Did terrible cars bring down Detroit's automakers?

Some bad decisions, quality issues and short sightedness on the part of manufacturers and customer. Everyone bought a Hummer and then gas became too expensive (apparently everyone forgot the '70s) and GM pushed them and advertised them instead of say the Pontiac Vibe. I use the Vibe as an example as I bought, and it's been a great, great car. Good on gas, all wheel drive good in bad weather, very functional interior, people often stop me and ask me questions about it. I generally reply if GM had been pushing them instead of Hummers, there would not have been a problem. Of course consumers wouldn't have bought them because they can be idiots too.

The Pontiac Vibe is a good vehicle, primarily becasue it was desgined and built by Toyota. They are the same vehicle as a Toyota Matrix, So the good GM move here was colaborating with a more reliable automaker, but if they pushed it and advertised it as a great vehicle, they would be shooting themselves in the foot by basicly saying "The best vehicle that we have is designed and built by one of our biggest competitors." Not quite the message you want to send.

Totally agree with BikePerson - I also had a Vibe - bought one of the first ones - a car that gave great service, high MPG, and no troubles at all. I paid close to sticker for a GT model, even when they were really pushing the Aztek sitting right next to it for at least $4000 less. The 2 vehicles shows how schitzo GM product planning was - So right and so wrong at the same time

Yeah, bad management, but their cars were bad quality in general. To pay the UAW what they were demanding, and still be competetive with Toyota and other companies who weren't so encumbered, they had to cut corners in quality. It shows in the reliability.

I still blame management, but only because they should have moved their factories to a good old "right to work" state somewhere in the western United States, and paid reasonable wages to employees that work, and get the ability to can the ones that won't. The UAW killed these companies, and they're showing no signs of stopping now. If GM really wants to change, that's the first festering sore they should lance.

Quality was not the issue. I have several GM and Ford vehicles and I average over 200k miles on them before selling them. I have never found foreign vehicles to have better workmanship. During the 70's and 80's the young people were rebelling against the government and their parents so they bought vehicles that their parents disapproved of. This caused an incorrect assumption that the VW, Toyotas and other autos were better. The biggest problem is the restrictions from the government and the cost of having the UAW.

Does anyone find it coincidental that the companies still making cars do not have to provide health insurance as a benefit? Cars made in the US have had this expense for years while cars made in Japan, Germany and other parts of the world already have this benefit from their government, therefore they do not need to add it on to the expense of building the car. In some cases this figure amounts to $5,000 or more. How are people who are making $7.50 per hour supposed to afford this??? They are not. That is why we are where we are. Besides, I own a 1998 Maxima with 236,000 miles on it and it is still running strong and looking great! Let's see GM, et al do that.

Big props to those here who have a Pontiac Vibe! We have two. I bought the first one in '06 for my daughter in college. My wife liked it so much that I bought an identical one in'07 for her. Toyota running gear & electricals with Pontiac styling touches and sold / maintained through the GM dealer network. Solid 32 mpg everyday and great flexibility with interior room. The NUMMI (GM+Toyota) collaboration gave the best of both worlds, but it looks like the new GM doesn't have enough management sense to keep it around. Now GM will have to rely on its own resources to fill this gap. Oh dear.

oldhippie:

A great percentage of the cars sold by Japanese automakers are built right here, so I'm not sure if the insurance cost has that much of an impact. I think the factors that weigh more include UAW contracts, executive compensation, a depressed yen since the bursting of the Japanese bubble economy, and the like. Japanese executives make far less than their US counterparts, more like 10x the average worker salary in total compensation, rather than 100x or more.

Yes the problem was not the vehicle, but managements unwillingness to move in a new direction. While Toyota and Honda had Hybrids on the road, the biggest selling domestices were Tahoes, Expeditions, and Durrangos and the Full Size truck, ALL of which cost more than the Hybrids did. (Prius 21k-30k) (Tahoe Base price 32k). Yes people were buying, but the Domestics were not bringing new innovations out. How easy would it have been to add some heavy batteries to the suburban, there is space there! But there was no inovation in that direction.We can blame gas prices, but what makes a company viable and successful is when they can predict what the future might hold, and learn from past mistakes. We can't blame gas when les than 30 years ago they all suffered the same problems from the imports, in the late 70's and 80's. Instead of having some viable fuel efficent options, they did nothing. That was the real problem.

adsminJAX,
Comparing the Tahoe to the Prius is like comparingapples to steak. If you want to make a legitimate comparison use Prius to Malibu. Wait a minute, Chevy makes a car that is less expensive and has better performance? Not everyone is excited about fuel efficiency. To me this is just a positive way to say underpowered, where as you may think High Performance is just a positive way to say gas guzzler. The point here is that not everyone wants the same thing in a vehicle. You make it sound like the American auto factories are doing something wrong by making SUV's, but Honda has a full line of these as well; CR-V, HR-V, Pilot, Element, etc...

MjkaG ,

Not everyone is excited about fuel efficiency.

Yes , there is nothing like the excitement of
a high powered vehicle . Not just for you but
also for this guy named Al .
I'm sure you have heard of him . His last name
is Queda .

Some of the money you spend on gas goes to
support his little band .
Did you not see the connection ?

Let me connect the dots for you .

Gas Guzzler . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Terrorism

Gas Guzzler . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Terrorism

LOL!

[hands nonStitiousZealot his tinfoil hat] Here you go, it slipped off your head.

Have you looked at the content of Gas lately. The all knowning govermnent has made it manditory to have 10% ethenal which is more expensive and provides less gas mileage, at least 10%.

@RUkidding - Actually, nothing you said is true (which you might fathom from the inability to spell ethanol). Ethanol has been a gasoline fuel additive since the 1970's - an effort to lessen American independence on foreign oil. It's a great fuel, though it doesn't have the energy density of some of the other components of gasoline. Look it up.

Ethanol has not been in gasoline since the 70's. It went into wide use in the 70's, but quickly fell into disuse due to stabilization problems (it came out of solution too easily; and when it does it has a tendency to absorb moisture from the air, causing an accumulation of water in your gas). It has made a comeback now that adequate stabilizers have been developed, and in the past few years it has become required (by law) for gasoline to be 10% ethanol. The lower power density does mean a negative effect on gas millage (how much depends on engine design). For SOME cars this can cause issues unless a higher octane gas is used to compensate for the ethanol. In some cases, ethanol may still come out of solution and cause serious damage if the engine is unused for long periods of time; such as a boat that is not used for months, or a show car that stays garaged for long periods.

If Ethanol was removed from gasoline, fuel milage would decrease. Gasoline would be too volatile and burn too fast and too hot. Fuel additives are added for a reason. You've heard of ping, knock and run-on. Prior to ethanol we were using methanol and prior to that, lead compounds. You also need to look at who is criticizing ethanol and what they have to gain. The principal argument against ethanol comes from an Arab-funded Cornell University entomologist named Pimentell.

Russell Schiwal: Somebody has been lying to you by telling you the Al Gore campfire horror stories. Most of the nonsense that you hear about gasoline comes from people who talk alot about something they know nothing about.

We used to pull up to the wells and use an "Arkansas Credit Card" to fill the tank with Casing head gasoline from the testing spigot - straight out of the ground and about 104 -110 octane naturally. I had a 1967 T-bird that ran great on Casing head gasoline.

The tetra ethyl lead was a top cylinder lubricant because the valve guides don't get oil below the valve guide seals. Improvements in valve stems, and guides plus the additives did away with the tetra ethyl lead. A lot of us added "Marvel" brand "Mystery Oil" to the gas as a top cylinder lubricant - it is still available in the parts houses.

The ethanol was added to subsidize corn farmers. It caused all sorts of problems and still does raise cane with the oxygen sensors. Ethanol also is the alcohol solvent for Permatex the gasket sealer. The corn and grain farmers were having problems with increased production and decreased foreign demand. The US was also working steadily to get fuels that would sovle the problem that the world was going to be completely out of all fossil fuels by 1978 or 1980. Cars were faced with having to convert to wood burning or electric by 1980. There were also huge discussions about what the US was going to do for heating oil. (No mention of the expiration of the US petrochemical industry which is the largest in the world). Exxon helped to slow the demised of all fossil fuels by closing the refinery at BonAire in the West Indies which was one of the worlds largest gasoline refineries. By 1980 their predictions came true - the world had run out of 50 cent a gallon gasoline and all that was left was an almost unlimited supply of dollar a gallon gasoline. Now we are having to use the Two dollar a gallon supplies. Someday soon we will have to start on the six and 7 dollar a gallon reserves like Europe has been for the past 30 years.

The knock, run-on and ping was remedied by the advent of the electronic computer that adjusted the dwell and electronic timing of the ignition better than the manual points and capacitor did.

Most of todays gasoline is a poorer quality fuel with additives to improve the combustion ability of the 87 octane fuel that is sold in the pumps. Additionally most of those low grade fuels generate a lot of carbon byproduct from burning which will sludge up you engine without the detergent additives. Lastly there is a large problem of the amount of sulphur that occurs naturally in most, but not all of the oil producing formations. The sulphur when added to condensation and mixed by stop and go running will eat the main bearing out of an engine fairly quickly.

The environmentalist are running into resistance because of the number of us who know from emperical experience that what they are saying simply is not, and never was, true.

I remember those early Nissan Sentras and Honda Civics. I had one of each.

I remember bragging in the early 80s about getting 50 MPG hiway in my Sentra! It was great! I think I paid maybe 10K for it!

Whatever happened to those kinds of cars?

Another case in point: My 1988 Honda Accord routinely got 37 MPG in mixed city/highway driving. My 2007 Accord gets 23 or 24. Both 4-cyliner, manual transmissions. The 2007 is a bit bigger, but this still seems like a backward slide. Do airbags and anti-lock brakes really weigh that much to explain this regression?

good points

Hondas are not great cars. I have had8 of them--all Preludes starting with a 1979 and ending with a 1989. The 79 and 80 were good cars but somewhat small. They would get 42 miles to the gallon highway in California, but only 36 in Oregon due to the lower speed limits. The major problem with those was that they had lousy brakes. The bigger version which I think was introduced in 1983, was quite a bit roomier, but was lucky to get 32 straight highway. The airconditioner was inadequate to cool the car down below 85 degrees even if one closed the sunroof liner. It took forever to get the car to cool down if it had been parked during the hot part of the day. It tended to wheel hop if you were going at a low speed on an sloping road. When I picked up new 85 I told the seller that I did not like the dull looking wheels. He said those are not wheels, they are plastic hubcaps! Here was the luxury model Prelude and they had replaced the steel styled wheel with caps that looked like they belonged on a tootsie toy. Again the brakes and air conditioning were inadequate. I had the same complaints with the last one I purchase, the 1989. The mileage of each succeeding year was worse than the first with the '89 lucky to get 25 on the road. I bought each one new and they were all 5 speeds. I then bought a 1988 Ford Turbo Coupe and it delivered 30 on the hiway and the airconditioning would free meat on the front seat. The acceleration of the Honda compared to the Ford was ridiculous. I then bought a 1990 Ford Super Coupe (v-6 supercharged) and it performed like the old muscle cars while still getting as high as 33 on the highway and was also a good place to place items needing refrigeration. I have a 1999 Porsche Boxster which is a fun and fast car, but its fit and finish is no better than American cars. Porsche has a piece of plastic used as trim behind the windshield and it rattles until it damn near drives me nuts. My buddy has a 2007 Carrera which has the same thing and he says his wife often has to take her shoe off and jam her foot against it to keep it from rattling--and that is a $100+ car. He has had about 20 new Porsches over the past 25 years and he told me if they don't the rattle out of it he is going to get sell the car. My 1993 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham has fit and finish equal to either of the Porsches and does not rattle. It is so large that one could likely play polo in it, but that might foul the gorgous burgandy leather.

When I graduated from law school one of my classmates bought a brand new Volvo wagon. I asked him how he liked it and he said "after they replaced the entire engine 3 times in the first 1000 miles,its been great." Can you imagine what Americans would say about an American car that had to have three engines before it ran properly. Or would tolerate air conditioners that would not cool the car? But yet they act like those major design defects are okay on a foreign car.

I will agree that America cars were on the skids during the 80's and 90's, but they have some models out that are pretty darn sharp looking; Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger; Challenger; Chevy Camaro Malibu; some of the Cadillacs: Just because Detriot made it, doesn't mean it is a piece of poop. There are more 70 Chevrolet Caprices on the road than there are 70 Toyotas and Hondas--which are almost never seen.

correction: when it "wasn't" making eggie smells.

GM always has, and always will, be the only car for me. My wife and I own 200 of them, from 49-96. We have a few Ford products, and even a few Mopars (Chysler) in our collection. My wife is a Camaro FANATIC, she has one tattooed on her arm. I am more of a big car guy, Caddies and such. My parents were die hard GM fans, and so were my wifes.

You import fanatics are killing our country...KNOCK IT OFF! Are you stupid? Quit selling America.

I was sad to see Oldsmobile go, and even sadder about Pontiac.

BTW chuck, my father bought an 81 Camaro brand new when he retired, he LOVED that car, and always regretted letting it go.

Jeff, wake up and smell the world economy. The American producivity base has shifted from manufacturing to information, just like manufacturing took over from agriculture. Buying a quality product is merely a sensible thing - buying a quality product that is American is a partiotic thing. The trouble is, the American autos have fallen so far behind in quality, has mileage, looks, warranties, etc. that there are no quality American alternatives. No, the amswer is for the American auto companies to get off their lazy, lame, backward butts and put their overpaid, underworked (for decades) managers and engineers to work making a decent car that doesn't look like a 3 year old designed the dashboard (Ford), that hasn;t been plasticized to garbage (GM), or that actually looks and performs like a world class car (Chrysler).

Jeff you're an idiot to make a comment that by buying an import you are selling America...give me a break! My Honda Accord was built in Marysville, Ohio oh and that Ford Mustang - built in Canada! the Chevy El Camino - built in Mexico. I have a 2002 Ford F250 to pull an RV, the window switches have gone out, the plastic trim is breaking...the Honda still looks as good as the day it came off the lot

And what sir do you do for a living? Obviously nothing having anything to do with foreign competition. But I'm sure you could handle it anyway. Maybe a doctor, lawyer or indian chief. Actually, even an indian chief has common sense.

The beauty of a capitalist, free market society, is that anyone can compete, no matter where they're from. Survival of the fittest. Otherwise, you have the government propping up uncompetative industry, which would never happen here, would it?

Jeff Nichols sounds like a socialist to me, trying to keep out the foreign competition.

MicroMaz PA needs further education as do many Right Wingers.

Protectionism is a trade policy, not the social practice of collectivism.

Note to Jeff Nichols:

I for one appreciate your family support of the Camaro. I ordered the first Z/28 sold in my home county in 1969 (Hugger Orange, White Stripes) and still have it. All original drivetrain, including the rare small block 302 (lotta idiots out there don't know Chevy built one of those). I also once had a '67 327 coupe and an '85 IROC TPI.

The new Camaro SS puts out 426 hp and delivers 24 mpg while the V6 delivers 304 hp and 29 mpg. That is astounding technology, people. Would place an order for a new Camaro SS right now if I could afford it. I hope the new GM doesn't give up on the glory days of performance until I can do that.

(Would like to restore my 69 Z/28 again too, but still paying my daughter's college tuition.)

After driving nothing but American cars, I too switched over to the import world. My 95 Acura w/160k miles runs better than my 06 Ford did w/15k miles. It's a built better, looks better, and will last me longer than that 06 Ford ever would. My first 1994 Ford overheated at about 150k and it all went downhill from there. The parts even on my "luxury" car are cheaper than the ford parts, andmore reilable.

I respect muscle cars, and love the old pontiacs, but we live in a society where a company has to evolve, and the american car companies just didn't do it.

I think having to own 200 cars in a lifetime tells me a lot about the type of cars one owns.

"I prefer 10 good ones to 200 bad ones" I ALWAYS say.

Had 2 Rendezvous, both averaged 22mpg city / 26+mpg hwy. great vehicles, miss them, they were affordable. Buick's best seller & the egg heads replaced it with more expensive model?

Agreed - the list of vehicles does not really support the premise of "vehicles that brought down Detroit". Some may qualify, not all.

Aztec ugliest auto ever? Guess they don't remember the Volkswagen Thing.

Terrible vehicles that damaged Big Three? Try the Ford Granada, Ford Maverick, Ford Pinto - how did Ford avoid bankruptcy ? Chevy Luv was possibly the worst vehicle ever sold, including Yugo. How about the GM diesel? (converted gasoline block - what idiocy.) Actually, any US car from the mid-80's could be on this list -- when designs were bland, sheet metal was super-thin with no corrosion treatment, and all were completely unreliable. Seems like this collapse should have occurred in the mid-90's. Management somehow kept things going until 2009. Good jugglers. (Lots of stock and bond investors plowed money into them - wiped out now. Benz invested big, lost big, but got out in time to salvage something.)

You hit the nail on the head from my view - the mid-size sedan. There have not been any decent, stylish domestic mid-size sedans built by the big 3 in 10+ years. My choices were pseudo muscle cars or old-fogie sedans.

I am now in an SUV because it was affordable ($22K), in the size range I need, with comfortable seating for 5, and is not a 10year old body style. I like it well enough, but I really wanted a CAR.

THe Aztec looks like two Chevy Citations having sex, one on top of the other. An even uglier car would be the scion box. It's hideous, except for the fact that you can comfortably seat five and get 35 miles to the gallon all for aroung $14,000?

I know it's an import, but we were on the subject of ugly.

What about the congressmen flying around in jets when the country might as well be broke? What about their limos? Sure, what they did was in bad taste, but enough with the double standard. The UAW guy came in a private jet too, but no one ever had a problem with him. I wonder why?

Ok, I'll give you that the UAW guy coming in a private jet and riding to Congress in a limo was in just as bad taste as management.

I think you made the point that I was trying to make. Management, whether GM or UAW, are to blame for this failure. Not the cars, the people who made the cars, or the people who bought the cars. Management.

Andy you are so right. I was so "AMERICAN ONLY" my whole life. I even now drive a Mercury Marquis. But GM, who in my youth was THE company, they started building 'throw-away' cars. When they did they were throwing away consumer loyality. I wish that GM had died the death they deserved. They should not be coming back.

You can't just blame the UAW. I'm in the field of auto and motorsports safety and have worked with engineers from the big 3. One of the major engineeringf programs is always planned obsolesence. In the 90's GM engineers designed and tested a 200 k mile + drivetrain and management told them they can't last more than 100K +. This is practiced at all three American automakers on many of their best selling models. The whole industry is a mess!

You can't JUST blame the UAW, yes. But they sure deserve a big piece of the blame pie.

sounds like you got a Norwood special

Actually, Norwood, OH closed after the 87 model year, and Van Nuys, CA after the 92 model year. He said he had a 94, all 4th Gen F Bodies were built in Ste Therese, Quebec, Canada.

My first car was a Van Nuys built 88 Firebird, and the only problem I had with it was the paint, but I repainted it myself 2 years after I bought it. I miss that car, currently in a 2008 Dodge Ram 1500 Regular Cab; great quality vehicle, but not the same as a pony car :(

They missed a lot of cars. Personally, I think Ford should've been left off the list completely. If they want to talk about bad quality, they should talk about the early Dodge Neons, the Dodge Shadow, and most of the late 90's Saturns. The biggest problem that the big three had was not being able to make affordable, quality smaller cars. The key to that being QUALITY. Sure the Aveo is cheap, but would I ever drive one? Heck no! I've seen how they crumble in accidents. Same reason I'd never own a Kia.

They all make decent trucks, but only Ford has even tried to truly enter the smaller car market with the Focus (designed in Europe) and the Fusion (which is part Mazda) with quality affordable cars. That's what killed Chrysler and GM.

You are nuts!!! Ford and Chrysler both suck!!! Every one of them I've ever owned has been a peace of crap. While all of the GM products ( older ones ) that I've owned have been reliable. I have a '85 S-10 that has been wrecked and rebuilt twice and I can drive it anywhere. I've had it for 5 years all I've had to do to it is regular maintinance. I also have a '90 Riviera with 222,000 and it will go anywhere. My cousin has a '00 Silverodo with 450,000 and drives it across country. My uncle has a '03 Silverodo with 350,000 and drives it across country as well. I can't atest to GMs' quality today because I have 2 '07s' that are junk, but they once knew how to build them. As for the Citation I have one and I believe it was one of the best cars they ever built, I drive it everywhere, and I love it.

They were not always so. The 1957 Belair fuel injected 283 V8 followed by the 1958 Impalla with truck block 348 that grew into the original "409", the 389 GTOs and Olds 442, not to mention the 327 Corevttes in the early "stingray" models and finally the L88, were definately not for the old. They all died (via government mandates) by 1971, being changed into lead slugs. U.S. auto indrusty can not change at the speed required by the EPA. Given time maybe things might have been diferent but uncle sam shot them like old horses.

Absolutely

Well, hiring 18 year olds, paying them well, and then guaranteeing them retirement and healthcare for life (after 30 years of service) is insane. Eighteen plus thirty is 48 - and that leaves a statistical avarage of 26 year of life for men and well over thirty for women! That's just not sustainable - even if the wage was reasonable. I'm fine with paying people a working wage, but I have two graduate degrees and a solid job when I create and innovate (useful things), and my autoworking cousins make more, do less, and only had to graduate high school.

Tarc,

Guess we wasted our time and energy!