Slashdot Mirror
Have Bad Cars Gone Extinct?
Hugh Pickens writes "AP reports that global competition is squeezing lemons out of the market and forcing automakers to improve the quality and reliability of their vehicles. With few exceptions, cars are so close on reliability that it's getting harder for companies to charge a premium. 'We don't have total clunkers like we used to,' says Dave Sargent, automotive vice president with J.D. Power. In 1998, J.D. Power and Associates found an industry average of 278 problems per 100 vehicles, but this year, the number fell to 132. In 1998, the most reliable car had 92 problems per 100 vehicles, while the least reliable had 517, a gap of 425. This year the gap closed to 284 problems. It wasn't always like this. In the 1990s, Honda and Toyota dominated in quality, especially in the key American market for small and midsize cars. Around 2006, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were heading into financial trouble and shifted research dollars from trucks to cars after years of neglect and spent more on engineering and parts to close the gap. Meanwhile Toyota's reputation was tarnished by a series of safety recalls, and Honda played conservative with new models that looked similar to the old ones. Now it's 'very hard to find products that aren't good anymore,' says Jeremy Anwyl, CEO of the Edmunds.com automotive website. 'In safety, performance and quality, the differences just don't have material impact.'"
.. at least underneath.
I don't know how it is like in the US, but in Europe almost all the car manufacturers have consolidated. Cars are a commodity now. The cars from many different brands (e.g. VW, Audi, Skoda) all have the same chassis and parts. They all have the same body shape (more or less). Usually the only difference is in the body panels, the interior trim and the badge at the front.
As such you can pretty much buy any of the above cars, and you'll find that they all have similar reliability. For many people cars are just a method of getting from A-B, so overall the above is good news for them. They can pick based on things like warranty, extras included, financing options, etc.... while the cars are more or less the same.
For example, once upon a time in the west, Skoda's were considered lemons, now they are basically rebadged VW's with reliability to match. Now they are known as VW reliable cars, without the price tag and some extras that the VW's may have.
Not my thing personally, I prefer my cars unique, so I buy old cars built before the consolidation, but for the majority of people, it is a benefit.
I work in the car industry. That means I am a hell of a lot more qualified than most
of you people to make an informed comment on the current state of the art in new
cars.
Cars now are junk, even very expensive cars. The "product cheapening department"
has found new ways to lower the production costs for cars, and this will come back
to haunt anyone who owns a car for more than a couple of years. Since only the wealthy or
the stupid buy new cars every couple of years, this means a lot of people are going to get
screwed by how the new cars are being built.
Such things as plastic intake manifolds, wiring which is as small as possible in gauge in order to
save copper, and even thinner body sheet metal all mean the cars you can buy today are more
of a disposable item than cars built a decade or more previously. Argue against this if you like,
but you will be wrong.
40-50k on an oil change? That's not new.
My little brother was maintenance supervisor for a resort city Avis facility in the 80s. He got a Dodge something-or-other in for a bad headlight or something, and found that it had not had scheduled maintenance, including oil changes, for 35k. He put it on the retention list - the list that says 'sell this lemon'.
He also got in a Toyota Corolla with over 40k on it, no oil change. He said it came in for a 'sticky door'. Had a stuffed toy in the hinge. Sold that one too.
But he changes the oil in his cars and motorcycles more frequently than the book says. Just because.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I agree with the GP. I don't expect a car less than 3 years old to break down. Reliability should not even be measured at anything less than 50,000 miles. It's hard to claim that GM is on par with Toyota when it comes to quality when GM's fall apart at 75,000 miles and Toyotas are still going strong at 150,000 miles. *Initial* quality, maybe, that that's not what I would call reliability.
As for not having a time machine, well, that's the price that domestic automakers pay for forcing crap down our throats for the past 30 years. Reliability takes time to judge. You can't build trust by saying, "All our new cars won't break down before 50,000 miles". You build trust by building a car that lasts 10 years with no problems. And yes, it takes that long to build trust.
In my personal experience, I've had eight cars in my life time:
1) 1980 Ford Thunderbird: This thing was falling apart when I bought it at 40,000 miles. I would have to fill it up with oil before I left the house and all of the oil would lead out within 30 miles. Wheel bearings went out. Alternator went out. Water pump went out. In replacing the water pump, a bolt that was only made for this car sheared off in the block of the engine. The bolt was, and I'm not kidding, $70 to replace as it was a dealership only item. I drilled the old bolt out myself. Oh, and it was not unusual to have parts simply fall off this car while on the road. For example, as I was leaving my neighborhood, the grill fell off. I had to stop the car and go back and pick it up. This thing would only start when it wanted to and flat out died in bad neighborhoods more than once. I sold the car for $100 before it hit 60,000 miles.
2) 1986 Jeep "SporTruck": I had to replace the transmission three times before 75,000 miles. A clutch lever broke at one point requiring some welding. The driver side external mirror simply fell off one day for no apparent reason. The lever that worked the lights broke, causing me to have to hold it in place by putting my hand behind the dash to turn the head lights out. The parking break would release on its own, causing the truck to roll away after being parked at random times.
3) Toyota truck (don't know the year): Bought this truck for $500 at 100,000 miles. I drove it until 250,000 miles and had to replace the water pump at one point. Sold it for $700. The guy paid $700 at the advice of a mechanic who looked at the truck and said, "it's ugly and the seats are torn, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. You should easily get another 100,000 miles out of it".
4) 2000 Isuzu Rodeo (leased new): Put 75,000 miles in 3.5 years in the area around Michigan (snow, salt, etc). No problems. This was a company car that I gave back when the job was done.
5) 1998 Ford Explorer, Eddie Baur edition: At 70,000 miles, while trading it in for my wife's minivan, it caught on fire. We had just signed the paper work and got $2000 for it. (this thing was so rare that it didn't show up on any of the books. It was a V-8, 4WD, and every mechanic we took it to said it didn't exist)
5) 1996 Toyota Avalon: Bought for $500 at 75,000 miles. Traded in at 150,000 miles for $1000. The cup holder broke.
6) 2008 Scion TC: Bought new for $18000. Drove for 2 years. Put 60,000 miles on it. Traded it in for $13000 because it hurt my back to drive a standard in traffic. No problems.
7) 2006 Toyota Tacoma: Current vehicle. Purchased used at 40,000 miles. Currently has 60,000 with no problems. Toyota financing cut my interest rate to buy the extended warranty. It costs me $0.03 a month to have a 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty. I have not had to use it yet.
This is why I don't judge quality before a car is 3 years old. I'm sure you will understand why I'm reluctant to buy American again. I'll trust American cars when they last on average 150000 miles with no problems other than wiper blades, brake pads and tires.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Anecdotal poster is anecdotal.
Reliability ratings are based on a huge sample size of any given vehicle. Statistically if you build enough cars some are bound to be lemons (and hence why we have lemon laws). So one person with a bad Pontiac doesn't mean all Pontiacs are bad. Also what Pontiac did you buy and why did you buy one when you knew they were shutting down that brand? Sounds like sour grapes on what you thought was going to be a knock-out deal.
On topic though, when I was growing up in the 90's I saw stranded cars all the time, broken down on the highway and byways. Now in the last 5-6 years I see one maybe once a week. It's not statistical, just anecdotal, but as a general sampling it does seem to support that cars break less often compared to their older designed counterparts.
Try a Subaru. Great quality, and great in the snow, and they make nice wagons if you need the room. If you get a turbo model, they're also a blast to drive.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I'm convinced they gave Saturn the axe because it made all the other divisions look bad.
No, they gave it the axe for two reasons:
1) Americans started buying ridiculously oversized SUV's. And so GM, in all its wisdom, decided to put EVERYTHING into its SUV's because hey, that trend is never going to end, right?
2) Saturns were all made in a non-union plant, and the unions were pushing back.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
GM didn't kill Saturn, the UAW did.
Saturn cars were built differently from normal GM cars. Saturn was based on the idea of cooperation between management and labour: the strict work rules UAW negotiated over decades were done away with. Workers were flexible, and would do any job that needed doing. And instead of working on a long production line, teams were assigned to individual cars to create a sense of ownership. Decisions were made jointly by management and labour representatives, and the workers were given a profit sharing scheme.
Then the UAW leadership changed, and the new guard lobbied and fought to get rid of the cooperative environment and replace it with a standard GM production line. Not because it was ultimately better for the employees, but because it was a threat to the union: the success of Saturn undermined the union's culture of militancy and 'us-vs-them.' Profit and decision sharing was a definite no-no.
The Market doesn't work worth a damn when external costs (not paid for by the user) are not included in market price. For gasoline the big one now for the USA is what we pay in military costs to keep the oil flowing out of the Middle East -- there should be a $2 surcharge on every gallon just for that. Gasoline's other externalities are mostly environmental -- although I will say that emissions at the tailpipe (other than CO2) in the in newish cars are now so low as to not be much of a problem in most areas -- but the "free market" didn't put those clean engines in the cars, regulations did. Those regulations are there so that I, as a breathing person, don't have to pay the costs of you building your refinery upwind without including the equipment to keep your emissions out of the air in my lungs. Fix the problem of externalities and I'll be all for the free market.
I predict lots of ... transmission issues for the zooty new million-speed automatics and CVT's
Continuously variable transmissions have been around decades now, with simple designs existing reliably in many tractors and not so simple designs that have broke down and not panned out in the past.
Nissan's unique design in the Toroidal/Roller-based CVT has been around for 20 years now and has consistently proved reliable in a number of models. You don't often hear of Nissan transmissions failing before 150k.
No, they gave it the axe for two reasons:
1) Americans started buying ridiculously oversized SUV's. And so GM, in all its wisdom, decided to put EVERYTHING into its SUV's because hey, that trend is never going to end, right?
2) Saturns were all made in a non-union plant, and the unions were pushing back.
As someone who worked for Saturn for almost 9 years, I can tell you this is incorrect. The last union contract negotiated by the workers in Spring Hill went beyond what the UAW had in place with other manufacturers. That's the reason the unions were upset.
The main reason Saturn was killed is due to the fact that it failed to show enough of a profit over its life. GM continually sank money into it while all the other divisions posted a higher percentage of profit over the amount of money invested (basically, it's was like we were being subsidized). And as someone who has owned 5 Saturns, quality had become a major issue starting around 2000. The L Series had major quality issues, the Vue was OK if you got the 6 cylinder engine (which was manufactured by Honda) and skipped the CVT transmission, the Ion was garbage, and the Relay was a re-badged Chevy/GMC mini van with an extra $3,000 added to the sticker price for no reason. I left just after the release of the Aura, so I can't comment beyond that point.
That being said, I loved my SC1, my SL1's, and my SL2's. Cheap and easy to maintain, and other than the timing chain in the twin cams and the alternator, EGR valve and coil packs across all models, they had relatively few problems.