JD Powers Survey

In that survey GM and Ford had the number one vehicle, in the opinion of their owners, in more classes than did Toyota. ;)

mike hunt

Ed White wrote:

Mike

There are reasons why GM keeps losing money. It starts with quality. Yes, they are getting better, but markets are best at throwing away bad apples. GM is practically giving away their cars just to keep the inventory moving. This is not a good sign.

Dan

GMs problem is primarily a PR problem and the survey backs that up. What they were doing ten to five years ago is hurting them today. They need only convince todays buyers, of what we in the industry already know, that the vehicle they and Ford are building TODAY are among the finest available on the market TODAY. Many are the best in class, like the mid size Buick, Cadillac full size sedan, the small chevy truck and GM and Ford large trucks and the Ford mid size van for example. GMs and Fords vehicles are much less expensive to drive home as well. By getting more of them on the road, that fact will become apparent.

New vehicle buyers in the US replace their vehicle with another new vehicle in three to four years. The majority of those that roam the NG are USED vehicle buyer, not NEW vehicle buyer, their opinion of the used vehicle they bought does not mean a hill of beans to todays new vehicle buyers, in any event.

mike hunt

"Dan J.S." wrote:

Pontiac Fiero

2 words that will explain it: Low expectations.

Mike,

When you try to open the hood on my father's 2004 Saturn, the handle feels like it is ready to break off. The rear seats are incredibly low and uncomfortable. The handling is incredibly bad. It is a 6 but drives like a

4 until you fill it with gas. It uses gas like a big 6. The rear window switches look like the front door lock switches. Overall a piece of crap.

Thanks..... a great car..... except for the engine fire. And that is a quote.

I've never owned a good GM. Bought one (Grand Prix '84) with 12k miles and one new ( '95 Blazer). Both behaved (over time) as if they were assembled by crack addicts. 'Had to' dump both pre 100k or face big issues.

So, I guess the next 98 are going to be exceptional??

OTOH

My '01 Camry (purchaed new) has 80k and still feels like new with NO problems.

That's the way I see it too. I did not consider it much of a gamble to buy a new Range Rover and I have been rewarded by the most reliable vehicle over the first eight months that I have ever owned. In fact it is way ahead of my Toyota Land Cruiser over the same period which had a [difficult to sort] wheel alignment problem and needed a new fog lamp and drivers seatbelt in the same timeframe.

Huw

200k are u nuts .... motors have such short pistons in them here in the cold ares like canada the motor suffer from piston slap (slight knocking noise untill motor warms up) as soon as 60000 miles.... my dads 200 intrepid with 2.7 mits engine broke a timing chain guide ! 110000 kilometers thank god the chain stayed on or it would have been more than the 600 dollars of parts that i installed..... just worked on a 1991 buick today frame is about to fall apart from rust just in front of the rear trailing arms to the rear suspension. dont tell me they build cars better.... just imagine how long a mid 70's motor would have lasted if they all had the advantages of modern fuel infection.

Er, I've been hearing them say that for nearly 25 years now. "Really, the cars we build *now* are much better!" You can only do that so long before people stop listening. (As for me, I'll start paying attention when the Consumer Reports long-term reliability survey figures for Ford and GM consistently stay up with the best Japanese manufacturers. Those manufacturers were still well ahead of them on that measure, at last check.)

What are those frequent new car buyers going to do with the cars they replace? Unless they want to collect them on their lawn or keep expanding their garages, they're going to want to sell them or trade them in. And what will they be able to get for them? That depends on how much those used vehicle buyers are willing to pay. Which means that new-car buyers

*should* care about how fast their cars depreciate (which is quite fast for many GM and Ford models), if they care about keeping their overall auto expenses down.

You might as well spend a little more up front for a better-built, more reliable car that isn't going to lose its value as fast, whether you're planning to resell it in a few years or keep it until the wheels fall off.

(Or, if you think that GM and Ford have had an undeservedly bad rep, then the smart move to save money is buy one of their cars at the 3-4 year mark for cheap. If they really are reliable, you should then be able to keep them for many more years, and save big bucks. But as for us, we've been happy with our now-16-year-old Toyota, and will probably get something fairly similar when it's time to replace it.) John Mark Ockerbloom

There will always be those that can not afford a new car, that will be there to buy up all of the used cars.

mike hunt

John Ockerbloom wrote:

My buddy is a mechanic at a Toyota dealership, they're not as reliable as people think they are. They have just as many problems as other manufacturers. I don't subscribe to that mentality that most people believe jap scrap is more reliable than other cars. My wife's 97 ford contour has had not one lick of problem up until this weekend, I changed the water pump at 90,000k's. We have had it since 98. I just worked on a supra not more than two months ago which needed a new cam, worn lobes, warped head, so don't tell me that they're more reliable. Same goes for our Honda accord, replaced the cam at 130,000k's, again worn lobes. I quess they use cheap metal. I'm currrently trying a Hyundai sonota, and will never buy one of those again, nice looking car, but never again. All of these cars were a one owner brand new off the lot vehicles. I'm currently looking for a new car, and may go back to a European car, particular a German made car.

No car is going to be 100% problem free, but Toyotas and Hondas typically experience less non-routine problems than North American brands, especially if regular maintenance is kept up. But even with regular maintenance, North American brand cars tend to experience more non-routine problems, especially when they are at least 5 years old and/or the mileage gets up there. And this JD Power survey focused on (I think) 3-year old cars.

My '93 Accord has 223,000km (138,000 miles) and has been extremely reliable. My father and brother both have Corollas ('04 and '05) with about 30,000km (19,000 miles) each so far, and as expected, both have been reliable so far. But we have taken good care of our cars and kept up the regular maintenance.

Not all Japanese brands are reliable (especially Mazda, for example). But Toyota and Honda are typically more reliable than most others.

You've been lucky. I know a lot of Contour/Mystique owners who had lots of problems with them, including a few that had fires from under the hood.

Since it's a Supra, perhaps it was not well taken care of. The only common problem I am aware of (depending on the year) is the head gasket.

Since you appear to be in Canada (like me), I assume you are talking kilometers here? Anyway, that is rare for an Accord. But again, is it possible that it hasn't been well taken care of?

German cars are actually no more reliable than the others. Volkwagens are just plain junk, and apparently, Mercedes-Benz' quality has suffered since the DaimlerChrysler merger.

maintenance.

We had it since brand new, bought in 86, got rid of that scrap pile in 91 with a 130 k's on the clock. started to rust out pretty bad to. All routine maintenance done by me ( worked for honda dealership at the time ). The shop was well stocked with vehicles in for repairs and tsb's all the time. Same as the Toyo shop across the lot from them at that time, no different from a ford or gm or chrysler shop. Had just as many cars going through the doors as any one else. And to this day, at the auto mall here in the city i see the shops full of cars, Toyo's, Honda's, Gm's Ford's, and so on. I see no difference in reliability or the number of occurances in these cars than from any others.

That may be true, but I've had no problems when I owned a volks or Mercedes. But they were not brand new and were well into the hundreds of thousand of miles on the clocks, they were a 60,61, 65. My 190 my dad gave me as a grad present, had over 470,000 miles on the odometer, but I took the engine apart for restoration. I figured I refresh it, did not need it, but I wanted to bring this thing to brand new condition from a ground up restore. The hoses and lines needed replacing to get it like new again. To bad it burnt to the ground in a garage fire, it was a beauty, with ivory steering wheel and cherry wood dash, and wasn't insured. But it was a slug, barely moved, underpowered, but what a gorgeous looking car. Had no problems with it whatsoever.

No, MB has been junk for quite a while, no merger needed. German cars are not only junk, but ridiculously expensive to repair.

What gets me is VW puts out shit, yet has a retardedly high resale value.

We also use block heaters up here in Canada on cold nights. I frequently hear 10+ year old Plymouth Acclaims with 300 000km+ tapping away from piston slap (when warm) no problem. Piston slap is usually more of an annoyance than anything major.

14 year old car.

And how the body wouldn't.

Just curious, how do you know that ALL of those Hondas and Toyotas you saw in the shops were there for something other than regular maintenance (not counting TSB's and recalls)?

Perhaps your Accord was a rare lemon? I still see a handful of late 80s Accords running today. A friend of mine put close to 500,000km on an '86 Accord with very few non-routine problems. He ditched it in 2001 when the rust caught up with it, but the engine (carbureted) and auto tranny were still all original and good.

Perhaps you have seen no difference in reliability, but I have.