new CHEVY VOLT

[hglaber]

I would love to find a study somewhere where someone randomly took a new VW Passat off an American car lot and compared it, part by part, with the German equivalent. Could be interesting.

They couldn't do it, because they are two completely different cars. The current generation of Passat and Jetta sold in the USA are unique models designed for and manufactured in American markets to compete in different segments than the European models. In the USA, a car with the size, power, and efficiency of the European Passat is (barely) in the high-volume mid-size family sedan segment. When the European Passat was sold here it was usually the smallest, most expensive car in its class. In Europe, the Passat is a more expensive "executive" car (kinda like Buick here), while that mainstream family car segment is represented by cars like the Golf and Focus. So, to be more competitive with the size and price of cars like Camry, Fusion, etc., they created a new, unique model but kept the name Passat.

Japanese companies have been doing this for years. For example, take that Accord Duane mentioned - the name Accord is used on two completely different vehicles depending on if you are in an American market or in Europe or Japan. The USA-built model is a mainstream mid-sizer, sold against Camry, Malibu and Fusion. The Japanese-built model is slightly smaller, more expensive car sold in a more exclusive segment. In fact, you can buy a Japanese Accord in the USA if you want, but in order to be price-competitive it has to be sold in the near-luxury class. To find it, head over to an Acura dealer and ask for a TSX.

[organic_smallhome]

The engineer at MIT told me that planned obsolescence was the name of the game. I'm not a conspiracy theory type of person, and I highly doubt that he was, either. But much of what you've explained make sense to me, apart from one thing: I don't blame the consumer for low quality on the production end. When American companies off-shored American manufacturing and millions of American jobs, they did it not because they couldn't make a healthy profit at home. They did it because they couldn't make a killing at home. Pure greed. Nothing more, nor less. And since Walmart now actually controls pricing for much of the global manufacturing base--including in the U.S.--the companies who remain who want to survive at all are forced to cut their quality or be outbid by China. It's not the consumer that is the problem here. Globalization--apart from the environmental devastation it is wreaking--is the biggest con job ever pulled. Germany levies such heavy taxes on German companies if they even try to offshore, that over 90% of German manufacturing has remained in Germany. It's time to rein in American corporations before they destroy us all.

I don't think there is such a thing as planned obsolescence, but that suits folks that like conspiracy theories. I think what happens is that pricing pressure is relentless from consumers, and companies build to a target price point, while preserving their margin. Every company has a margin percentage to make, so at the end of the day they add up all the costs of the production and put a percentage atop that so they can make a profit and stay in business. If the company feels the product is too costly at retail, they will look at ways to take some cost out - and you can only do that two ways 1) Cut out materials 2) Cut labor costs. Reduce either one of those too much and you wind up with sub-par performance on your product and dis-satisfied customers. They are, for the most part, trying to find balance between price and quality. For example, if they determine that 90% of their end users will see a 10-year life span on a car as acceptable, then there is no need to engineer the unit to last 20 years to satisfy the remaining 10 %. Likewise on components - you don't need a transmission that will last 30,000 hours of use if the engine is only going 15,000 hours.

Now in the realm of cars there are certain makers that toss that price/margin out the window and use the best of everything, price be damned. Aston Martin, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc., and not even their entry level cars are less than $ 150K. That's how Hancock & Moore builds leather sofas, or Rolex a watch....they don't skimp on the build or the labor and products like these are not made for everyone. So while they are more costly you DO get the best components and build for your money. Most people, by far, don't care about high-end builds and want a solid utility/everyday product that is respectable, reliable and affordable. That's the mainstream consumer.

I think the current crop of modern automobiles are just wonderful. They are so much better than in years past in all aspects - from safety to drive quality to reliability to efficiency across all the makers. How many here remember points, plugs and condensers and setting your timing with a dwell meter, or cleaning the points with a business card to get it to run (I will tell you a funny story about that at the end of this post*)? Or fussy carbs that flooded and needed float bowls replaced? ABS brakes, Dynamic Stability Control and Traction Control have really helped make cars safe - along with airbags. Plus our cars run clean now, with low emissions - heck, my diesel delivery truck now puts out water as the exhaust, nor more diesel fumes! You want to know what I think the very best car on the market is for most people? A basic Honda Accord. For $ 30K +/- you get a fantastic automobile that is loaded with features and performance, and is decent to drive. And its made in the USA so its actually a domestic! So you can have your import AND made in America with buying an Accord.

********

* I met my future wife 34 years ago in Ft Lauderdale FL just having a casual conversation on the beach on a Sunday afternoon. After a bit, she said she had to go and 'hoped her car would start'. I asked her what she was driving and she said 'A Triumph Spitfire'. Being a British Leyland car guy, I know why the car didn't want to start - dirty points nine times out of ten. So I offered to escort her to the parking lot to make sure it would run and she got in, turned the key and it wouldn't start. I popped the bonnet, pulled out a white business card I had in my billfold, pulled the Distributor Cap and cleaned the points with the business card - it fired right up pretty as you please. She was amazed and I asked if that act of kindness warranted a dinner date, and she agreed....the rest is history. So if that old Triumph had electronic ignition like we do today, I'd have been out of luck.

[earlh]

Hey there Organic - what's shakin' in your neck of the woods? You're up mighty late tonight. Hope the Honda isn't giving you any trouble.

[cuse69]

The engineer at MIT told me that planned obsolescence was the name of the game. I'm not a conspiracy theory type of person, and I highly doubt that he was, either. But much of what you've explained make sense to me, apart from one thing: I don't blame the consumer for low quality on the production end. When American companies off-shored American manufacturing and millions of American jobs, they did it not because they couldn't make a healthy profit at home. They did it because they couldn't make a killing at home. Pure greed. Nothing more, nor less. And since Walmart now actually controls pricing for much of the global manufacturing base--including in the U.S.--the companies who remain who want to survive at all are forced to cut their quality or be outbid by China. It's not the consumer that is the problem here. Globalization--apart from the environmental devastation it is wreaking--is the biggest con job ever pulled. Germany levies such heavy taxes on German companies if they even try to offshore, that over 90% of German manufacturing has remained in Germany. It's time to rein in American corporations before they destroy us all.

The issue of globalization gets even more complex and has no simple solution. Let's assume we could bring back offshore manufacturing with or without associated punitive taxes. Now is the American consumer going to purchase what may or may not be a quality product for 30-50% more when it sits on the shelf at WalMart next to the Chinese product? And will China continue to fund our excessive government spending if we no longer purchase their products? I suggest that technology, efficient transportation of goods and opening of boarders through trade agreements has redefined commerce to the point where standards of living around the world will become more equal, with those at the low end of economic prosperity
benefiting at the expense of those at the high end.

[brsett]

They haven't. Here is the 2013 reliability chart from consumer reports. But really, European cars have cruddy quality as well. It's the Japanese makers by far, and then everyone else.

[brsett]

As an aside. I always have a jeep. It's unreliable and finicky, and I wish that weren't the case. But they are a heritage brand that I hope returns to its glory one day. My main car is a 2007 Accord that has been in 3 wrecks. I barely maintain it, and is the best driving car (for US speed limits anyway) that I've ever driven. On US roads, I take that accord over a BMW every day and twice on Sunday. In Europe, I think I'd make a different choice. But at <80MPH on US quality roads, that car is better than anything I've ever seen.

[earlh]

Yeah now do a comparable chart for resale value. You'll see a similar pattern - Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. pretty much worth nothing after 5 years, while the imports are worth at least half of what you paid. Try trading in a used American clunker. The dealer just laughs at you and says, "You know, sir, these domestics aren't worth much. I might be able to get you a couple of hundred courtesy cash, but I think that's the best we can do."

[drcollie]

When looking at data charts from places like Consumer Reports, its important to remember that this is not scientific data, rather its a collection of questionnaires they send to their subscribed readership and ask for a fee from them to help offset the cost of aligning the data. So the sample base is likely to be biased towards the vehicles that Consumer Reports buyers purchase, rather than across the market spectrum. In other words, its flawed data and applicable to a small sample group. Want an example? Look at Buick in the ratings vs GMC or Chevrolet. Buicks are built on the same production line as the Chevrolet Brand yet they have higher test scores? Why? Individual perception for one thing and the buyer profile is another. I personally put zero faith in Consumer Reports charts such as that because they are not based on the hard data of warranty repairs in a given brand.

[brsett]

You're conflating 2 things. The test scores are how the Consumer reports reviewers feel about the cars. The reliability of the results are the results of the survey.

Continuing, why would Chevy have better reliability than Buick? Buick are almost all GM designs. Chevy on the other hand includes those GM designs, but also rebranded Holdens (built in Australia for a different manufacturer, imported with a Chevy badge), Opels (designed in Europe, assembled in Mexico and badged as Chevy), and several other manufacturers. There really are differences in the GM brands. Buicks and GMCs, as brands, are much more American than Chevy -- which includes alot of re-badged foreign stuff.

To me the distressing case is Ford, who used to have much better reliability than the rest of the big 3. All their cars are currently gorgeous (including the coming 2015 mustang), but the reliability seems to be tanking.

Finally, Consumer Reports is relatively stodgy in how it rates cars. No one in the world thinks a Lexus is exciting to drive. They ride like sofas. But they probably are the best rolling sofas ever built.

[Marjflowers]

People surely are passionate about their cars! I guess it's always been that way -- my dad was a Ford man. Would not even CONSIDER anything but a Ford/Mercury. Me, not so much. As long as it's basically safe, reliable, and gets at least 35 mpg, I'm good. And I prefer a smaller car. So my Honda Civic is good for me. Just a matter of priorities.

But here's why I will never, never, never willingly buy or drive a car made by GM: the Chevrolet Cobalt. As the story of the faulty ignition switch has unfolded, it seems obvious to me from the decisions not to recall the part when they became aware of the problem in 2001 and to alter the part without a new part number in 2006 that they had no regard for the lives and safety of their customers. From a cost/benefit point of view, I guess it made sense. They understood that the drivers of these cars were likely to be young and/or poor, with little potential liability in terms of compensatory damages. And while the math might have been good for the bottom line, the moral calculus was way, way off.

I guess one could argue that GMs decisions were driven (no pun intended) by the consumer demand for an inexpensive product, but that feels a bit like blaming the victim to me. The reality is that those who drive this car, generally speaking, don't have a lot of choices. They're among the most vulnerable in our society, making them easy prey.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this -- lots of complicated issues given the bankruptcy. I don't think the new CEO did herself or GM any favors when she testified before Congress. When she answered the question of whether she'd be comfortable with her child driving one of these cars, my jaw hit the ground. She answered that as long as there wasn't a keychain, she'd be good with it. Wow.

Ultimately, whether you're buying a car, or furniture, or anything, for that matter, the consumer has to have a level of trust in the product they're buying. And I don't think there's anything GM could do at this point to gain my trust.