Go testdrive a new Chevy Malibu, Pontiac G6, Saturn Aura, Buick Enclave, Chevy Silverado, Chevy Impala, or any of the GM fullsize SUVs or crossovers. Ford and Chrysler still have a ton of work to do, but any conclusion about "cheapness" or build quality of American vehicles better be based on current models, because the stuff coming out of GM for the past 2-3 years is so much better than the past that it's totally unfair to assume it's the same as a 1990's GM vehicle.
And if you'll note, when it comes to long term reliability, Toyota isn't bulletproof anymore. They've grown way too fast for their own good, and quality is what it once was. That's not to say they're junk, just that the difference between a GM and Toyota (when it comes to initial quality and long-term reliability) is heading the opposite way of what it was a decade ago, and has been for a couple of years; just perception hasn't yet caught up to reality. Toyota's entire sales effort seems to be based on fuel economy (to which they do not hold much of an advantage, if any, for most classes) and quality (which is, per the latest numbers, not as good as it was). Their vehicles are getting uglier (subjective) every year and interior design is seemingly uninspired. Not one of their models is remotely sporty (Scion and Lexus excluded), so in the end, if more folks realize that Toyota isn't the only place for quality vehicles or good fuel economy, their sales will plummet.
To generalize a national industry based upon older specific models that make up a small percentage of total industry sales is a bit foolish. Like saying that since the GameCube didn't sell well, Japanese consoles will never do well again.
Also a light year or so ahead of my buddy's 2003 Ranger.
Facebook
Twitter