Disney may lose GM sponsorship for Test Track

Bush and the 110th Congress set an insanely stupid precedent in proposing bailouts in the first place. No amount of management, or leadership involved would have saved this cluster-you-know-what from the beginning.

I too, was a loyal GM customer. My entire family supported GM. They made awesome cars in the late 80's and early 90's that lasted. Heck you'll still see some of them on the road! Compare that to a late 90's Malibu, Grand Am, or Cavalier! We had a '94 Cutlass that was finally ditched in 2001 despite having in the realm of 250k miles on the engine. However, something happened in the mid-90's that caused the domestic car companies to put out cars with sub-par materials and frankly sub-par reliability.

While my '96 Cavalier lived to see 155k miles that's where I ended it. Because of a new job I needed a decent car that I could put a lot of miles on. I worked at a full-service car wash and I can tell you what cars during 1997 - 2001 to get or to completely avoid. I got a 2003 Civic, has 136k miles at this point after almost 6 years of faithful service. Only major thing replaced was the timing belt and water pump (which you MUST replace anyways every 100k miles). The quality all around was much higher than the Cavalier, the Focus, and the Grand Am. Sure I paid about $2k more for the car, but it makes up in what I'm getting out of it and furthermore the value of the car is at least 2x greater than what I would get for a domestic if I were to trade it in.

Sorry GM, I converted the rest of my family after that, who have gone on to buy a couple of Accords, a Civic, and not to mention the other Toyota and Mitsubishi vehicles as well. This goes to Ford as well, who hasn't seen our business since '85. But sheesh Chrysler, why are you still making cars? Give any one of those two years of service and they sound and run like they are 12 years old. Stick with trucks and vans where you are good at.

~Rob

Dude, on what planet MUST you replace a water pump every 100,000 miles?!? Did your mechanic tell you that? Because that's absolutely, positively untrue. You replace the water pump when it shows signs of impending failure, or after its already failed.

As for your complaints about GM's quality, the data shows that your experience is no longer even close to the norm. The quality of the D3 has been on par with the imports since the beginning of this decade. Of course, the quality problems you experienced in the mid-90's was all-too-common, and tainted people's perception irreparably.

I really thought circa 1994 that Chrysler was going to start kicking ass. The Neon was a total clean-sheet design and it looked like they were going to take what they learned there and make other interesting cars that people would be into. A great many people were really into the Neon because it was so different for a small car.

Then it turned out that the Neon started falling apart after a few years (first question from dealers on trade: "Does the A/C and radio work?") and the other new models named after clouds all looked like big Neons. What a damn shame that was.

Yeah, the Neon was, I think, the first vehicle Chrysler designed ground-up digitally. The problems weren't limited to the AC, however. The head gasket(s) leaked like crazy (at least I think that's where the leak was... its been a while).

And while they did fix the problems quickly, the car was such an instant hit that far too many problematic units were out in the wild for the fix to really help. Still, dumping that car (and the impending potential dump-age of the PT Cruiser) was a serious mistake.

djDaemon said: Of course, the quality problems you experienced in the mid-90's was all-too-common, and tainted people's perception irreparably.

Are we still talking about the auto industry, or is this migrating to Six Flags talk? ;)

rollergator said:
Toyota and Honda make products people want to buy....not just Americans, people around the world. When the global economy rebounds, those companies that make products people want WILL come back as well. Those companies that continue to make products people DON'T want to buy - they'll be requesting more bailout money until it's refused, and then they'll simply go bankrupt. If you were losing market share from the 70s straight thru 30-35 years and never bothered to figure out why....your company is not going to succeed. And shouldn't.

But people wanted the pickup trucks and SUVs and minivans that the Big 3 were making, until gas went over $3.00 a gallon. The Asian and European mfrs started making those types of vehicles too, so obviously they noticed a demand for those products. Now whether people can afford them is another story. But if regular maintenance costs weren't an issue, and by that I mean typical upkeep not major repairs and replacement, I think most Americans would still prefer their larger vehicles.

^I think the distinction I was trying to make (potentially failing, LOL) is that the American consumers WERE paying under $2/gal for a long time after the rest of the "industrialized world" had begun paying prices that reflected the actual cost of burning hydrocarbons for fuel. Americans wanted big cars as long as they were being, in effect, subsidized to drive them. The impression that I get is that virtually everyone expects the current gas prices to rise, dramatically, when the recession begins to ease (if not sooner). Efficiency IS green thinking, and good for our health and the environmment even if gas were selling at the 45-50cents/gal it sold at when I was a kid. Sure, the Big Three sold alot of gas guzzlers in the last couple decades, but clearly the marketplace in general was showing just how "out-of-step" America can be with the rest of the industrialized world.

^ - The Big 3 DO sell quite a few fuel efficient models in the European market though. The problem though is that those models were never brought to the US. Call it poor market analysis or poor market reaction, either way they've got some problems here.

In the US, the Big 3 own the truck market and the truck market has kept them afloat. However, when gas went up, people stopped buying trucks. They started to have problems as people looked elsewhere for cars and XUVs which the Big 3 weren't REALLY known for. Just look at Ford, they are known for their trucks but most everyone has had an iffy experience with an Escort. Ford dropped the ball with America's #1 car over the last 25 years (the Taurus) by cancelling it.

The other problem is that the Big 3 spent a lot of time and money chasing the Ethanol Dragon. That is the other big mistake they made. As long as an alternate fuel is more expensive and less efficient than gas, it won't matter how green it is. Thankfully they've all started moving towards the plug-in hybrids, which, if they can put quality and price on the road, will save them.

djDaemon said:
Dude, on what planet MUST you replace a water pump every 100,000 miles?!? Did your mechanic tell you that? Because that's absolutely, positively untrue. You replace the water pump when it shows signs of impending failure, or after its already failed.

It's much more inexpensive to replace a water pump at the same time as a timing belt because you've got to do essentially the same labor for both. If you do them at two separate times, you're paying double labor.

djDaemon said:
Dude, on what planet MUST you replace a water pump every 100,000 miles?!? Did your mechanic tell you that? Because that's absolutely, positively untrue. You replace the water pump when it shows signs of impending failure, or after its already failed.

Umm...Planet Earth apparently. In all seriousness I see where I goofed, I meant the timing belt must be replaced. I have a service manual for my Civic and it's suggested (not required) to replace the water pump when replacing the timing belt so that you don't have to repeat the same work twice. Besides, the part is like $30 - $40.

I'm glad that GM and Ford are putting out higher quality cars again, but I think it's too little too late. People have been exposed to the higher quality imports and because of that I think it's safe to say that Americans are after cars that we can hang on longer than before, cheap to maintain, have a good warranty if the car doesn't hold up, and hold their value to use as a trade-in for a newer car.

I understand the notion that if GM fails, other companies fail. But a crappy business plan is a crappy business plan, it'll fail eventually even if we continue printing money to bail them out. I tend to look at this problem like ripping off a band-aid. We could keep bailing out companies and slowly bring down the economy, like slowing peeling off the band-aid and feel every single hair follicle getting pulled out of your skin, it hurts and for a good while. Or we could let the companies fail, rip that band-aid off quickly with massive unemployment and whatnot. But people need cars and I think we'd see new companies reorganize without the labor unions and legacy costs and we'd see a more efficient (unfortunately smaller) auto industry.

But it looks like we're doing a bit of both now aren't we?

~Rob

If two is a sufficient number of political parties (it's not, but I won't let that stop me, LOL), then two should be an appropriate number of American automakers... :)

Yes, the question becomes, though, who will build those vehicles for the newly formed companies when all of the suppliers (or most) also go under because the Big 3 fail? And when they find the few suppliers who are left to manufacture parts for these new rebounded companies, how are they going to afford the exorbitant cost of production that comes from a low supply and large demand?

The thing is that a bail out doesn't have to mean just throw more money at the failing company, thus prolonging the death sentence. It could come with solid plans to repair the damaged business processes and plans for accountability to a higher standard.

But people need cars and I think we'd see new companies reorganize without the labor unions and legacy costs and we'd see a more efficient (unfortunately smaller) auto industry

.

People wouldn't need cars IF we hand invested heavily in high-speed rail (like Europe and Japan). My sister sudied in Italy for a smester aand raved about how easy, inexpensive, and reliable the passenger network was.

As for smaller cars being available around the world, it's not just Ford & GM that have them. Yes, they should bring the Euro-spec Focus here, plus whatever GM has in it's Vauxhaul (UK) and Opel (rest of Europe) divisions. Heck, Mecedes should being their A-Class over, but M-B is to concered about distorting it's "luxury" brandimg. The big reason they cite was US crash tests. Heck, if it can survive a 100-mph crah on the Autobahn, it should be able to handle traffic in Boston.

Carrie M. said:The thing is that a bail out doesn't have to mean just throw more money at the failing company, thus prolonging the death sentence. It could come with solid plans to repair the damaged business processes and plans for accountability to a higher standard.

I remember telling Carrie about a week ago that her argument was "downright un-American". And now I get to do it again! ;)

IF we hand invested heavily in high-speed rail (like Europe and Japan).

I love high-speed rail. I'm a huge fan of the rail systems in much of the rest of the developed world. But, I don't expect it to happen here until the economics of personal vehicles change drastically. Why? According to the 1999 CIA Factbook:

The United States has 30 people per km^2.
France: 108.
Germany: 234.
Japan: 336.

There's too much space and too few people.

Just so everyone knows, The Ford Taurus is still being made. It looks good is VERY reiliable has plenty of head room gets good gas mileage and holds up well in the resale market. Very well. The Taurus is not dead. There was one year they did not have it out for regular customers. It was out for rental cars. They brought in the Five Hundred and gave it a test run. They worked out the kinks and then gave the Taurus name back. It worked out well as far as not ruining the Taurus name with a bad year when it was totally redesigned. They even have the 2010 model to look at in a three d mode. Ford cars are some of the safest cars on the market for their class. Five Star crash test ratings all the time. And that is important to me. I can't count the times I have seen on tv or read in a paper that people not causing the accident are dead or permanantly injured. I know many people with escorts still running absolutely fine. At least a dozen that wish Ford did not get rid of the Escort. They loved the next to ZERO maintenance worries. F-150's are great trucks and I will take that over ANY foreign truck on the market. I have never owned a truck, but I have been around them my whole life. I grew up on a farm, and Fords are reliable. A Chevy truck would be next in line. Ford was too late on getting the huge suv market with the Excursion, but that was nice as well. Those came out when the market peak for the big boys and they couldn't get the people to go away from the ones they already owned. Escalade, Suburban, Hummer. Like I previously stated though, I have seen Ford vehicles in similar crashes as other vehicles and there is no comparison to what I am putting my family in for a ride down the road when who knows who is behind the other wheel.

I just saw Brian's post and agree completely. Americans are too far apart and also want personal space. Many don't want others near them. They want to get going to where they are heading with out anyone else around. This isn't all americans but a vast majority

The 2009 Taurus gets 21 mpg. In what universe is that good gas mileage?

rollergator said:

I remember telling Carrie about a week ago that her argument was "downright un-American". And now I get to do it again! ;)

Yeah, I didn't think I would get away with that, but I had to try. :) It just seems to me that if that approach were taken and carried out correctly, it could solve the problem without all the casualties.

Juggalotus said:
^ - The Big 3 DO sell quite a few fuel efficient models in the European market though. The problem though is that those models were never brought to the US. Call it poor market analysis or poor market reaction, either way they've got some problems here.

I'd also cite the fact that they can't sell the same diesel engines in the US that they sell elsewhere. They could do it the other way around - design US-spec diesels to sell here and abroad, but Americans (as is too often the case) can't let go of the idea that diesels are those old, loud, smelly engines from the 80's. They're not even close, yet people have a difficult time letting go of old ideas, as evidenced by this very thread. :)

kpjb said:
It's much more inexpensive to replace a water pump at the same time as a timing belt because you've got to does sentially the same labor for both. If you do them at two separate times, you're paying double labor.

Of course, but replacing either one is not scheduled maintenance, as was suggested. This isn't an oil change we're talking about here.

Carrie M. said:
The thing is that a bail out doesn't have to mean just throw more money at the failing company, thus prolonging the death sentence. It could come with solid plans to repair the damaged business processes and plans for accountability to a higher standard.

Perfectly stated. :)

You don't simply give them money, and that's not what is going on now. Chrysler and GM have had to submit their long-term plans, including vehicle and technology development schedules, before the Government will even hear them out. And that's perfectly appropriate.

And who the hell cares if something is "un-American"? Since when did all things American (whatever the hell that means) become the absolute, unquestionable way to do things? That's absurdly arrogant, at best.

djDaemon said:

kpjb said:
It's much more inexpensive to replace a water pump at the same time as a timing belt because you've got to does essentially the same labor for both. If you do them at two separate times, you're paying double labor.

Of course, but replacing either one is not scheduled maintenance, as was suggested. This isn't an oil change we're talking about here.

Have you ever owned a car that didn't include changing the timing belt as scheduled, routine maintenance? I haven't.