine, it probably would have been a success.

Chrysler lives today because of the K car and the vehicles that were developed from the basic K car chassis. I actually owned one. It was a nice car but the second most unreliable car I ever owned, but at least it drove nicely. The POS Cressida I owned from the same period drove like crap and was even less reliable (and much much more expensive to keep running).

Ed

Both the Corvair and Dart (and Falcon) all sold pretty well. The Corvair was a decnt car. Have you ever actually been in one?

I have been in Corvairs, Falcons, and Darts from the early 60's. There was nothing especially ugly about the upholstery. It was tyical of the time. My family owned a couple of 1964 Ford Fairlanes (one size up from a Falcon). My Gransfather's Fairlane was pretty basic (even had rubber floor mats) and the upholstery was just the sort of "nice clean vinyl" you attribute to VWs. BTW, VWs from the early 60's were junk. I know people loved them, and they were easy to work on, but they needed to be worked on constantly. Much of the VW greatest is just mythology. If you bought a bug in the early 60's you were trying to be different. You couldn't buy something like that and then admit you were an idiot.

At least for Ford, there was not much different in the trim available in Falcons, Fairlanes and full size Fords. There was more difference between the trim levels (Base, Custom, 500) than between lines.

they were easy to work on, but they needed to be worked >on constantly.

Hahahaha... ain't that the truth! Speaking as a five time loser, I can attest to C.E.'s claim. It seems that most old VWs you see for sale include the phrase, "new transaxle, just rebuilt" and so on.

developed from the basic K car chassis. We were shopping for a new car in El Paso, Texas in 1981. We went to a Chrysler dealer and test drove a K-car. It had two or three interior pieces rolling around the floor. We moved on and bought a Corolla wagon for $7,000. jor

Yes, I had a station wagon version of the K car which used a Mitsubishi engine that although it had a conventional carburetor, it never stalled. Unfortunately, it got totaled in 1986 (the car behind didn't stop as fast).

My sister got an early version of the minivan, but it was underpowered for her tastes.

-- Ron

"mack"...

LOL you think it was strategic?

Natalie

"larry moe 'n curly" ...

Wickeddoll® wrote:

I'm pessimistic because GM rarely produces vehicles rated best in class, the Silverado truck being an exception, and a company on the verge of liquidation needs vehicles that are better than anyone else's best, not just almost as good.

LMC

But if they can approximate Toyota's quality with a much lower price, as Ed White says about domestic cars vs. imports, they may pull it off. We've all become much more frugal due to the economy, but word-of-mouth is still pretty powerful.

Natalie

A company with higher costs than Toyota that tries to sell cars for less and doesn't have nearly as much money to develop new models is doomed in the long term, especially when it employs only 1/3 to 1/2 as many engineers per major chassis as Toyota does and is full of business majors in top management.

"larry moe 'n curly"...

Wickeddoll® wrote:

A company with higher costs than Toyota that tries to sell cars for less and doesn't have nearly as much money to develop new models is doomed in the long term, especially when it employs only 1/3 to 1/2 as many engineers per major chassis as Toyota does and is full of business majors in top management.

LMC

Why would their costs be higher than Toyota? The weak dollar?

Natalie

Been in one? I owned a '63 four door and a girlfriend of mine owned a '64 convertible that I used to drive occasionally. I liked mine well enough, ezcept the engine leaked oil like a sieve...and curing it would have been a major expense.

I was thinking particularly of the Dart's "moderne" upholstery, which was beyond ugly! If you liked it, good for you.

My family owned a couple of 1964 Ford Fairlanes (one size up

Repeating your question, have you ever been in one? I owned two Beetles, a '62 convertible and later a '67 two-door. I also had a girlfriend with a '56 which ran forever with little maintenance. By the time I knew her it was 8 years old and fun to drive. Held together much better than later model US compacts.

Why, in your opinion, were the 60s VWs junk?

GM vehicles have a higher domestic content. GM has higher wage rates in their plants. GM has unfunded pension liabilities. And, GM is deeply in debt which is made worse by the fact that the debt exceeds their assets.

-- Ron

GM vehicles have a higher domestic content. GM has higher wage rates in their plants. GM has unfunded pension liabilities. And, GM is deeply in debt which is made worse by the fact that the debt exceeds their assets.

-- Ron

Ah. Thanks.

Natalie

No more often than I had to. They were incredibly uncomfortable. A couple of friends in HS had them. I tried to avoid riding in them. Given the choice I drove my car (a horrid, beat to crap, rusted out '67 Fairlane). One student actually managed to turn his Beetle over in the shopping center parking lot trying to lay a circle. Fortunately no one was injured and, amazingly, after we turned the thing back on the wheels, he drove it off. More than once I had to go rescue a friend who had a late 60's beetle. It was a standing joke. Of course he always bragged on how great it was. I think it had some sort of amnesia device installed so the driver would forget what a POS it was. That is the only way I can figure he forget how often it broke down. I guess one advantage of owning a beetle was that you never felt the need to race anybody. There was nothing in my town slower that Beetle (although there was a Renault Dauphine in the next town - at least the Bug was better than that). One girl had a convertible Beetle. It was cute when it was fixed up with eye brows and a smile for the homecoming parade. The first time I ever helped pull an engine was an old VW. We used a stack of logs to support it......At least it was easy to pull.

Not from what I remember, assuming the VW received similar maintenance to a typical domestic car. VWs that were abused like domestic cars generally ended up tin the junk yard in just a few years. I write off most of the claims about how reliable they were as faulty memory. I don't doubt that you or someone you knew had a good one, but mostly they were underpowered toys. There is a guy near Elizabeth City NC that has a whole field full of old Beetles. He runs some sort of business - not sure of the nature of the business. I don't doubt that

You mean other than that they were slow, noisy, unreliable, uncomfortable, and dangerous?

Ed

GM has a Union, and so does Chrysler and Ford. And they all have top-heave management structures with lots of planners and others who have no direct bearing on making cars. They made a deal with the devil (unions) on wages and benefits, which worked out fine as long as everybody was brainwashed into Buying American, and all the car makers had similar cost structures. The cars would get traded and replaced after four or five years, and last about 100,000 miles and get scrapped for something new.

(A million miles can be done in an older domestic car - after three or four new engines, six or eight rebuilt transmissions, two rear ends, two or three complete suspension rebuilds...)

Then the Japanese learned the Quality lesson that Detroit ignored, and started selling lower priced cars in large volumes that flat out refused to die. 250,000 miles is middle aged for some models, and a million miles with meticulous maintenance isn't too hard to hit - might need one transmission rebuild and a valve job.

And the Japanese makers had lower cost structures and made smarter union deals on domestic plants. So Japan Inc. could sell a better car for less - even if it was built at a US Plant with US Labor and a large percentage of US sourced parts) and still make money at it...

The ONLY THING that is saving Detroit's ass is they sell cars and trucks to Federal, State and Local governmental agencies, and corporations with shareholders that insist on "Buy American". And they have an American name - even though the cars were built in Canada or Mexico and many components were made in Asia to chase lower labor costs.

If Detroit doesn't get their quality act together, get their costs down, and start selling the cars and trucks people want to buy (instead of big cars and trucks to maximize unit profits) and lose that "Buy American" advantage that is eroding, they are toast.

-->--

What difference does it make as to how someone RATES any vehicle? If one takes ten of the finest vehicles in the world and classifies them, one will be first and one last, but they are all still the fines vehicles in the world. The only REAL difference style and price. When it comes to WHAT one chooses to buy it always comes down to price, in any event.

The fact is GM sells more vehicles than any manufacturer in the world. Obviously more buyers think GM makes better vehicles than any other manufacturer, for the price ;)

Wickeddoll. wrote:

I'm pessimistic because GM rarely produces vehicles rated best in class, the Silverado truck being an exception, and a company on the verge of liquidation needs vehicles that are better than anyone else's best, not just almost as good.

So, it's typical American bloat? How pathetic.

:-)

Yeah - I hope they try to learn from Japan, but it may be too late.

Sounds like it. I think unions were great when they first started, but they've been so corrupted that they harm their members more than help them, a lot of the time. Anyone know of any *good* unions of any type?

Gotta use your illusion...

Yeah.

Natalie