Are American cars really that bad
02-02-2004, 08:59 PM
#92
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arcadia, CA-S2K Capital
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Penforhire
.....Our government doesn't support our auto industries quite as much as, say, the Japanese.....
.....Our government doesn't support our auto industries quite as much as, say, the Japanese.....
02-03-2004, 10:16 PM
#94
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Purple sky
Posts: 2,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is old. But I'll throw in my 2 cents.
Some American cars can be reliable and of quality, but most are not. In my opinion and experience, Honda and Toyota vehicles are the most reliable of all, including other Japanese and European cars.
One more point: I think it has a lot to do with the workers themselves. I think American workers give less efforts and details in their work compared to their counterparts. In general, a lot of American-made Japanese cars are less reliable and qualitative than the Japanese-made.
Some American cars can be reliable and of quality, but most are not. In my opinion and experience, Honda and Toyota vehicles are the most reliable of all, including other Japanese and European cars.
One more point: I think it has a lot to do with the workers themselves. I think American workers give less efforts and details in their work compared to their counterparts. In general, a lot of American-made Japanese cars are less reliable and qualitative than the Japanese-made.
02-05-2004, 01:58 AM
#96
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northampton
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a fascinating thread,
The UK produce some stunning cars all marques have had there up's and down's though. TVR, Lotus, Noble, MG, Caterham, Morgan, Aston Martin, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Jaguar, Rover, Land Rover & Range Rover and non are famous for reliability but some are loved throughout the world for other reasons.
I think the reason why we don't particulary like american cars is in the past they have never been like any other countrys cars, not that thats a bad thing but traditionally never suited our tastes, our roads or need to burn extordinary amounts of fuel.
But saying that some have been absoulute wonderful cars just sometimes we have images of pink cadillacs with fins and things.
I think car ownership is not just about reliability though some cars just don't stir the sences, Alfa-Romeo being a marque which reliability is awful but some how there is something that makes them popular. I have a friend and he has had 2 156's both falling to bits but still plans to get another. TVR's aren't reliable but i still dream of owning one. My S2K is great but it does feel some times a bit like it has no soul if you know what i mean and i know if i had a corrolla it would put me to sleep give me a 146GTV Alfa or Cosworth Ford instead.
just my 2p
The UK produce some stunning cars all marques have had there up's and down's though. TVR, Lotus, Noble, MG, Caterham, Morgan, Aston Martin, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Jaguar, Rover, Land Rover & Range Rover and non are famous for reliability but some are loved throughout the world for other reasons.
I think the reason why we don't particulary like american cars is in the past they have never been like any other countrys cars, not that thats a bad thing but traditionally never suited our tastes, our roads or need to burn extordinary amounts of fuel.
But saying that some have been absoulute wonderful cars just sometimes we have images of pink cadillacs with fins and things.
I think car ownership is not just about reliability though some cars just don't stir the sences, Alfa-Romeo being a marque which reliability is awful but some how there is something that makes them popular. I have a friend and he has had 2 156's both falling to bits but still plans to get another. TVR's aren't reliable but i still dream of owning one. My S2K is great but it does feel some times a bit like it has no soul if you know what i mean and i know if i had a corrolla it would put me to sleep give me a 146GTV Alfa or Cosworth Ford instead.
just my 2p
02-05-2004, 05:05 AM
#97
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: va
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Iron Head
I think car ownership is not just about reliability though some cars just don't stir the sences, Alfa-Romeo being a marque which reliability is awful but some how there is something that makes them popular. I have a friend and he has had 2 156's both falling to bits but still plans to get another.
I think car ownership is not just about reliability though some cars just don't stir the sences, Alfa-Romeo being a marque which reliability is awful but some how there is something that makes them popular. I have a friend and he has had 2 156's both falling to bits but still plans to get another.
02-05-2004, 08:17 AM
#98
Registered User
Not that I disagree with you guys, but it seems like the definition of soul in a car is if it is tempermental (unreliable) and quirky. Many people complain that modern Japanese cars (and bikes) have no soul and I can't help but attribute some of that to noticeably better quality, ergonomics, and NVH.
Is there some other characteristic that equates to soul? Can't just be style. Can it be lack of parts availability? It just seems like everything that gives a vehicle character or soul is technically a negative property.
Is there some other characteristic that equates to soul? Can't just be style. Can it be lack of parts availability? It just seems like everything that gives a vehicle character or soul is technically a negative property.
02-05-2004, 09:31 AM
#99
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: City
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people, like Consumer Reports, use different criteria for defining "quality," than many other people use. Cars that CR claims are "the best," often are boring, underpowered, adequate fillers-of-a-duty. The cars that many people want to own generally don't make any kind of quality "Top Ten." Claiming that a car is "better" because CR says so may be fine with you, but it will never be something I will agree with, since my criteria for defining quality has to do with more than how many pennies I counted in the last five years. If you are willing to spend $30,000 over five years on a "problem-free" car, shouldn't you be willing to spend the same on any car, regardless of whether the $30K was up-front or over the five-year period as part of routine maintenance? I mean, as long as whatever trouble may go wrong doesn't involve any safety or drivetrain issues.
And this whole practice of counting the number of reported issues with a car over a five-year period, and then reporting the ones with the lowest number is mildly retarded. Imagine a car that tops such a list, with an average of 2 problems per owner in the first five years of ownership. Sounds pretty good, but if the most prevelent problems were oil pump failure and transmission failure, those 2 problems are much more serious than some other car's 15 problems per car, if those 15 consisted mainly of things like radio knob failure, broken seat motors, faulty wiring harness retaining clip, etc. The number of recalls or TSBs or reported problems is irrelevant, the real valuable data is what kinds of issues were reported.
Consider if you rate cars based on the average cost of repairs, assuming a lower number indicates a "better" value. Expensive cars, assembled from high-quality components that are expensive to manufacture will rate poorly, despite the fact that they are actually much better values quality-wise, considering the fact that every component is better than what is found in an "entry-level" model.
Most Japanese cars are cheap, made for the least amount of money per car than any other nation's cars. They are made with less-expensive components, and as efficiently as possible to reduce labor costs. Even their expensive "luxury" cars are made with this mindset. When I spend $30K, I don't want a cheap car. I want a car built with my measures of quality in mind, and cheapness isn't a measure of quality to me. I don't care how much profit is left over after building my car. In fact, being human, knowing how big a chunk of the purchase price was pure profit would not make me any happier.
For example, I recently purchased a new watch, with a mechanical movement. I don't care how much it cost to make my watch, all I care about is that the watch represents the kind of quality I can afford. I don't want to hear that the company that made my watch spends less money on their watches than any other watch company. I want to hear that the company that makes my watch puts more value into each watch than any other maker. If that means they pay their watchmakers more than the other companies in the industry, and their benefits and pension plan is superior to that of their competitors, so be it. If they've been around long enough to have workers who have spent 30 or 40 years getting raises and adding years and bonuses to their retirement plan, all the power to them. Far better than buying a watch from a brand new company that spends a pittance on the watch and their help, and yet asks the same money as their competitors, as if the end product is equal.
The criteria by which Japanese cars are judged superior to American cars by some people are entirely arbitrary. Some of the criteria have what I would call inverted values, like the average cost of repairs (Assuming high = bad, when in reality, high=good.). And reported problem surveys of people only tell you what people who responded to the survey wanted you to know. Suggesting there is only one measure of quality is foolish. Insisting that anyone who doesn't use the same measure as you must be uninformed or stupid is also foolish.
I do get tired of people constantly harping on American cars, especially when the complainer mentions they have never owned one and never will. They can pretend their opinion is valid, but we all know that unless you have first-hand experience with something, you are hardly an expert. And why is it people always feel the need to chime in with some statement implying American cars are crap whenever one is mentioned? I can't think of a single subject where i would feel compelled to make a negative comment at every opportunity, even if I had nothing else to contribute. Are these people mentally ill, or victims of some sort of mind control exercised by the Japanese Auto Triad? Or are they just rude and ignorant? Do they do that at work or school? Do they wonder why no-one likes them?
And this whole practice of counting the number of reported issues with a car over a five-year period, and then reporting the ones with the lowest number is mildly retarded. Imagine a car that tops such a list, with an average of 2 problems per owner in the first five years of ownership. Sounds pretty good, but if the most prevelent problems were oil pump failure and transmission failure, those 2 problems are much more serious than some other car's 15 problems per car, if those 15 consisted mainly of things like radio knob failure, broken seat motors, faulty wiring harness retaining clip, etc. The number of recalls or TSBs or reported problems is irrelevant, the real valuable data is what kinds of issues were reported.
Consider if you rate cars based on the average cost of repairs, assuming a lower number indicates a "better" value. Expensive cars, assembled from high-quality components that are expensive to manufacture will rate poorly, despite the fact that they are actually much better values quality-wise, considering the fact that every component is better than what is found in an "entry-level" model.
Most Japanese cars are cheap, made for the least amount of money per car than any other nation's cars. They are made with less-expensive components, and as efficiently as possible to reduce labor costs. Even their expensive "luxury" cars are made with this mindset. When I spend $30K, I don't want a cheap car. I want a car built with my measures of quality in mind, and cheapness isn't a measure of quality to me. I don't care how much profit is left over after building my car. In fact, being human, knowing how big a chunk of the purchase price was pure profit would not make me any happier.
For example, I recently purchased a new watch, with a mechanical movement. I don't care how much it cost to make my watch, all I care about is that the watch represents the kind of quality I can afford. I don't want to hear that the company that made my watch spends less money on their watches than any other watch company. I want to hear that the company that makes my watch puts more value into each watch than any other maker. If that means they pay their watchmakers more than the other companies in the industry, and their benefits and pension plan is superior to that of their competitors, so be it. If they've been around long enough to have workers who have spent 30 or 40 years getting raises and adding years and bonuses to their retirement plan, all the power to them. Far better than buying a watch from a brand new company that spends a pittance on the watch and their help, and yet asks the same money as their competitors, as if the end product is equal.
The criteria by which Japanese cars are judged superior to American cars by some people are entirely arbitrary. Some of the criteria have what I would call inverted values, like the average cost of repairs (Assuming high = bad, when in reality, high=good.). And reported problem surveys of people only tell you what people who responded to the survey wanted you to know. Suggesting there is only one measure of quality is foolish. Insisting that anyone who doesn't use the same measure as you must be uninformed or stupid is also foolish.
I do get tired of people constantly harping on American cars, especially when the complainer mentions they have never owned one and never will. They can pretend their opinion is valid, but we all know that unless you have first-hand experience with something, you are hardly an expert. And why is it people always feel the need to chime in with some statement implying American cars are crap whenever one is mentioned? I can't think of a single subject where i would feel compelled to make a negative comment at every opportunity, even if I had nothing else to contribute. Are these people mentally ill, or victims of some sort of mind control exercised by the Japanese Auto Triad? Or are they just rude and ignorant? Do they do that at work or school? Do they wonder why no-one likes them?
02-05-2004, 04:13 PM
#100
Registered User
I grew up with GM cars and the experience has been for the most part positive.
1985 Chevrolet Celebrity 2.8 MPFI V-6. Parents bought new and was a hand me down car I drove in high school. Car had an ignition problem that caused the car to stall at slow speeds that was eventually fixed for pretty cheap. Other than that, the car ran perfect. It had 111,000 miles on it when I was rear ended. My dad did the upkeep on the car himself and it was half-assed at best! It was also used to tow our old 1978 pop-up travel trailer that although it was small, it was made out of solid steel and wood and weighed a ton. I would like to see an Accord from the mid 80's tow that trailer. Great car!
1985 GMC S-15 2.8 carb. V-6. Good truck until 85K miles when it overheated cuasing the block to warp. Traded in on 93 Caprice
1993 Chevrolet Caprice 5.0L V-8. An ex-rental car, something you shouldn't buy but a purchase my parents have not regretted one bit. The only problem with this car has had was the rear passenger door window won't work correctly. Has 120K plus miles
1994 Chevrolet Corsica 3.1 V-6. Also an ex-rental car, the car I bought when the Celebrity was totaled. It had a power window motor go out when I first bought it. It has been really good up until recently when the alternator when out and the intake manifold gasket gave up (that really sucked, $1,000 to fix) Serves as a daily driver with just under 100K miles on the odo, plan on replacing with either a Scion XA or Toyota Corolla.
I don't think I will buy a GM car again (except a Corvette) and it isn't so much the reliability issue, more with the lacking build quality/fit and finish and the really sorry resale value.
1985 Chevrolet Celebrity 2.8 MPFI V-6. Parents bought new and was a hand me down car I drove in high school. Car had an ignition problem that caused the car to stall at slow speeds that was eventually fixed for pretty cheap. Other than that, the car ran perfect. It had 111,000 miles on it when I was rear ended. My dad did the upkeep on the car himself and it was half-assed at best! It was also used to tow our old 1978 pop-up travel trailer that although it was small, it was made out of solid steel and wood and weighed a ton. I would like to see an Accord from the mid 80's tow that trailer. Great car!
1985 GMC S-15 2.8 carb. V-6. Good truck until 85K miles when it overheated cuasing the block to warp. Traded in on 93 Caprice
1993 Chevrolet Caprice 5.0L V-8. An ex-rental car, something you shouldn't buy but a purchase my parents have not regretted one bit. The only problem with this car has had was the rear passenger door window won't work correctly. Has 120K plus miles
1994 Chevrolet Corsica 3.1 V-6. Also an ex-rental car, the car I bought when the Celebrity was totaled. It had a power window motor go out when I first bought it. It has been really good up until recently when the alternator when out and the intake manifold gasket gave up (that really sucked, $1,000 to fix) Serves as a daily driver with just under 100K miles on the odo, plan on replacing with either a Scion XA or Toyota Corolla.
I don't think I will buy a GM car again (except a Corvette) and it isn't so much the reliability issue, more with the lacking build quality/fit and finish and the really sorry resale value.