The demise of GM Frigidaire.

[kevinpreston8]

Geez....now I feel bad

calling Neptunebob names! Did not know it was you NB! Deepest apologies and now hiding in a corner....

 

[neptunebob]

Ok, I can explain...

Kevin, perhaps I feel the way I do about General Motors because I just never happened to be much of a "car nut" and unlike LA the Pittsburgh area is not such a great place to own a car. With all the hills, potholes, bad weather, acid rain (from coal fired power stations) and all the salt PennDot applies to all the roads you really are lucky if a car lasts ten years even if you take care of it. Allegheny county also has one of the highest numbers of senior citizens in the nation. One family restaurant we go to that caters to seniors, their parking lot looks like the lot of a Buick dealer. Go to a senior citizens center and you see a lot of Cadillac. Watch the 6 o'clock news and sooooo many car dealer commercials, and one of them is "In Pittsburgh, we Really Do Drive Chevy". That's why I think people buy GM here for the memories from the 50's, for example, my mother buys Chevrolet because "I always bought Chevrolet, it's a family car". By the way, I drive a Monte Carlo that I inherited from her, I just don't want to be the first time buyer paying so much money. Now, GM is not being good to our area. We have a plant south of Pittsburgh (West Mifflin) that builds truck doors, it will close early next year after 55 years. While that's understandable, some city leaders did try to get GM to save the plant. By the way, there are only a very few Corvettes here, if you want to see more, you have to go to the Corvette show in Carlisle, PA, about 200 miles away. Will say more, Nep

 

[goatfarmer]

It's nice to live in the past,and have fond memories.However,the Frigidaire 1-18 washers were NIGHTMARES when they were new.We serviced them under warranty,and we never had less than 2 or 3 of them in the shop at one time.Almost all of them had something puncture the bellows seal,and wipe out the transmission bearings,and sometimes the motor if water leaked on it.GM was having such a problem with them,the later ones had a small plastic diverter tray,to divert the leaking water that they knew would eventually occur away from the motor.Frigidaire washers? No thank you.
IMHO,the demise of GM started in the 80's with cars like the Citation,which you could get with the Cadillac,Chevy,Buick,or Pontiac nameplate on it. And not much difference between 'em.They made too many cookie cutter cars,no diversity.

kennyGF

 

[neptunebob]

I'm back with more!

Jason, the Pontiac G6, isn't that the car that was given away on Oprah (Everybody Gets A Car!!!)?

Dalangon, I don't have an MBA but I know a lot of schools have them. I took a couple of business classes (human resources) and I don't know about you but I found those classes MEAN, and I wonder if that is why some people running businesses are mean too.

Kevin, Maybe I am too sensitive but I don't like to buy from companies that have poor public relations. When Chris Payne tried to find out about the car GM officials were rude and not forthcoming. I have heard that Wal Mart is like that and I try not to buy there too. A hospital I used to do work for also had poor public relations. Even if the medical care is perfectly good I don't know that and I would not send a guinea pig there. Another example is West Virginia University, the nation's leading PARTY school. Even if it is good I would not risk sending my son or daughter there based on the reputation, there is too much at stake. If a business is mean to me or my family, I do not buy their product and tell others not to as well. To do so is to Enable them to do the same thing to people and until there is an "Intervention" in the form of financial trouble, businesses just don't seem to learn. Now, really, is a GM car so good and do you want it so much that you want to do business with this company?

 

[Cybrvanr]

Greedy stockholders

It seems the bane of any great company is when they go public and trade on the stock market. The stockholders are not looking for great products, they are looking to make a quick buck, no matter what it takes! If the stock even hiccups a penny, the stockholders go crazy and hold the company to the fire to do something...This usually ends up with them selling off a languishing division. Investing money in a languishing division would make money for them in the long term, but stockholders are going to whine and cry about the money lost in order for the change to take place. American companies are basically hemmed in by this big problem because most are publically traded on the stock market. American companies typically operate a bit behind foreign competition because they cannot take financial risks that eat up large amounts of R&D dollars. GM, has taken a few risks in the past with some products that were innovative at least on paper. The stock issue would rear it's ugly head however and they would end up having to keep costs down. The products goes into production with a half-ass design, or with very poor fit & finish and production problems. GM's history is riddled with vehicles like this...The Corvair, Chevette, Fiero...all successes during the first few years of production, but once the problems developed, they bombed.

Selling off the Fridigaire appliance division was PURELY an act to bolster stock value and NOTHING MORE. I worked for a computer company that was doing the same things. Whenever their stock would hiccup a penny, they would sell another factory. The result? Anyone ever seen a Unisys computer these days????

Ford is up against the same problem. Now, they have some brains on the board that are thinking about buying all the stock back and becoming privatley owned! This would be an excellent move for them. It would take a LOT of money to do this, but in the long run, it would be beneficial to the long-term health of the company. They basically must ask themselves...are they in the business to sell stock, or to sell automobiles!

Now, on the electric car issue, The engineering in these vehicles was an absloute marvel with many high-tech innovative technologies. The problem was that GM didn't realize the demand for such a vehicle, and created a serious marketing blunder. They only placed these vehicles into production to meet a California law requiring 2% of the vehicles sold to be zero emissions vehicles. This is something that President Bush rolled back with national policy. 2% of all the vehicles GM sold in California was only a few thousand at best, and that's only what they ramped up to manufacture. GM Leased these vehicles because the the automobiles were too expensive to sell at these low production numbers (The EV1 would cost over $85,000 to actually buy new). They would be priced way out of the range of buyers, and leasing allowed them to minimise their losses. GM also didn't expect to sell these vehicles because gasoline costs were low, and electric costs were high at the time. The EV1 was also not particularly suited for California commuting, which were particularly long. For every EV1 that was leased, GM lost a fortune on them...they were basically loss-leaders designed only to obey a law....leasing was done just to cut their losses (people could lease them for $300 a month for 10 years much easier than buying them for $85,000)GM was reluctant to sell the vehicles because they didn't want to loose money on them. This explains the 500-1000 long waiting lists that developed at Saturn dealers after the turn of the century that went unfulfilled.

Rising fuel prices is something that GM never expected, as can be seen by their sluggish SUV sales, and also the subsequent demand for EV's that would be created by it too. GM simply didn't think anybody else in the country would even consider an EV. Although an EV was poorly suited for California, it is extremely well suited for small and medium sized cities that have short commutes, very little traffic, and lack public transit systems. (IE right here in Richmond!)They never considered this however! Because of this, the cars were never sold anywhere else in the country. With the higher volume of production that could have taken place by selling the cars nationally, (or even internationally) the production costs could have been made under the $35,000 mark, and well within the budget of the typical buyer. The problem was again stockholders. GM can't invest large sums of money to create a factory for building a unique product which they have no experience in....the stockholders would never let it happen.

Don't ask me why GM didn't just let the owners buy the cars off the lease. Apparently GM found the scrap components of these vehicles more valueable than what the owners were willing to pay for them. Others think it was because GM didn't want to maintain parts for them (companies are requried to maintain parts 7 years after production ends of a product)

 

[dalangdon]

I think that the whole mentality of investing has changed considerably in the last generation. I had a great aunt who had invested her money in AT&T, and loved it because she got dividends and the stock would occassionaly split. Nothing flashy, nothing chancy, but a decent, fairly steady, return for the stockholder on investment which, in conjunction with her social security and medicare, gave her a decent old age.

These days, it's both the "profit for this quarter at any cost" mentality AND the stock options for upper management which are part of any executive compensation package. They honestly don't care about the health of the company as long as they can extract their ton of flesh from it. They load the boards of the companies and the compensation committees with their pals so that they will rubber-stamp the compensation packages. Worst of all, as has been proved in the case of GM, they put the burden of their upper management retirement packages (which sometimes run into the millions of dollars) onto the company pension plan, which bankrupts what would otherwise be a healthy pension plan. That burden comes back to the taxpayer, and steals from the employees who paid into the system through the years.

To be sure, a lot of this came out of the inflation of the 70's, and a lot of that came from the costs associated with the Viet Nam war, and to a lessser extent, the Great Society programs, but I think the lion's share can be laid at the feet of the new generation of executives who don't seem to know anything about the businesses they run, and thrive on the buzzword mentality that is so common in business.

I've seen this happen in companies that I have worked for, I've seen it happen at the company my dad worked for, and I've seen it happen - most specatularly - at Enron, where the pensioniers for Northern Natural Gas unwittingly had their pension money "invested" in Enron stock after the takeover of that previously quite solvent company.

Corporations are a beneficial and essential part of the American economy, but they are like sociopaths: They are in and of themselves amoral, with the sole motive of producing a return for investors. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that - but just like sociopaths in real life, they need a controlled environment, or terrible things happen.

 

[rickr]

The fact that GM sold Frigidaire could have increased the profits for both companies. I was working as an automobile tech from 1978 to 1984. I can recall my shock to see the newer Fords come into the shop for service with the GM Frigidaire A6 a/c compressor! Ford had used Eaton a/c compressors for years prior to this.
Frigidaire appliances had their fair share of problems in the 1960's and 1970's. People were starting to avoid the brand around here. I can recall my grandmother (who had a Rollermatic) saying, "once those Frigidaires leak, they are done for"

I have driven GM cars for many years. Cadillacs since 1982. I even worked as service manager at two GM stores for many years. I would have to say, that the problems GM is having, are their own doing. It cannot be blamed on someone who buys a Lexus. People want quality modern cars, and other than Cadillac, GM has dropped the ball. GM pushed the big trucks and suvs, and ignored the people that wanted a modern car. The only cars that GM was offering were the twenty year old models, like Delta 88,98 Regancy, Century (they all even sound 100 years old) Park Avenue,Bonneville, Impala (want to drive a cop car anyone?) Those cars are all totally boring! I'm 51 years old, and I would not own any of those cars. Why would a younger person want one? Guess what? They do not.
GM was also arrogant toward their own customers. I can recall the GM big shots telling us, "we want 100% customer satisfaction" Then reminding us that, "the warrentee is 12 months or 12,000 miles. Not ABOUT 12 months or ABOUT 12,000 miles" And this was during the era of the first front wheel drive cars from GM. They were cars of worthless quality. And everyone that was involved with GM knew it. Including me. Unfortunatly the GM customers found out later. And they have not forgotten to this day. Sure the GM cars are much better today.And they do have a few new models, but many models are still boring.

 

[neptunebob]

Guess what? I just saw the CBS news where they mention GM's electric car. In the report, they were talking of how there might be a hydrogen car, but the electric one we could have had sooner. They also mentioned the Tesla roadster, which will be on the market soon.

Dalagalon, do you ever watch "Mad Money" with Jim Cramer? Are people like him the reason corporations do what they do? Also, do you have an MBA? If you do, I hope you're not mean! (Oh, I better duck and run!).

Cvbrnr, EV1 cars were not sold but leased. What they said on the news is that the hydrogen car would cost "Hundreds of thousands of dollars" so I doubt we will see it. As for leasing, Suze Orman says NEVER, EVER Lease Cars!! She does recommend buying a "New, Used" car, which is how I inherit Chevrolets.

 

[bajaespuma]

A Michael Moore fan and militantly proud of it.

One of the things I've loved about this site is that we all seem to agree that GM's Frigidaire appliances were not only classic vintage works of industrial art but incredibly well-built, reliable and by all accounts important American products that have been sorely missed. I don't think GM or it's subsidiaries deserve bankruptcy. That is neither what I said nor implied.

I do, however, believe that CEOs and other higher managers need to be held accountable for bad decisions and should be required to make some sort of recompense to their workers, customers and stockholders for BAD, SHORTSIDED, GREEDY, and STUPID decisions. You don't just get to destroy great work that has taken others years to develop and countless lives that depend on those jobs. It has nothing to do with fairness. It has everything to do with competency, planning, intelligence and vision. No one said it's easy at the top but when you are producing one of the best made lines of appliances in the country and you can't make that work financially, you need to be held accountable. That happens in Japanese corporate structure but hardly ever in American corporate world. Can you say Kenneth Lay?

Look at the piece of S--T who is in the White House. And after 7 years of disastrous, decisions do you see him going anywhere soon? It made me puke to watch him, even for the split seconds it took me to change channels as that a--hole tried to bask in the light of all the heroic men and women of 9/11. Care to venture a guess how this idiotic war has affected the Bush family holdings? Forget fair, take a look at criminal.

 

[dalangdon]

Me? An MBA?

Please. I'm barely a BA. But I'm pretty good at spotting BS ;-) And I've also been around the block enough times to have worn a groove in the cement.

Corporations, or rather their management, do what they do because of greed. There is nothing wrong with that per se - greed is a vice, but I don't have a problem with vice.

But like every vice, it needs moderation. The trouble comes when we think in generalities: Every corporation is intrinsically good, every union is intrinsically bad, Shareholder return is the only consideration, government regulation will solve everything, free markets are the only solution etc, etc, etc. Life is much too complicated to ignore the nuances, but yet we try to do that anyway.

 

[captainmoody]

GM sold off Frigidaire like Motorola sold off their TV division, it was lack of profitability and quality control problems. I know for a fact here in Detroit that name was mud for quite a while! Frigidaire washers were more expensive to repair when a problem cropped up and that really killed sales from the late 60's on around here. This I was told by several old appliance guys when I was hunting up Frigi parts. Still, I like working on the machines and really like my 1-18's! Have been told I am nuts for "going through all that trouble for a hunk of old junk"!! He even laughingly warned me to be careful how I loaded the thing or I will end up with a bunch of knotted clothes!
BTW,I was a mechanic at a Chevrolet dealership in the early 80's, we hated the Citations and called them "slimetations" due to the oil leak problems!(among others) Saw way too many in for warranty work. I would NEVER want to own one or restore one! Maybe the old appliance guy just saw too many Frigidaire washers come in under warranty?? I have no clue as I wasn't in appliance repair then, just a guess..
Whirlpool reigned supreme around here for years, with Maytag and the others following behind. I can still find tons of belt drive Kenmores and Whirlpools any given day. The poor Frigidaires are long gone

 

[kevinpreston8]

Few comments

Rick...I only partially agree.

Domestic car companies have really been selling a ton of SUVs in the past years because people demand them. GM/Ford get more profit margin in them. Again, if you run a company, why would you push small cars with small profit when you can push SUVs, which everyone was buying, that had greater profit margins?

I think excitement is in the eye of the the beholder. I personally love a big car and don't find them boring. And to me, a new Lexus is no more exciting than any other car. I don't believe GM ignored the car buying public, they built what sold.

Think about it. 99% of the people with SUVs could be more than adequately serviced by a full sized station wagon. Most minivans can't tow, a wagon with a good engine can. That takes care of folks who want to pull a trailer or their boat to the lake. A full sized wagon can hold 9 people and luggage. It is also more pleasant to drive, and has a lower center of gravity than an SUV or even a minivan. They are less prone to rollovers and very easy to load through a tailgate.

Plus they can be made very stylish. A Buick Sportswagon or Oldmobile Vista Cruiser come to mind, not to mention the old Safari station wagons, Nomads, etc.

In the late 90s, GM still made them, and by then, you could get the Olds model with glass paneled roof, full leather, total comfort. But nobody wanted a "Brady Bunch Station Wagon" or something their mom drove. It wasn't cool. The perception of "cool" by our generation was always either an import, or if you needed the room, an SUV. Everyone I know thinks this way, and when they find I have an old wagon in my collection, they look at me like I am weird (well I am, but not for that reason!)

The problem with the American car buying public is that they care less for the usefulness of a car than they do on what they think other people will think of them. I have no hard scientific data to back up this claim, but my hunch is that more than a few of the purchasers of "hybrids" base part of their decision on their belief that they are being cool, or part of the "in crowd", for now that is.

If I were wrong, station wagons would be flying out of the showrooms right now. But they aren't because of their stigma. This is the same stigma that applies to GM. Face it, alot of people just don't think domestic cars are cool. I don't buy that wholesale line that Toyotas are perfect and all GMs and Fords are lemons. Statistics and observations don't all support that.

Now, sure GM makes some boring cars. I am trying to figure out though how a Chevy Malibu is any more boring than a Toyota Corolla. I guess I am missing something. Again, I think marketing comes into play. The general feeling is that you are cool and plugged in if you buy a Japanese car, and a dolt if you buy GM.

And as I have said before, this mindset is also supported by the automotive journals.

You don't have to go far back to remember how the Pontiac Aztek, like it or not, was ripped to shreds in the press on how ugly it was. But the Honda Element? Scion xB? Nissan Murano? They get a free pass, because, hey, they're cool.

I guess the old statement that perception is everything is particularly relevant when it comes to the American car buying public.

My dad always was shocked at these CEO pay packages, and stock options. He always said that there is an elite group that brings their friends onto boards (as another writer mentioned) that get fat compensation packages for not necessarily doing anything!

His take, and mine, is this. Provide a CEO with a decent salary to attract the right person, say $500K a year. Then, all his heavy compensation is tied to productivity gains that are real and measurable and must be consistent over a few years. And make it so that only a fraction of productivity gains can be the result of firing people or closing things down, and make consessions where money is spent in R and D, as an example, to pay off down the road. As complex as it may sound, it certaintly would be better than paying someone $20M regardless of what they do for the corporation.

 

[kenwashesmonday]

I'll bet that one of the reasons they didn't want to sell the cars was because of liability issues regarding safe disposal of the toxic batteries at the end of the cars' lives.

By 1980, the quality of appliances was going down fast due to price competition. Just look at how GE cheapened the Filter Flo; even the Maytag stopped making its best washer transmission. By 1980, the golden age of appliances was long over, anyway.

Now here's where I hit below the belt: GM can't even build their own sub-compact cars -- can you expect them to build washing machines? ;-)

Ken

 

[alr2903]

General Motors

I once read a quote from someone, GM does not build cars,We build Careers. I do not know who should be credited. If your old enough to remember the late 70's when there were car haulers Full of unsold and very nice Cadillacs, gas was high then too and in short supply, we waited in line to get it. I am not a Professor Emeritus, but you had to see it coming around again when every driveway had at least one giant SUV in it. Guess the old GM management team was long retired not to see this mess, Guzzlers and high gas prices coming down the pike. just my 2 cents.

 

[rickr]

To each his own Kevin. But please do not forget this:
I worked for a Cadillac dealer from 1984 to 1986. And I worked for an Oldsmobile dealer from 1986 until 1998. I was the service manager for both dealerships. I spoke with the people from both divisions, the zone managers,the bigshots from GM, and attended the annual auto shows in Chicago and Detroit every year. Also spoke to our customers every day.Most were not very happy, and did not intend to buy another GM car.
I got out in 1998, before Oldsmobile was pulled from the GM line. I saw the writing on the wall.

 

[portendere]

GM and the EV-1

So GM invested a lot of money developing the EV-1. Billions of dollars down the drain, and a little mostly-plastic electric car to show for it.

So how does GM go about recouping its billion-dollar investment?

The EV-1 finally makes it onto the market, as a lease-only vehicle. That drastically reduces its appeal right there...leasing accounts for less than half of all new vehicles.

GM claims nobody wanted them. On the contrary, there was a huge waiting list of people who wanted to lease them, and put down deposits, but were never given the chance to take delivery. GM actually took back leased cars from paying customers and turned their money down.

GM claims people hated them. On the contrary, lessees protested when GM took them back early.

Owners offered GM millions of dollars to buy the cars, offered to sign liability waivers, and offered to absolve GM of all responsibility for maintenance and parts. But no, GM left the money on the table, ignored its paying customers, paid extra to have the cars hauled away, and paid again to have them crushed into oblivion.

GM had nothing to gain by destroying the cars. It had already lost billions, but that wasn't enough.

I, too, grew up with GM. Not the GM of the '50s and '60s, but GM of the 80s. I will never buy GM, not after the frustration and aggravation I saw my parents go through with GM's products and dealers. Yeah, yeah, "we're better, we've changed, our products aren't crap!" Tell it to my kids if you're still in business, they might listen.

I do like GM's engines and styling...but only in magazines, not in my driveway. I admire the Corvettes, but I drive a Toyota.

 

[neptunebob]

Oh, what have I started here?! Talking about a documentary I did not even see yet (I think, thanks to Rick).

Portendere:
I believe in the movie (you can see the trailer on the web site) they say the reason for the destruction is that GM realized that the electric motor did not need the oil changes, oil filters, coolant service, and thanks to the car's regenerative braking, brake pads only rarely. They make money off all that service by the dealers and Jiffy Lube was probably mad too. The oil companies also did not want to see a car that uses no gasoline become popular.

I also see a worse scenario: It might be possible for a pharmacy or grocery store to offer home delivery using the EV1 as they could probably afford the extra electricity more so than the price of gas. If people could have things delivered to them, and if they had access to public transportation, they might -- Oh, God forbid-- Decide that they could live without a car at all! There is a small but growing movement of people who live, as they put it, Car Free! Does anybody here do that? I almost could, as I take buses downtown and work within walking distance so the car I did inherit I use only to visit my sister 7 miles away at church and choir practice. Oh, wait, at that rate, a car might last 20 years! The management at GM would just panic at such a thought! That people might not need their albatross of a product and instead spend their hard-earned money on a home, college education (although most colleges are rip offs, sorry Barry), or an early retirement! But think of all the people at the gas stations, Jiffy Lubes, Midas shops, who would have to be greeters at Wal Mart! Oh, the humanity!

Here is a link to a car cost calculator.

The Real Cost of Car Ownership | Bikes At Work

A calculator that determines what owning a car *really* costs you in terms of your personal goals, like owning a home, getting an education, or saving for retirement.

www.bikesatwork.com

 

[oxydolfan]

I may not be knowledgeable...

But I have two Saturns....a '96 and a '00 SL2....and both cars are awesome, for what it is I (desperately) needed them for, basic dependable transportation.

And I really love the Pontiac G6 coupe, the new Caddies, and the Hummer (I can't help myself!)

Yes, it is true, their smallest cars are now made in Korea by Daewoo...but they seem decently constructed, are well-priced and economical....and Ford has been doing this for years! The Ford Festiva and Aspire was made in Korea for AGES, like the Pontiac LeMans, and the Mercury Capri convertible was imported from Australia!

My Saturns replaced a Nissan Pulsar, which I loved....but repairs were EXPENSIVE. In addition, when I looked at so-called "cool" Japanese cars, I realized that they'd actually plunged in real quality and now had premium price tags to boot.

In addition, I'm unfavorably impressed by the fact that all the popular Japanese models are cookie-cutter and conformist-looking to me! (Although the Maxima is not so bad, and I like the Galant for the money....)

A few years ago, a controversy erupted regarding Ford and its willingness to promote itself to groups of American consumers that had been previously underserved and ignored. This controversy prompted me to take a look at some Fords for myself. I was struck by the realization that there was virtually nothing in the showroom I'd buy.

Now, there is the Mustang. I've looked at the Focus...not bad for the money. And I really think the Fusion is turning out to be a great car!

I guess what I'm trying to say is, you have to go with your instinct. None of the old rules apply any more, and offerings and emerging technologies move so fast these days, that you really can't take anything for granted anymore.

I was in a discount store today, and "Haier" appliances were FLYING out the door. Meanwhile, the new Chinese compact car "Geely" is slated to be released in the US very soon, priced under $9,000 (and China owns much of our debt)....

Look for things to get VERY interesting!!

 

[Cybrvanr]

Percieved quality

all this talk about quality and such brings me to an interesting thing I have discovered. and that is the perception of quality in a product wether or not it's actually there or not.

THe most obvious example of this is Bose speakers. Bose rarely ever publishes any major specifications about their speakers like other manufacturers. The reason is because if you actually benchmark their speakers with traditional measurements, they perform very poorly. Most people think Bose speaker sound very nice though. The reason for this is because Bose has designed a speaker not to be completely accurate at reproducing sound, but to deliver sound that is pleasing to the human ear...THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

The same thing happens with automobiles. Japanese cars traditionally built only to last about 5-7 years. This is because in Japan, their vehicles get taxed more as they age, not less as they do here. Because of this, Japanese vehicles are designed with parts that will last 5-7 years. American vehicles however were designed with all sorts of "consumeable" service parts that neede attention every 1-2 years or even less sometimes. This is becaue Americans traditionally get 10-15 years out of a car. Ignore the service schedule, and your vehicle will perform poorly, or end up leaving you stranded! Remember the old Delco "Energizer" batteries that had replaceable and re-useable cells!?!?!? Japanese vehicles on the other side of this coin were build with components that although they would last much longer and be more trouble free during that period, were next to impossible to maintain when they got that far. Ever try to replace MacPherson struts on an old Jap ride. I cost me over $800 to do it on my old 1978 Civic back in 1990, and the car still didn't drive perfectly. Pity the soul that has an early Japanese car.

Now, today, many Japanese cars have been "Americanized" and designed to last longer. They have better paint jobs, true A-arm suspensions, higher grade steels, and other nice stuff that allows them to last for a considerable time. Because of this, the Japanese car makers had to bank on another trick to maintain their edge on perceived quality, and that's how the car "feels".

This is where it takes some sly engineering. If the same person were to drive a Toyota Corolla and a Chevy Cavalier, most would tell you the Corolla is the higher quality car. A technician looking at the guts of both cars however would tell you that the Cavalier is built with much more significant parts....so why the discrepancy? It's all in tuning. For example, A Corolla has smaller brakes than the Cavalier, BUT most people who drive it will tell you the Corolla stops better. This is because the pedal is firmer, and the car dives more, giving the perception it's stopping harder. Both cars however stop in equal distance. 10 years down the road however, the Chevy's brakes will probably need less repair (they're doing less work!) The same tricks apply to steering, where Japanese cars use less power assist, giving the perception the car is holding tighter in a turn (I prefer this too!). American cars typically have more assist on the power steering, so they sort of FEEL a bit looser when cornering. Numbers on the test track however will show you they perform similar. The noise a car makes is also something that makes a big difference in perceived quality. Ever heard a GM "Iron duke" 4 cylinder (used in S-10 trucks, Fieros, Pontiac 6000's and a host other cars)? Those things sound TERRIBLE. These are one of GM's most reliable engines, with many going over 250,000 miles with only minor malfunctions. Many Japanese 4 cylinders have a nice silky smooth sound to them, and some will last almost as long. Someone listening to the GM vehicle on the new car lot however would tell you the GM engine is a piece of junk, despite it's track record!

There's many more tricks to the trade, but it's safe to say that you cannot judge a book by it's cover. As for me, I have gained a great appreciation for European cars because I have noticed that not only is the perceived quality there, but so is the actual quality. I have been VERY impressed not only with the "feel" of my 1990 SAAB 900, but when I've gone into it with a wrench to do maintence, I've found some VERY smartly engineered stuff on it. (as a side note, this car was built BEFORE GM bought out SAAB!)

I'm the same way with appliances. I have found my little Danby washer to be a really smartly engineered unit that the manufacturer has gone the extra mile with. I plan in the future to spend more money on european appliances for "everyday" use, while building a collection of classic American stuff to admire!

 

[neptunebob]

Cybr,
I read your post and I wonder: If I were to follow Suze Orman's advice and buy a "New, Used" car, would I be better off with an American car or a Japanese one, that is, which would be more likely to be reliable?

One reason why American buy big new cars all the time: High pressure advertising, especially during the local news, telling us to BUY! BUY! NOW! GET A LEASE! Bad Credit, No Credit, we work wonders! We'll Get You In a Car TODAY!!!!BUY NOWWWW!!!!!! When they get to a dealer, the salespeople will get people who want to buy a small car to "move up" to a more profitable SUV, one reason why the automakers sell so many of them.

I agree with you about Bose speakers, they don't sound much better than a boom box and I have read that they are a rip off. But they do advertise a lot and I have known people who work in stereo stores try to talk people out of them and no, they have to spend too much money on Bose. Bose has been known to sue Consumer Reports about their ratings of their speakers so some of what you pay goes to pay for lawyers, not for the speakers. You can get better sound and pay Much less buying almost any other brand.

What do you think of Consumer Reports? They always rate Toyota highly but Cavalier gets a lot of black dots. Why the difference? I do know this much though, Cavalier gets pushed to people with "less than perfect" credit who end up paying thru the nose for a noisy, cramped, not very nice car.

Oh, here's the link about a "New, Used" car:

http://biz.yahoo.com/pfg/e16buylease/art021.html