Consumer Reports New Car Reliability Survey

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cheesehead

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
10,079
0
0
My father has a Mazda3, which is actually a cut-price version of the Euro-spec Focus (which, unlike the American version which seems to be worse than when it first launched, has improved steadily every year.) It sips fuel, it has never had a single problem, and protected him admirably in a very nasty car crash. And it's made by Ford - quite possibly in a U.S. factory.

In recent years, Ford and G.M. have given up on selling rubbishy old cars to octogenarians and started building interesting and modern products. The Cadillac CTS, for example, provides a compelling alternative to a BMW 5-series - especially considering that for the price of a beemer with a tiny little engine you get a 306 horsepower direct-injected 24-valve V6. Similarly, the Mazda3 is the best economy car on the market, and the sadly discontinued Focus wagon was a truly brilliant way to haul things - my friend has one, and it hasn't gone wrong after seven years of hard use.

Sadly, this modernization is not yet complete. Ford insists on selling us a stripped-down version of old-model Focus which went out of production in Europe years ago and refuses to sell us the excellent Ford Mondeo, while GM insists on selling us the decidedly awful Daewoo Aveo. I have no doubt that the marketing department has come up with many good reasons to sell the cars they do, but that doesn't stop them from being rubbish.

I personally support the bailout of both Ford and GM, if only on the condition that they forget about market segmentation and start selling us the best cars they can build. Chrysler, however, should be hung out to dry - it's been fading for years, and propping it up would only be delaying the inevitable.

Originally posted by: foghorn67

There was no friggin knee room. That was a poor design for the States. Yes, I think it's fun and all. But it was an impractical sedan. The Focus has more interior volume.

The new (euro- and aussie-spec) Mondeo has been described what you would get if you took a BMW 3-series and traded in the badge for $8,000.

Originally posted by: Pandaren
Originally posted by: Ronstang
I would rather support overpaid unions, even though I think they need to go, and keep the profit in the US

This is false and people need to stop repeating it.

Corporate profits ultimately go to the shareholders in the form of dividends. The shareholders could be anywhere in the world, regardless of the corporation's origin. If Ford was profitable and paying a dividend, and there were shareholders in France, some of Ford's profits would go to France. If Toyota has shareholders in the US, Americans will get any dividend Toyota pays.

Agreed 100%.

Anyone who says auto workers are overpaid should visit a town based around an automotive plant. Auto workers work very hard at skilled jobs, and deserve every penny they get - if anything, they're paid less than their counterparts in Germany or Japan.


Originally posted by: ElFenix

so i guess $100,000 a year engineering jobs just aren't as important as $16 an hour factory jobs?

not to mention that the vast majority of US car company shareholders are probably in the US.

It's funny you say that.

The 4-cylinder engines in the current Focus and and Taurus (500?) were designed by Mazda, and are basically just stripped-down versions of the Mazda MZR inline-four. The 6-cylinder engine was originally designed by Porsche - in Germany - and then modified for Ford use by Cosworth, the legendary British engine firm. Don't think that the rest of the cars are American, either - the nifty "control blade" suspension used on the Focus and Mazda3 was done in Germany and England as well.

Similarly, we can look at GM's new hatchback, the Astra, which was designed in Germany, built in Belgium, and shipped to the U.S. on a boat. It's about as American as bratwurst and sauerkraut.

Everyone thinks of GM and Ford as American companies. This is a load of bologna. The signature cars of Australia - the Falcon and Commodore - are Ford and GM products. The Vauxhall Vectra is a GM product, and the Transit, quite possibly the most popular van in Europe for decades, is a Ford, too.

This also goes both ways. It is worth noting that the Toyota Avalon is designed in North America, built in North America, and sold only in - you guessed it - North America. Sure, it borrows a lot from Japanese designs - but hasn't ford done the same thing?

The only truly American car company is Chrysler. And Chrysler makes absolute crap.

Originally posted by: Arkaign
There was a time (say between 1988 and 1995) that Toyota/Honda were hands-down, undeniably better at making cars than the Big 3. That time has passed for two reasons :

(1)- The Japanese have slipped a bit. Not horrendously, and pay no attention to the opposite fanboys/trolls who say that Toyota is just trash, because that's not true. But the facts are that a new Honda or Toyota from that golden age of ~'88 to ~'95 was likely to be a lot tougher and longer-lasting than more recent models, particularly 2000+.

(2)- Ford and GM have come a HUGE distance forward in design, reliability, and refinement. To not acknowledge this is folly. Sadly, Chrysler still lags considerably in nearly every respect, though the Ram is a fine truck, and the Viper remains an iconic piece of American muscle.

I would beg to differ. While Japanese cars had slipped a bit - and it was mostly Toyota at fault - they seem to be as good as they ever were. The exception to this is Nissan - the Versa, for example, was rated far less reliable than the Chevy-branded Daewoo we call a Aveo.


 

Pandaren

Golden Member
Sep 13, 2003
1,029
0
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Originally posted by: Ronstang
I would rather support overpaid unions, even though I think they need to go, and keep the profit in the US

This is false and people need to stop repeating it.

Corporate profits ultimately go to the shareholders in the form of dividends. The shareholders could be anywhere in the world, regardless of the corporation's origin. If Ford was profitable and paying a dividend, and there were shareholders in France, some of Ford's profits would go to France. If Toyota has shareholders in the US, Americans will get any dividend Toyota pays.

Besides, foreign brand cars are often made in the US, and US brand cars are often made abroad, typically in Mexico or Canada. Platforms, parts, everything is global these days.

More important to look at the VIN number to see country of origin. To support American auto workers, buy a car made in the US, not just with an American badge.

Your explanation is ridiculously simplistic and shows clearly that you lack any solid understanding of financial markets. Only a small portion of corporate profits are returned to shareholders in the form of dividends. And that is assuming that dividends are paid at all (many stocks pay no dividends). The majority of profits are re-invested in the business in some manner and are never seen by shareholders.

ZV

(1) You fail to respond to my point that automobiles are essentially global products. Parts, design, assembly, are done in all different parts of the world and the badge has little to do with where the car came from.

(2) So what if the profits are reinvested? That often benefits everyone. I'm sure these folks in Ohio are more than happy to see profits "reinvested"

This excerpt sums it up:

the Honda engine plant in Anna, Ohio, sits amid lots crowded with employee vehicles, ringed by carefully trimmed trees and endless farm fields beyond. It recently underwent a $75 million, 135,000-square-foot expansion.

The success of the factory, which Honda says has built 15 million engines from scratch since it opened 23 years ago, has been spread beyond Anna, which lies in western Ohio between Dayton and Toledo.

"Honda's really helped this area as far as housing, retail sales, the restaurant business," said Tim Rogers, who has owned the Inn Between Tavern in Botkins, just up the road from Anna, for 33 years.

When a company like Honda makes money and reinvests it in US plants, Americans benefit. The profits are spent paying Americans to design, construct, and manage the plant. And then future revenue from the plant goes to paying American workers.

This "profits go abroad" argument is as thin as straw and twice as hollow, as I'm sure employees of American Honda Motors could probably tell you.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Originally posted by: Ronstang
I would rather support overpaid unions, even though I think they need to go, and keep the profit in the US

This is false and people need to stop repeating it.

Corporate profits ultimately go to the shareholders in the form of dividends. The shareholders could be anywhere in the world, regardless of the corporation's origin. If Ford was profitable and paying a dividend, and there were shareholders in France, some of Ford's profits would go to France. If Toyota has shareholders in the US, Americans will get any dividend Toyota pays.

Besides, foreign brand cars are often made in the US, and US brand cars are often made abroad, typically in Mexico or Canada. Platforms, parts, everything is global these days.

More important to look at the VIN number to see country of origin. To support American auto workers, buy a car made in the US, not just with an American badge.

Your explanation is ridiculously simplistic and shows clearly that you lack any solid understanding of financial markets. Only a small portion of corporate profits are returned to shareholders in the form of dividends. And that is assuming that dividends are paid at all (many stocks pay no dividends). The majority of profits are re-invested in the business in some manner and are never seen by shareholders.

ZV

(1) You fail to respond to my point that automobiles are essentially global products. Parts, design, assembly, are done in all different parts of the world and the badge has little to do with where the car came from.

(2) So what if the profits are reinvested? That often benefits everyone. I'm sure these folks in Ohio are more than happy to see profits "reinvested"

This excerpt sums it up:

the Honda engine plant in Anna, Ohio, sits amid lots crowded with employee vehicles, ringed by carefully trimmed trees and endless farm fields beyond. It recently underwent a $75 million, 135,000-square-foot expansion.

The success of the factory, which Honda says has built 15 million engines from scratch since it opened 23 years ago, has been spread beyond Anna, which lies in western Ohio between Dayton and Toledo.

"Honda's really helped this area as far as housing, retail sales, the restaurant business," said Tim Rogers, who has owned the Inn Between Tavern in Botkins, just up the road from Anna, for 33 years.

When a company like Honda makes money and reinvests it in US plants, Americans benefit. The profits are spent paying Americans to design, construct, and manage the plant. And then future revenue from the plant goes to paying American workers.

This "profits go abroad" argument is as thin as straw and twice as hollow, as I'm sure employees of American Honda Motors could probably tell you.

Are you seriously arguing that the bulk of the benefits do not go to the company's home country?

Of course there are some people in the US who benefit when any auto maker does well. No-one is disputing that. But there are far and away more people who directly benefit from domestics than from imports.

Yes, Honda does employ a good number of Americans. GM, Ford, and Chrysler each employ far more. Do some American workers benefit from Honda? Absolutely. Do far more American workers benefit from Ford? You better believe it.

ZV
 

cheesehead

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
10,079
0
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Yes, Honda does employ a good number of Americans. GM, Ford, and Chrysler each employ far more. Do some American workers benefit from Honda? Absolutely. Do far more American workers benefit from Ford? You better believe it.

ZV

Ford and GM make, design, and sell the majority of their cars outside of the US. They have done so for a long, long time. And while Ford and GM do currently employ more Americans than Honda, it's worth noting that they're outsourcing more and more every day and doing everything they can to screw over their past and current workers. Honda, on the other hand, is leaving their workers' pensions alone.

By your definitions, the only truly American auto firm is Chrysler. Which makes rubbish.
 

Pandaren

Golden Member
Sep 13, 2003
1,029
0
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Are you seriously arguing that the bulk of the benefits do not go to the company's home country?

Yes.

When many R&D facilities are in the US, paying US engineers, when the factory is in the US, paying US auto workers, when the parts suppliers are largely US suppliers, when there is consistent reinvestment in US factories and labs, the bulk of the benefits are here in the US.

 

Chunkee

Lifer
Jul 28, 2002
10,391
1
81
Originally posted by: evident
Almost all models from Honda and its Acura luxury division received above-average scores


all i needed to read

This is funny. Coming from a company that had a failed transmission in a luxury car for several years.

I am sorry, but AVERAGE is the sux. Why not make them all above average?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: sindows
I personally never understood why domestic cars have the bad rep for reliability that they do. My family has owned cars from nearly every country and the worst cars are usually German. The only thing about domestic cars that I don't like are their interiors but they have gotten much better since the early-late 90s. Domestic cars as a whole also tend to be a little bit thirstier but they produce a more oomphy feeling even if their horsepower ratings are the same.
Because they used to suck major, slimy ass is why. It's taking them a very long time to instill in people that they don't build total crap anymore. Sure, Uncle Bob had that caprice with a million miles and never changed the oil, but statistically the domestics were way behind the curve in quality.

 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Are you seriously arguing that the bulk of the benefits do not go to the company's home country?

Yes.

When many R&D facilities are in the US, paying US engineers, when the factory is in the US, paying US auto workers, when the parts suppliers are largely US suppliers, when there is consistent reinvestment in US factories and labs, the bulk of the benefits are here in the US.

So you are saying that Honda, as a company, employs more people in the US than Ford, GM, or Chrysler?

Look, no-one is denying that there are benefits to the US from Honda doing well. But, on the balance, there are greater benefits from Ford, GM, or Chrysler doing well.

ZV
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: sindows
I personally never understood why domestic cars have the bad rep for reliability that they do. My family has owned cars from nearly every country and the worst cars are usually German. The only thing about domestic cars that I don't like are their interiors but they have gotten much better since the early-late 90s. Domestic cars as a whole also tend to be a little bit thirstier but they produce a more oomphy feeling even if their horsepower ratings are the same.
Because they used to suck major, slimy ass is why. It's taking them a very long time to instill in people that they don't build total crap anymore. Sure, Uncle Bob had that caprice with a million miles and never changed the oil, but statistically the domestics were way behind the curve in quality.

Bingo.

No matter how long the engine continues to limp along (and make no mistake, even during the worst years, domestics would continue to limp along for many, many miles even with leaking seals and blown rings), if the interior falls apart and you're leaving clouds of blue smoke behind you, people aren't going to develop fond feelings for the cars.

It's not enough for a car to simply start and run. It has to run well, and for many, many years domestics could not be counted on to do that.

ZV
 

evident

Lifer
Apr 5, 2005
12,132
754
126
Originally posted by: Chunkee
Originally posted by: evident
Almost all models from Honda and its Acura luxury division received above-average scores


all i needed to read

This is funny. Coming from a company that had a failed transmission in a luxury car for several years.

I am sorry, but AVERAGE is the sux. Why not make them all above average?

???

i agree the weakest part of honda cars are their transmissions. Most of the issues occured in the early 2000's with the transmissions linked to the V6's. They have all been addressed for the most part now in their new models, and even then they weren't that wide spread, besdies the acura CL-S.
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Are you seriously arguing that the bulk of the benefits do not go to the company's home country?

Yes.

When many R&D facilities are in the US, paying US engineers, when the factory is in the US, paying US auto workers, when the parts suppliers are largely US suppliers, when there is consistent reinvestment in US factories and labs, the bulk of the benefits are here in the US.

So you are saying that Honda, as a company, employs more people in the US than Ford, GM, or Chrysler?

Look, no-one is denying that there are benefits to the US from Honda doing well. But, on the balance, there are greater benefits from Ford, GM, or Chrysler doing well.

ZV

I will respectfully disagree.

If Japan, or any other country can produce vehicles more efficiently than the US, then the US (and everyone else) will be better off with that country producing the vehicles instead.

Vice versa, if US manufacturers are more efficient than anyone else, then we're all better off if vehicles are made in the US.

Why?

I love Krugman, and this is an excellent article that looks at free trade and the danger of focusing on one industry in your economy in this kind of debate:

http://www.slate.com/id/1916/

While more to do with free trade, these are also good and address some of the usual arguments one gets in this area:

http://www.slate.com/id/1918/
http://www.slate.com/id/1926/
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
New Ford cars have been highly rated by CR and JDP for a few years now, so I am not surprised at all.
The new platforms are solid and fun to drive too.

When was the last time on CR that Ford or other domestic brand was not highly rated? Serious question (I don't know) because I have this crazy notion in my head that people who actually still subscribe to such a magazine - with the internet as prominent as it is - are not today's generation (if you catch what I'm saying) and tend to stick with all-things-American.