Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'The Supremacy of Japanese Cars Has Been 40-Plus Years In the Making' (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the changing-taste-buds dept.

American business journalist Joe Nocera writes in a Bloomberg article about "how badly things have deteriorated for the U.S. car makers," after the recent news that both General Motors and Ford will soon be exiting the sedan market in the country. Slashdot reader gollum123 shares the report: Much of the analysis about Ford and GM's exit from the sedan market stressed that sedan sales have lost ground in recent years "as consumers have gravitated toward pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles," as the New York Times put it. If you look at the historical sales figures of the top Japanese sedans, you'll see a small decline in recent years, but nothing like the big drop-off in sales that have hammered the American companies. So in addition to the overall decline in sedan sales, there is a second, largely overlooked, dynamic taking place: Americans have only stopped buying American sedans, not Japanese sedans. The American car companies now say they are going to count on profits from trucks and SUVs while moving toward autonomous and all-electric vehicles. They had better hope that transition takes place quickly.

I couldn't help noticing that while the top three selling vehicles in the U.S. are, indeed, American-made trucks, No. 4 on the list is Nissan's top SUV, the Rogue, the sales of which have gone from 18,000 in 2007 to 403,000 last year. No. 5 is a Toyota SUV, the Rav4 (407,000 in 2017). No. 6 is the Honda CR-V (378,000). And the leading American SUV? It's the Chevy Equinox. Last year, Chevrolet sold 290,000 of them -- 100,000 fewer than the Toyota Camry.

32 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A Tesla Model S has already gone over 400,000 miles.

  2. Japan still HAS car companies. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ford, GM and Chrysler haven't given a shit about selling cars since the 1960s. As far as they're concerned, the car is just a tool for selling you a loan.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Japan still HAS car companies. by Tuqui · · Score: 2

      The most insightful comment this year

    2. Re:Japan still HAS car companies. by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The caveat: "You must finance with GM financial". Of course, at their rates which are well above what the local credit unions charge, and no doubt plenty of the uneducated crowd who buy their trucks will be suckered to sign to a long term (yes, 84 month now!) loan ensures they make most of that back.

      The leases are where they make a killing. Now over a quarter of new vehicles are lease.

      That is financial insanity. Yeah, there are a few people who own their business and it makes some kind of legit tax sense to lease the vehicle, but that cannot be more than 5% of the populace.

  3. Business opportunity... by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Once the US automakers have all gone belly-up, someone should buy the rights to their body designs at the bankruptcy auction, and sell vehicles with modern drive trains that look like the classic American designs.

    I'd buy a carbon-fiber version of a 1970 fastback Mustang in a heartbeat. I'm sure plenty of people would go for a '57 Chevy or a '69 Corvette stingray, too.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Business opportunity... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, the designs are outdated. Front bumpers have to be below knee level, encase of pedestrian collision. Also 1 in 8, on the road, will be involved in an accident this year.

      Good work, AC. This is the reason this can't happen. You can have kit cars based on outdated designs and as long as you do some token amount of the assembly work you can register it as a custom vehicle under federal regs. It has to pass emissions testing wherever you register it, but it tests as the donor vehicle so if you put an old motor in it and top it off with your choice of modern fuel injection system you can have no emissions system whatsoever beyond the O2 sensor. But a car sold in volume has to pass all kinds of modern regulations about bumper height, rear deck height, hood crumple area, side rear view mirror breakaway and the like which didn't exist back when those cars were born. The modern shapes of vehicles like the Mustang and Camaro are best-effort attempts to recreate the old body styles while conforming to modern safety (and efficiency) regulations.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re: Business opportunity... by toddestan · · Score: 2

      Not really. Go find a picture of any of the current "retro" muscle cars parked next to one of the original classics - the new models are comically huge in comparison. They don't look big to our modern eyes because everything else has grown in size so much. Even a lot of the land barges from the 1970's aren't even as large compared to modern cars. They may be a bit longer, but the modern car is just as wide and much taller, and weighs more too.

      It's not just the Americans either. The largest Honda from 40 years ago (the Accord Wagon) is smaller than the smallest Honda today (the Fit) in every dimension.

  4. Meh by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given how the modern automotive industry works, I'm not sure if it matters. Japan manufacturers a lot of the cars that it sells in the U.S., in the U.S. so I don't think there's much worry over jobs being lost. Also, all of the Japanese companies are publicly traded, with a few of the largest shareholders being American companies, American banks, or other foreign firms that are in turn partially owned by Americans. If it gets American companies to invest in electric vehicles in the hope of regaining market share, I don't see how anyone could really complain.

  5. Re:duh by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hondas are good, just avoid the Renaults sold as Japanese cars (Nissans). They're just as bad as the Fiats sold as Chryslers.

    My leaf SL is a fine car.
    The 350Z that preceded it was a fine car

    Bad ones I've had - Plymouth breeze: Just crap. Ford F350: a Dinosaur with a flaky FICM. Ford Ranger: At no point did everything work at the same time.
     

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  6. the 70's and beyond were horrible for american by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    cars.

    Rust was the worst issue, but when Japanese and Korean cars started flooding the market for less money and lasting about 30-50% better (in terms of mileage and gas economy)
    it seemed to be a wake-up call for US car makers. This was hubris on the part of Ford, Chevrolet, Chrysler... They had their cheaply manufactured, planned obsolescence system and they were going to stick with it.

    I'm guessing at this point, more US vehicles are produced in Canada and places like the Toyota factory in South Carolina build more vehicles than Detroit.

    New technology (self driving cars, electric cars...) eventually mean that people don't need to buy a vehicle unless it's for work. Need a ride someplace, just order a car...

    1. Re:the 70's and beyond were horrible for american by Xylantiel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And this is why tariffs are mostly bad. Frequently foreign competition wins because it is making a BETTER PRODUCT. This means by slapping a tariff on it you are hurting the competitiveness of all users of that product to reward the poor management of those that make it domestically. Sounds a lot like the government choosing winners, and particularly bad because it only works by artificially turning losers into winners. This is a long way of saying that protectionist trade policy is nearly always, in the end, self-defeating. There are reasonable interim measures to prevent dumping and market shocks (including the labor market), but straight up protectionism is basically a bad idea from an economic and security standpoint. We want interdependent economies because they increase efficiency, prevent wars, and make the world more equal.

    2. Re:the 70's and beyond were horrible for american by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, and it proves that American workers can make good cars for a reasonable price, but they're generally not union workers.

      That's the story behind Detroit's problems that nobody wants to admit -- union workers making tons of money, union workers hard to fire for substandard work, and a shitload of substandard work.

      Want to buy a good American-made car? Come to Alabama; we make thousands of them. And before somebody says something about the workers making low wages here, they need to talk to those happy workers.

    3. Re: the 70's and beyond were horrible for american by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd be willing to bet in a decade or so, Ford will start making small cars again......At a nonunion plant in Alabama.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re: the 70's and beyond were horrible for american by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Damn skippy. Nothing like working for slave wages (even with several years of experience), working shit hours, and knowing there is no advancement unless you speak Korean. I would get another job but I have a couple months left on my relocation deal. I am already looking to get out of automotive. (85% of the elantra, sonata and Santa fe come out of my plant and I am the quality engineer for most of it)

    5. Re:the 70's and beyond were horrible for american by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

      And this is why tariffs are mostly bad. Frequently foreign competition wins because it is making a BETTER PRODUCT. This means by slapping a tariff on it you are hurting the competitiveness of all users of that product to reward the poor management of those that make it domestically.

      Somehow lost in the debate is that before the income tax tariffs were a key, maybe even primary, form of paying for government. If the tariff debate were re-framed as applying to all imported goods (no exceptions!!) and the income tax being abolished for example that would be a great trade that most people could get behind.

      We want interdependent economies because they increase efficiency, prevent wars, and make the world more equal.

      That was the thinking behind the world not having WW1. It wasn't true then and still isn't true now.

    6. Re:the 70's and beyond were horrible for american by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you should go and find out the NUMMI story. Unionised workers before and after, but what changed was management attitude to workers and hence workers attitude to work.

      Union bashing is a tool of the elite - those who have and want to continue to run things (koch et al).

    7. Re:the 70's and beyond were horrible for american by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's not a one way street, Trump wants US companies to build cars in the US and export them to Japan. Japanese companies built factories in the US.

      US companies could build factories in Japan if they wanted to, but US cars aren't really suited to the Japanese market. US cars are too inefficient, too large, don't have the features and localization that Japanese people expect. The US is claiming that it's strict Japanese emissions standards that are to blame, but even if those were relaxed they wouldn't sell many over there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:the 70's and beyond were horrible for american by aolsheepdog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A great interesting story. You are looking for This American Life #403 - https://www.thisamericanlife.o...

      It is well worth a listen. We drover a Chevy Nova (later Geo Prism) built at the Nummi plant and it was outstanding. Actually ruined us since we knew it was really a Toyota. I've never bought anything but Japanese since.

  7. Re:It's all because of the metric system... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    Is that you, Sarah Huckabee?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  8. It's 100% about tarrifs not build quality by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The reason the US car makers favor trucks is that the japanese trucks have a 25% tarrif since 1973. It's much more profitable for US automakers so they emphasize this category over the thin margins on sedans. Additionally one has to consider the labor and material costs. For some cost structures it's much better to sell one high ticket item over two smaller ticket items, favoring the production of trucks over cars.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:It's 100% about tarrifs not build quality by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Isn't this the "chicken tax"? Weird how these things can last half a century.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:It's 100% about tarrifs not build quality by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Today a Japanese car will have just as many US made components as a US car, and parts will have gone through factories in multiple countries. Some Japanese cars have final assembly in the US as well.

    3. Re:It's 100% about tarrifs not build quality by necro81 · · Score: 2

      For more background on the "chicken tax" and how it relates to the paucity of Japanese-made trucks in the US, see Planet Money podcast episode 632

  9. Re:duh by viperidaenz · · Score: 2, Informative

    And it's on it's 3rd battery, after only 3 years.

  10. Re: duh by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

    Was really disappointed this wasnt a link to the distance Musks Tesla that he shot into space has gone

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  11. Reversing bad carma by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To put it another way, the American car companies have never been able to shed the reputation they gained in the 1970s for making lousy sedans. [Even though newer sedans are comparable]

    Once you get a bad broad reputation, it's hard to kick. Your newer stuff has to be better than the competition to correct the reputation. "Equal" is not strong enough. That's just human psychology in action.

    It's like somebody with a notorious reputation for lying. To clean their reputation, they'd have to lie less than average for a good while to get back in good graces. Lying the same amount would supply enough lies to reinforce their existing reputation.

    You hear that Microsoft, Oracle, Comcast, and IBM?

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  12. In 10 to 20 years... by williamyf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... from now we will be reading an article saying that "The supremacy of *Korean* cars has been 40 years in the making", and in 30 to 40 years from now, we will be reading an article titled "The supremacy of Chinese cars has been 40 years in the making"

    that is the cycle of such things. Happened with cars, consumer electronics, tvs and monitors, computer components, appliances, the works.

    I was born in late 1972, and I do remember a lot of things...

    Remember the the 70's when japan was the place were cheapo-low-quality plastic toys and shoody appliances were made? everyone wanted a Zenith or GE, or RCA TV. No stinking toshibas, or Hitachis! And cars, everyone wanted a chevy or a ford (or a european). Japanese cars were a synonym of cheapo-low quality.

    Remember the 80s when having a "Samtron" monitor in your computer was a sign of low quality? Rember in the 80's, when no one in their right mind would buy a Hyundai car? Nope, everyone wanted a toyota then, and a trinitron TV, or a NEC monitor. Samsung and Lucky Goldstar TVs were for loosers!

    Remember the '90s and early 00's, when no one in their right mind would buy a Chery or a Geely car? Or a Haier TV or appliance? What now, GE appliances is a wholy owned subsidiary of Haier, which is the bigest Appliance manufacturer worldwide, while Geely owns both volvo and Lotus, and chery is assembling jaguars and land rovers for the chinese market.

    So, countries upend other countries. do not dismiss them on the base of "percieived" quality (it will improve) or "perceived lack of innovation" (for they will innovate). Just take solace in that, just like in Japan, the chinese juggernaut will stop, and be upended by someone else...

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:In 10 to 20 years... by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      I think what you're describing is the result of a cycle that all countries go through:

      1. The beginning:

      A country has sensible laws, lots of unsatisfied demand and few established players. The public is engaged and investment in infrastructure, education and research is high. This leads to low costs, easy access to skilled labor and untapped technology. Countless individuals rise up to take advantage of the opportunities, creating numerous small businesses.

      2. The rise:

      The most effective small businesses experience high growth and enters a positive feedback cycle. People find it easy to get jobs and make money. More talented people starts immigrating to the country. Tax income rises, leading to even more public investment. The most competitive businesses starts exporting to other countries.

      3. The plateau:

      The domestic market is saturated. Businesses starts to consolidate, becoming even more efficient by laying off workers. Local labor is sufficient to satisfy labor demands and wages begins to stagnate. People turn their focus to enjoying life rather than working to improve it. Inefficiency sets in for the government as the public becomes less engaged. Public policy becomes more aspirational and less practical. Business opportunities still exist in new and niche areas but fewer people start new businesses.

      4. The decline:

      Big businesses stamps out almost all of the competition and stops innovating. Laws are written to keep them profitable. Public investments decline as any money that does get spent is taken by corruption or is wasted. Infrastructure starts crumbling, education becomes difficult to get, public research is cut. Opportunities become scarce and red tape prevents people from improving anything. Talented individuals starts to seek better opportunity elsewhere.

      5. Death:

      All wealth and power becomes consolidated in the hands of the few and they become increasingly good at maintaining their status. Life becomes miserable for ordinary people as neither the government nor the business behemoths are able to provide the necessary services. Anyone who is able to leave, leaves.

      6. Rebirth:

      War, revolution or massive political upheaval upends those in power and the old businesses are put to rest. A new, less corrupt government is created. The country is now open to new businesses and talented individuals, and the cycle starts again.

  13. Re:duh by dryeo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Which is usually when the trannies go. I've got one with a 5 speed and 420,000 kms on it. I've also known of quite a few, including my last one that lost their capability to move at just under 300,000 kms due to tranny problems, and like so many modern cars, replacing the tranny is an unreasonably large job, as in the first step is remove cab.
    After driving Japanese trucks, having something that dies at 300,000 kms is quite a let down, and having worked on both, all I can say is "what the fuck were those Ford engineers smoking?".
    First F150 I owned kept blowing its brake light fuse, finally traced it down to the brake light wire running up the steering column, through the little u-joint, where turning the wheels rubbed the insulation off. Fixing that was fun, steps like remove the plug from this wiring harness, keeping track of which of the 20 odd wires went to which pin, then pull the wires through the column. Couldn't even wrap them all into one bundle either.

    Attempting to work on any new vehicle has become insane, between the computer buses being overloaded with stuff causing a bad radio to stop the vehicle running to spark plugs that need the engine pulled to replace or just read about the latest Toyota Truck where you had to remove the top of the engine to replace the starter. Even that F150 I had that lost its tranny, had the rear plugs so far under the cab that they were almost impossible to work on and you really needed a $500 tool around for when the plugs broke when removing (carbon with plugs longer then the threads).

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  14. Re:duh by atherophage · · Score: 2

    Let us not forget newer players: The Koreans. My Korean built $9K 2005 Chevy Aveo is still going strong after 230K + miles. Always a delight, while in the Aveo, to follow a new-ish Cadillac or Lincoln, and just can't help but notice that fancy new car has a defective or dead tail light. Yes, small potatoes. but for a $60-$70-$80K vehicle one would expect the tail light to work... it's just that I see it all the time in rush hour traffic.

  15. Re:duh by tsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your average ICE doesn't even reach the distance that Tesla did one one battery without some very expensive maintenance, so waht are you moaning about?

    --

    -- Cheers!

  16. Nissan Rogue - nice design if you get a good one by PortHaven · · Score: 2

    I had a 2014 Nissan Rogue. It's actually a rather nicely designed vehicle with a good layout, nice controls, and a lot of functionality. It is also one of the few mid-sized vehicles with a 3rd row seat. This is essentially, a modern station wagon with AWD.

    However, I encountered two issues with my Nissan Rogue AWD.

    ISSUE 1) Fuel Economy - It never came close to the estimated EPA mileage - not even in the ballpark. In fact if you review

    RATED: 25 City, 31 Highway, 27 Combined.

    Over the life of the vehicle I averaged 23.5 MPG. Now I drove nearly a 100 miles a day, mostly highway. And if you look at FuelEconomy.gov, you'll see my mileage was the norm.
    https://www.fueleconomy.gov/fe...

    Frankly, I believe that Nissan used a computer algorithm to put the vehicle in a more efficient low-power fuel economy mode for testing. I believe you only enter this mode if you are driving like 50 MPH. It is one thing, to expect EPA estimates to be off. But usually, when you buy a vehicle, you at least expect your HWY mileage to be better than the CTY rating. And considering my prior vehicle was a Nissan Versa, rated at 30CTY, 37HWY, 33C, in which on the same commute I averaged around 36.5MPG. So yes, I felt very deceived.

    ISSUE 2) 36K/3YR warranty - so I added the extended warranty at purchase as well. I had an intermittent issue with the AC they told me to bring it in when it was occurring. However, when it finally did and completely failed. The vehicle was at 37,000 miles and 13 months of age. Took them a week to diagnose and fix the problem. Which they claimed was the blower motor fuse, and that the blower motor was fine. Nissan refused to cover it under warranty. A 13 month old vehicle that had the problems in it's first year. Fuses are considered replaceables, so the extended warranty didn't cover it. $700+ to fix a brand new car. I fought with Nissan national, and they finally covered half the cost. Within 6 months, the problem was back. Nissan wanted more money to diagnose.

    Driving a 100 miles a day in summer heat sweating while going thru a nasty divorce and battling depression is NO FUN. There were days I damn near wanted to drive the thing off the road, or into a showroom. Finally, I gave up, why fight to struggle and pay for a vehicle that wasn't working. It needed a set of four new tires - runflats so about double the price. And I gave up and let the bank take it.

    Thanks Nissan...

    Love the car, but the fact Nissan wouldn't stand behind their product when it was only a year old. NOT COOL!!!!

    (And without a doubt they are cheating on the EPA mileage and need to be penalized on it like Kia was.)