Buying Domestic, Good or Bad

[Unit 5302]

US manufacturers don't need to cut corners, and their sale prices are often proof. Their die hard old marketing campaign features cars that undercut the competition in price. They hope the cheaper vehicle will get buyers to jump at their model line rather than spending more for a foreign car.

Hyundai and Kia can point to the fact that sales practice works.... but the car people are buying MUST be of nearly the same quality.

While it's true that some domestic cars do quite well in terms of reliability, they do little to enhance the overall image. Even the some cars are good, some cars are bad reputation serves to provide an poor image of vehicles manufactured overall. It implies sloppy engineering and quality control. If Ford could build a 5.0 Mustang which was very reliable, why were their other cars such junk? There's no good reason for it because they proved they could build a good car. They just didn't want to.

Cutting corners isn't an option anymore. If the domestics want to remain viable, neither is undercutting the competition with lower prices until their quality reputation is restored.

It's true that a lot of German manufactured cars have poor reliability despite the "German Engineering" catch phrase. The Volkswagen/Audi 1.8T is the epitome of a piece of engineering junk. While powerful, smooth and refined, it grenades at 60k-80k with alarming regularity. The cause? A poorly designed/constructed timing belt on an interference engine. It's a well documented problem, but I don't believe they've ever taken care of the issue. Volkswagen is pretty hit or miss it seems. I've talked to a lot of people that have never really had a problem, and some that have had lots of problems. Regardless, I see a TON of high mileage German cars commanding a LOT of money in the used car market. I think most of it has to do with the driving experience behind the wheel. I know I was very impressed with my little brother's Jetta. He has an '01 Jetta, nothing special. It felt 10x nicer and newer than my brand new '02 GT though.

There are, of course, other problems besides just quality with Ford/GM. Marketing. How bad are the Ford commercials we all see? Oh man. They're awful, awful, awful. The music and the car names. Minor styling mishaps flattened out (new edge) quarter panels on the now defunct Cougar. With just a touch more work on the quality of the Cougar (it doesn't seem to have major issues, just a lot of minor ones) and some better advertising, it would have been a huge hit for Mercury.

Anyway, I digress. If the domestic manufacturers are doing poorly, and they need to cut costs, the very first place they need to look at is the executives. They claim the right to huge pay when the company does well so they should take the blame when the company does poorly.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by Unit 5302

US manufacturers don't need to cut corners, and their sale prices are often proof. Their die hard old marketing campaign features cars that undercut the competition in price. They hope the cheaper vehicle will get buyers to jump at their model line rather than spending more for a foreign car.

As you noted, that doesn't always work so well, anymore. Besides, you can buy a well-equipped econocar (like the Kia Reo) with a 100,000 mile drivetrain warranty for under $13,000., today. Few domestic cars can match that. Of course, the re-sale on the Kia is pathetic but then, so is the re-sale on most domestics.

Hyundai and Kia can point to the fact that sales practice works.... but the car people are buying MUST be of nearly the same quality.

Quite right. I assume that many American car buyers would rather have an 'American' car than one from South Korea but if the domestic econocar's quality is crap, they'll go for the better-built 'foreign' car.

While it's true that some domestic cars do quite well in terms of reliability, they do little to enhance the overall image. Even the some cars are good, some cars are bad reputation serves to provide an poor image of vehicles manufactured overall. It implies sloppy engineering and quality control. If Ford could build a 5.0 Mustang which was very reliable, why were their other cars such junk? There's no good reason for it because they proved they could build a good car. They just didn't want to.

While it's a reality that most major U.S. auto manufacturers carry a lot of pricy overhead and 'dead weight' that Japanese companies do not tolerate, I have to agree that sloppy engineering and poor quality control is very likely the main culprit for shoddy product. Well, screw them, then.

Cutting corners isn't an option anymore. If the domestics want to remain viable, neither is undercutting the competition with lower prices until their quality reputation is restored.

Apparently the U.S. auto manufacturers haven't figured that out yet.

It's true that a lot of German manufactured cars have poor reliability despite the "German Engineering" catch phrase. The Volkswagen/Audi 1.8T is the epitome of a piece of engineering junk. While powerful, smooth and refined, it grenades at 60k-80k with alarming regularity. The cause? A poorly designed/constructed timing belt on an interference engine. It's a well documented problem, but I don't believe they've ever taken care of the issue. Volkswagen is pretty hit or miss it seems. I've talked to a lot of people that have never really had a problem, and some that have had lots of problems. Regardless, I see a TON of high mileage German cars commanding a LOT of money in the used car market. I think most of it has to do with the driving experience behind the wheel. I know I was very impressed with my little brother's Jetta. He has an '01 Jetta, nothing special. It felt 10x nicer and newer than my brand new '02 GT though.

Image and perception are a very important factor in selling cars, as we all know. Until recently, when they finally got it right, Chevy sold tons of poorly-made Corvettes over the years because of the 'sexy' Corvette 'image'. They were slow, creaked even when new and were a chore to maintain, yet they still sold, even if in relatively small numbers as is normal for a very impractical, 'niche' vehicle.

While I've always felt that one or two individual accounts of good or bad experiences with a specific car doesn't mean all that much, I have to note that a friend owned a late '90's BMW that began falling apart at 100,000 miles but he was reluctent to let it go because of the 'feel' of the car and the 'prestige' it gave him. It was 'his Beemer' and his ownership inferred a status to him that he valued over practical aspects. He finally gave in and sold it when a head gasket went and the estimated repair bill was in the thousands. He now drives a late-model Jeep SUV. Go figure.

There are, of course, other problems besides just quality with Ford/GM. Marketing. How bad are the Ford commercials we all see? Oh man. They're awful, awful, awful. The music and the car names. Minor styling mishaps flattened out (new edge) quarter panels on the now defunct Cougar. With just a touch more work on the quality of the Cougar (it doesn't seem to have major issues, just a lot of minor ones) and some better advertising, it would have been a huge hit for Mercury.

Marketing and even design errors are part of the automobile manufacturing game and most manufacturers are guilty (or victims, depending on where you sit) of it. In my view, that's because far too many people are involved in the process of designing and marketing and you end up with sometimes ridiculously divergent views on what will sell - and how to sell it. Ford could really use another visionary, focused and aggressive executive such as Lee Iacocca today, but alas, that isn't going to happen.

Anyway, I digress. If the domestic manufacturers are doing poorly, and they need to cut costs, the very first place they need to look at is the executives. They claim the right to huge pay when the company does well so they should take the blame when the company does poorly.

I think both executive and worker pay is over-emphasized in these discussions. Both the line workers and the execs receive very good money, considering what they do. It's up to the stockholders to go to the annual meetings and make a stink about inflated executive pay if they believe it is harming their stock value. That happens, but I doubt it has any real effect. The auto manufacturer's boards of directors will claim that you have to pay big money for 'good' executive talent. The execs will blame the unions and 'the economy', which is ridiculous. The U.S. economy is booming but domestic auto sales are relatively flat and blaming 'the economy' is a lame excuse. Japanese brands sales are basically strong and show no sign of flattening out anytime soon.

I think we can agree that when we talk of auto sales and why the domestics are sliding ever-downward, the 'quality issue' is the 800-pound gorilla in the middle of the room that the U.S. automakers are basically trying to avoid seeing, even if more and more American car buyers, do.


I don't know if anyone else here is really interested in this issue, but I appreciate the dialogue and the opportunity to express my views, for whatever they are worth to anyone.