[tosil]

Hello folks... just going through canadiandriver.com and found something interesting...

I figuered I'd have a look at the car talk forum, and found this. Seems to be alot of import lemon issues up here in Canada. Just a thought. I know GM does NOT build crap, as most of my buddys up here think. And I think the following is a good example of this.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/forum/index.php/board,1496.0.html

 

[King Riffle]

GM builds crap, and has for 30 years or so. Import cars (not to mention Ralph Nader) wouldn't be as popular if they hadn't, and GM wouldn't have had such financial troubles. That's not to say that all GMs are crap, their trucks, for instance, have always been good, and through the 70's 80's and 90's there have always been a few good cars from GM. Even now though, they sell crap. Uplander anyone?

They've made quite a bit of progress though, and I'd say most of their current lineup is quite good.

Anywho, you can't look at the problems section of an internet forum and make a judgement about reliability.

 

[sonjaab]

OH Boy.............Another toyo/honda fan has invaded the GM forums again!

 

[FenwickHockey65]

The Uplander's sold pretty well around these parts...I wouldn't be so quick to call it crap.
Every car company sells a few crappy cars, and I really don't think it's fair that you're singling out GM. Sure, they've made mistakes in the past, but I'd say that they're quickly learning.
In terms of quality and reliability, with every day of production, there will always be one or two cars that are lemons. It doesn't mean the entire vehicle line is crap.
And part of the reason that imports are so popular is because the general public doesn't see the things we see. They don't hear about all the recalls from import companies because import recalls make bad news stories. The media's quick to jump on GM and Ford for their recalls, but I've almost never heard of a toyota or a honda recall on the news.

 

[Butz]

GM builds crap, and has for 30 years or so. Import cars (not to mention Ralph Nader) wouldn't be as popular if they hadn't, and GM wouldn't have had such financial troubles. That's not to say that all GMs are crap, their trucks, for instance, have always been good, and through the 70's 80's and 90's there have always been a few good cars from GM. Even now though, they sell crap. Uplander anyone?

They've made quite a bit of progress though, and I'd say most of their current lineup is quite good.

Anywho, you can't look at the problems section of an internet forum and make a judgement about reliability.

Hmmmmmmmm

 

[King Riffle]

The current lineup isn't crap, you're right. There are a few crappy cars, (leftover from older lineups, which were mostly crap) like the Uplander, which is a Lumina APV in disguise (but less reliable).

I stand by my opinion though. Through the 70's, 80's, 90's, and very early 2000s most of GMs lineup was garbage. The Japanese and Koreans would not have dominated a large portion of the market had the lineups not been crappy (The Toyota recall-a-thon is a very recent event).

Excessive cost cutting is mostly to blame for this, followed by arrogance.

 

[Butz]

The current lineup isn't crap, you're right. There are a few crappy cars, (leftover from older lineups, which were mostly crap) like the Uplander, which is a Lumina APV in disguise (but less reliable).

I stand by my opinion though. Through the 70's, 80's, 90's, and very early 2000s most of GMs lineup was garbage. The Japanese and Koreans would not have dominated a large portion of the market had the lineups not been crappy (The Toyota recall-a-thon is a very recent event).

Excessive cost cutting is mostly to blame for this, followed by arrogance.

I'm not denying that GM had its share of crappy cars, but coming from a Ford guy, come on, let's have some credibility here

 

[zete]

The current lineup isn't crap, you're right. There are a few crappy cars, (leftover from older lineups, which were mostly crap) like the Uplander, which is a Lumina APV in disguise (but less reliable).

I stand by my opinion though. Through the 70's, 80's, 90's, and very early 2000s most of GMs lineup was garbage. The Japanese and Koreans would not have dominated a large portion of the market had the lineups not been crappy (The Toyota recall-a-thon is a very recent event).

Excessive cost cutting is mostly to blame for this, followed by arrogance.

Trust me, in the 70s and 80s most cars were crap. That includes the Japanese. If you wanted reliable in the 70s and 80s you bought a Mercedes. We had Hondas and Toyotas in the late 70s and early 80s and they weren't that reliable. Cars IN GENERAL are WAY more reliable now. Ask anyone who truly owned an import back then how good it was. It wasn't that good, especially compared to any vehicle today.

Don't believe me? Go check JD Powers' ratings for cars over the past 20 years. What is considered "average" now is what was considered "top tier" -- i.e., Lexus/Buick -- now! It's utterly unbelievable.

The problem with GM and the domestics in general was that they didn't improve their cars and seemed to actually take a laissez faire attitude about quality in the late 70s and 80s -- hoping they'd last through warranty, for example. They went down while Toyota and Honda in particular incrementally improved. This incremental improvement over 15 or so years left a huge gap between the domestics and the Japanese.

That incremental improvement ALSO left a gap between Mercedes and the Japanese. It was quite stunning to witness.

Proof, to these old eyes, of the reliability of cars today is seen daily during my commute. I don't see dead cars littering the roads and highways anymore. Two decades ago you couldn't make it into work without finding a half dozen or more cars dead on the side of the road. That's an improvement in quality that's visible and tangible.

 

[zete]

Here are some eye opening numbers.

2000 Dependability Numbers

Lexus      216
Toyota     299
Honda      318
Buick      340
Cadillac   361
BMW        377
Oldsmobile 380
200 Industry Average: 448 problems per 100 cars.

Now, 2007.

Buick      145
Lexus      145
Cadillac   162
Honda      169
Toyota     178
BMW        182
Oldsmobile 196
Industry Average: 216 problems per 100 vehicles

Note that in 2007 the WORST brand, Land Rover, had 398 problems/100 vehicles. That means the WORST performer of 2007 is better than the average of 2000 and that the average in 2007 is EQUAL to Lexus in 2000! Think about that for a while!

 

[FenwickHockey65]

Trust me, in the 70s and 80s most cars were crap. That includes the Japanese. If you wanted reliable in the 70s and 80s you bought a Mercedes. We had Hondas and Toyotas in the late 70s and early 80s and they weren't that reliable. Cars IN GENERAL are WAY more reliable now. Ask anyone who truly owned an import back then how good it was. It wasn't that good, especially compared to any vehicle today.

Don't believe me? Go check JD Powers' ratings for cars over the past 20 years. What is considered "average" now is what was considered "top tier" -- i.e., Lexus/Buick -- now! It's utterly unbelievable.

The problem with GM and the domestics in general was that they didn't improve their cars and seemed to actually take a laissez faire attitude about quality in the late 70s and 80s -- hoping they'd last through warranty, for example. They went down while Toyota and Honda in particular incrementally improved. This incremental improvement over 15 or so years left a huge gap between the domestics and the Japanese.

That incremental improvement ALSO left a gap between Mercedes and the Japanese. It was quite stunning to witness.

Proof, to these old eyes, of the reliability of cars today is seen daily during my commute. I don't see dead cars littering the roads and highways anymore. Two decades ago you couldn't make it into work without finding a half dozen or more cars dead on the side of the road. That's an improvement in quality that's visible and tangible.

Mercedes really was the definition of quality back then...except ours...sunroof leaked like no other and the body rust was terrible...
I think something that happens to every car company is arrogance. Take Ford for example. Way back when Ford was the dominant automaker in the US, they refused to offer any exterior color other than black. Arrogance and ****iness due to their largest automaker status. GM took advantage of this and took the largest automaker position from Ford.
In the 80s and 90s, GM became ****y and arrogant because of its #1 status. Now toyota's on its way to the top, and GM's being forced to fight to maintain its status. Already, even toyota's starting to do what GM and Ford did in the past, becoming ****y and developing and making a lot of cars really quickly, but with little to no quality. That leads to things like the tundra.
GM needs to learn from this. Consumers don't want 10 rebadges of the same exact car. They want unique, stylish designs, good powertrains, and comfort. Luckily, it looks like GM's finally learned its lesson. It's okay to use the same platform for different cars. Just make sure those different cars really are different.

 

[zete]

Mercedes really was the definition of quality back then...except ours...sunroof leaked like no other and the body rust was terrible...
I think something that happens to every car company is arrogance. Take Ford for example. Way back when Ford was the dominant automaker in the US, they refused to offer any exterior color other than black. Arrogance and ****iness due to their largest automaker status. GM took advantage of this and took the largest automaker position from Ford.
In the 80s and 90s, GM became ****y and arrogant because of its #1 status. Now toyota's on its way to the top, and GM's being forced to fight to maintain its status. Already, even toyota's starting to do what GM and Ford did in the past, becoming ****y and developing and making a lot of cars really quickly, but with little to no quality. That leads to things like the tundra.
GM needs to learn from this. Consumers don't want 10 rebadges of the same exact car. They want unique, stylish designs, good powertrains, and comfort. Luckily, it looks like GM's finally learned its lesson. It's okay to use the same platform for different cars. Just make sure those different cars really are different.

This is exactly what I've been saying for quite a while. GM was ****y. Toyota is that way now. History seems to be repeating itself.

And Toyota is also doing the "Be #1 at any cost" thing that GM did for years. They're taking their eyes of the ball and now that everyone is more or less caught up -- as can be seen from JD Power -- Toyota is faced with a crisis as they only hang their hats on quality. Lose that crown and they're sunk. Hence the face saving by Watanabe. He knows Toyota's claim to fame and wants and needs to ensure it stays untarnished.

Being #1 in any regard sucks as it means constantly watching your back while trying not to trip. A bad posture to be in.

BTW, the Lambdas show GM has this platform sharing thing down. Today I mentioned to a colleague at work that the Outlook and Enclave were on the same platform. He said they weren't. After being convinced he said they look nothing alike and is suitably impressed. So, yeah, GM is getting platform sharing right -- finally. And the Zetas show even more differentiation so that's even better for GM. I think we're all in agreement: no more rebadges.