....and the Cavalier is one of them.
Quote:
U.S.News & World Report
10 Cars That Sank Detroit
Friday November 14, 5:34 pm ET
By Rick Newman
The global financial crisis is suffocating the Detroit automakers, but the problems at General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have been festering for years--even when the mighty "Big Three" were earning billions. Aging factories, inflexible unions, arrogant executives and shoddy quality have all damaged Detroit. Now, with panicky consumers fleeing showrooms, catastrophe looms: Without a dubious federal bailout, all three automakers face the prospect of bankruptcy.
There will be plenty of business-school case studies analyzing all the automakers' wrong turns. But, as they say in the industry, it all comes down to product. So here are 10 cars that help explain the demise of Detroit:
Ford Pinto. This ill-fated subcompact came to epitomize the arrogance of Big Auto. Ford hurried the Pinto to market in the early 1970s to battle cheap imports like the Volkswagen Beetle that were selling for less than $2,000. Initial sales were strong, but quality problems emerged. Then came the infamous safety problems with exploding fuel tanks, which Ford refused to acknowledge. Message: The customer comes last. "The problems for the domestics really started in the '70s when they were offering cars like the Pinto up against higher-tech, better-built Toyota Corollas and Honda Civics," says Jack Nerad of Kelley Blue Book.
Chevrolet Cavalier. GM sold millions of Cavaliers in the 1980s--and decided the thrifty car was so successful the company didn't need to update it for more than a decade. To milk the model, GM even added some lipstick and high heels and tried to peddle the upgrade as the Cadillac Cimarron--a legendary flop. Honda and Toyota, meanwhile, were updating their competing models every four or five years, and grabbing market share with each quality improvement. A new Cavalier came out in the mid 1990s--then languished for another decade, while GM put most of its money into big trucks and SUVs. GM has since improved its small cars. "But they have to be miles better than the imports for Americans to forget how bad their small cars used to be," says Jamie Page Deaton of U.S.News's Rankings and Reviews car-ranking site. Even if they are better, many Americans wonder why they should give Detroit a second--or third--chance.
Chevrolet Astro. While Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda were refining their minivans in the 1990s and coming up with innovations like hideaway seats and electric sliding doors, GM was offering an old, truck-based van gussied up with carpeting and cupholders. "It showed GM's repeated failure to market competitive products based on styling and packaging," says Tom Libby of J.D. Power & Associates. The Astro drove like a bread truck, and consumers noticed. It also earned the worst safety ratings in its class. Before long, GM was effectively out of the minivan segment. No biggie--those were just mainstream American families the automaker decided to ignore.
Ford Taurus. Try to explain this logic: After its 1986 debut, the Taurus became a perennial bestseller. So for the next 20 years, Ford let quality decline and neglected the family sedan, while pouring love and money into trucks and SUVs. By early this decade, the Taurus had become a dowdy, rental-lot staple. So Ford simply retired the Taurus in 2006 and replaced it with the 500 sedan--which went on to set records as one of the most short-lived models ever. A year later, Ford revived the Taurus name and applied it to a bastardized 500. But by then, the damage was done.
Ford Explorer. This breakout vehicle helped launch SUVs and drove record profits at Ford in the 1990s, as Americans flocked to big utilities that could take them off-road if they ever got adventurous. It also blinded Ford to the future. "Executives could not see beyond the green piling up at their feet," says David Magee, author of How Toyota Became No. 1. "The Explorer helped create an addiction that lasted 15 years." GM and Chrysler followed right behind, with SUVs like the Chevy Trailblazer and the Dodge Durango--lockstep moves that reveal how the Detroit automakers focused on each other rather than the broader marketplace.
Jaguar X-Type. Ford bought the British luxury brand Jaguar in 1990, when all three Detroit automakers were seeking ways to expand their global reach. Eventually, Ford decided to build an entry-level Jaguar starting at around $30,000 for people looking to move up from, say, a Mercury Marquis. The down-market move "represented everything that Jaguar is not," says Libby of J.D. Power. The X-Type was built on an ordinary sedan platform from elsewhere in Ford's lineup, and the front-wheel-drive system underwhelmed enthusiasts used to rear-drive European makes. Jag purists were horrified, and aspiring luxury buyers shunned the X-Type in favor of BMWs, Lexuses, and Acuras. After fumbling the luxury brand for nearly two decades, Ford sold Jaguar to an Indian conglomerate in 2008.
Hummer H2. It sure seemed cool back in 2003, when gas was less than $2 per gallon. And it sure seems gaudy now. This supersized SUV clearly had a heyday, but it also helped paint parent company GM as an enviro-hostile corporation that sold only gas guzzlers. Sales collapsed as gas prices rose toward $4 a gallon in mid-2008, and GM has been trying to sell the division for six months--with no takers, so far. "GM wanted to make Hummer a signature company brand," says Magee. "Instead, it showed the company was out of touch with the needs of the 21st century."
Toyota Prius. While GM was spending $1 billion to build up the Hummer franchise, Toyota was spending $1 billion to develop a high-mileage hybrid--even though gas prices were still low. After the Prius debuted in the United States in 2000, GM execs seized yet another opportunity to display their intimate knowledge of American consumers, arguing that hybrids didn't make economic sense and that only environmentalists would buy them. Today, Toyota can barely keep up with demand for the Prius, and it has plans to start building them in the United States. GM, meanwhile, is scrambling to rush hybrids and other high-mileage cars into dealerships--far too late.
Chrysler Sebring. Did Chrysler engineers set out to build the world's most boring car? Of course not. Yet Chrysler still produces this blandmobile to keep assembly lines running and maintain a presence, however weak, in the sedan market. In the new Darwinian auto industry, this model seems destined for extinction, since the only way to sell marginal cars is with steep discounts, which money-losing automakers can no longer afford. In fact, if Chrysler ends up being carved into pieces and sold to competitors, as many analysts expect, most of its passenger-car lineup could get the axe, since there's little to distinguish it. Besides--what's a sebring, anyway?
Jeep Compass. Quick, what's the difference between the Jeep Compass, the Jeep Liberty, and the Jeep Patriot? The bosses at Chrysler, which owns Jeep, could explain, but the real answer is that Chrysler has oversaturated its strongest brand lineup in a desperate attempt to boost sales. "The Compass is not needed," says James Bell of Intellichoice.com. "Just the Liberty, please." The Compass has the same mechanical underpinnings as the Dodge Caliber, which helps illustrate one of Detroit's favorite tricks: Create multiple versions of every product under a bunch of different brand names, hoping that if buyers shun one, they'll take a more favorable view of another. Message to Detroit: Consumers aren't that stupid. Give them a bit more credit, and you might have a future.
5 YEAR ANNIVERSARY FREEBIE GIVEAWAY - CLICK HERE TO ENTER
What you know about Street Racing anyways? Only what Fast & Furious taught us....
SO EVERYTHING!
wow this has a very "environmentalist" or "green" flair to it. It's coming down on SUV's and trucks pretty hard. Its understandable , but it's definatly not an unbiased article.
The article does have a point about Detroit regularly snatching failure from the jaws of victory. Either by letting bestselling cars like the Taurus wither away, or by constantly screwing around with vehicles like the Explorer that were fine the way they originally were for no reason and wasting ressources.
The big three poured tons of money into SUVs changing and upgrading them every 2-3 years like clockwork. Every rough edge and ounce of character was mercilessly removed to make them as bland as possible, thereby removing the very reason why people switched from cars to trucks in the first place. People bought SUVs at first because they were trucklike, so what do the big three do? Make them more like cars. Greaaaaaaaaat idea there.
Well guess what they were doing..giving people what they wanted! In the 90's almost everyone bought or owned a SUV or truck and the big 3 were making TON's off of them. BTW does anyone need to take advice from a non-car based source? The media is full of morons who don't know there ass from a hole in the ground.
rising gas prices are a large reson that the truck market collapsed. who can afford $4 a gallon in a truck?
as for making trucks more like cars... it seems to be working for the competition *cough honda ridgeline cough* People wanted (and stll want) the utility of a truck/suv but they don't want solid axles and rough rides.
i think it's funny they listed the cavalier. if it was such a failure, why are there so many on the road today? what killed gm (and other domestic small cars) is the mind set that imports will last forever... any cavalier, neon, etc will last just as long as an import if you keep it maintained. most fail to do so though.
strat81 wrote:any cavalier, neon, etc will last just as long as an import if you keep it maintained. most fail to do so though.
well not any, unless you want to put more money into the car then its worth. My old 96 neon is an example. Blew every seal on the engine at least once within the year I owned it. The only thing I miss about that car is the gas mileage, got me 40mpg highway.
5 YEAR ANNIVERSARY FREEBIE GIVEAWAY - CLICK HERE TO ENTER
What you know about Street Racing anyways? Only what Fast & Furious taught us....
SO EVERYTHING!
"Chevrolet Astro. While Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda were refining their minivans in the 1990s and coming up with innovations like hideaway seats and electric sliding doors, GM was offering an old, truck-based van gussied up with carpeting and cupholders. "It showed GM's repeated failure to market competitive products based on styling and packaging," says Tom Libby of J.D. Power & Associates. The Astro drove like a bread truck, and consumers noticed. It also earned the worst safety ratings in its class. Before long, GM was effectively out of the minivan segment. No biggie--those were just mainstream American families the automaker decided to ignore."
Last I knew the Astro was not intended to compete with regular non truck based minivans. That was what the dustbuster vans were for. the Astro was more of a utility type vehicle, kinda like the full size vans were.
The Ford Pinto wasn't a failure by any means. It sold huge numbers and had one of the best 4 cylinders ever built by Ford. However, it was emblematic of Detroit thinking at the time where it was just a smaller 1960 Falcon with a hatchback. Whereas Toyota, Mazda and Datsun all had some pretty good looking small cars with a bit of refinement and decent options, the Pinto felt underdevelloped and underthought, as if Ford was more afraid of it succeeding and stealing sales from it's larger cars like the Maverick than of it failing.
The problem in the car industry right now is twofold (Note: The problems were there before, but with the economy sinking it's been worsened exponantially):
#1 Cars are expensive, and not a flippant purchase. Back in the 60's a car's average price was like 10,000$-13,000$ so you could afford to just buy one, drive the hell out of it for a few years and toss it out when it was finished. How many stories have you heard from those days about guys paying cash for cars or of kids working at gas stations after school buying bare bones GTOs? Granted cars back then had atrocious reliability, but on the upside they could be fixed with some duct tape and a flathead screwdriver. It's a much different world today.
#2 Because cars are so expensive, people of humble means read up on purchasing one like they would a house. And this means that people who had previously been clueless about cars, have figured out that some makes are more reliable than others. Back in 1993 these people would have had to rely on word-of-mouth because magazines and TV would tell them everything was GREAT otherwise. Now with the internet they've found out that Honda and Toyota makes the most reliable cars, so unsurprisingly those are the top two growing automakers. (Of course, The funny part about this is that specifically because Toyota and Honda are growing, their reliability is sure to decrease. There's no money to be made by selling people cars that last 15 years without needing a new part. You can see it happening now in fact. New Toyotas and Hondas are a lot less reliable than their counterparts from ten years ago.)
i see more older astro's on the road than i do any other mini-van , import or domestic
the caddie cavalier , just proved that people want big gas hog caddies , wasnt like GM made them decades
and as much as i loved my vega , and it was trouble free , the pinto was easily twice the car , and not all that got rear ended exploded
shouldnt the cobalt be on there too??
Im a Xbox 360 fanboy...and damn proud of it!!
good list and good article
__________________________________________________________________
Where I work:
HP
What I take for Memory and Focus:
Focus Fast
strat81 wrote:rising gas prices are a large reson that the truck market collapsed. who can afford $4 a gallon in a truck?
as for making trucks more like cars... it seems to be working for the competition *cough honda ridgeline cough* People wanted (and stll want) the utility of a truck/suv but they don't want solid axles and rough rides.
i think it's funny they listed the cavalier. if it was such a failure, why are there so many on the road today? what killed gm (and other domestic small cars) is the mind set that imports will last forever... any cavalier, neon, etc will last just as long as an import if you keep it maintained. most fail to do so though.
You need to read beyond the name of the car on the list man... It said that the Cavalier is part of what killed GM because there was such initial success with it, and then GM chose to ignore it and not update it.
Its like I said in another thread in here somewhere... Look at GM's vehicle platform genealogy, then look at Honda/Nissan/Toyota's... Cavalier = 3 generations in 20+ years.... Honda Civic = 5 or more generations in 20+ years. GM was constantly fighting against Asia's new models with models that had already been out relatively unchanged for 4 years or more. When you're competing for sales in a limited market (and let's face it, although the automotive industry is huge, each company can only have a certain share of that pie) you can't afford to be offering your 5 year old platform against the newest, freshest, most innovative thing from another company. I can easily recall the difference between my 91 Prelude that I drove while I was in college, and the 91 Sunbird my best friend had at the time... The Prelude's build quality was far and away better than the Sunbird on all levels, and now that I own an 87 Z24, I realize that the 91 was still essentially the same car and quality or build. For me, I find a lightweight, minimal technology car to be ideal... But the vast majority of car buyers are not like me. And they still haven't forgotten how poor Detroits models were compared to the imports back then. Is that fair? Maybe not, but GM HAD 10+ years to do something to change those perceptions and didn't make the effort. Now as they scramble to do so, they find that it takes TIME to rebuild one's image in the minds of the masses.
I really can't find any fault in this article's points whatsoever, which is rare. This is all the same stuff I've been saying for a few years now. The Big Three spent too much time TELLING the consumer what they wanted when the imports were focused on finding out, and providing, what the consumer REALLY wanted.
Quote:
wow this has a very "environmentalist" or "green" flair to it. It's coming down on SUV's and trucks pretty hard. Its understandable , but it's definatly not an unbiased article.
Just because it mentions fuel economy and a lack of attention to hybrid development means the author is "biased" toward an environmentalist cause? He hit it right on the head- The companies that invested in hybrids and fuel economy even when gas prices were still reasonable, are now reaping the rewards. The Big 3 ignored those points until it was too late, and now are suffering the consequences. As a carmaker, once a consumer spends their money on your vehicle, and wind up feeling screwed, or cheated by it, chances are you've lost that customer FOREVER. Ask all your friends if there's any carmaker they absolutely will not buy from and ask them why--- chances are it will be because they had a bad experience with one of that company's vehicles in the past.
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
Thanks for that shot of refreshing common sense and reality.
Tell me this nut swingers and nay-sayers...if the article is so wrong, so un-biased, so untrue....then why are the big 3 all about to go out of business?
the article is right you're all in denial.
"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net
sad, but true.
However, I have another major gripe with US brands. The Big three change names like they're going out of style, so it's hard to figure out what's their sub-compact, compact, or mid-size, etc... especially if you haven't shopped for a car in some time. By contrast, everybody knows the camry is Toyota's midsize. Cars like the Civic have been branded since the 70s, and the Corolla's been around from the early 80s I believe. In other words, those corolla/ civic/ camry ads from the 80s carry-over awareness to the next generation corolla/ civic/ camry.
The Big Three need to open up some college marketing texts to look up the concept of "top-of-mind" advertising. Imagine if Ford kept changing the name of their Mustang or GM its corvette every generation. Would they have the same impact?.. if not than what makes them thing it's ok to do that to the cars.
[ o ][][][][][][][][ o ] coach built xj ( o \[][][][][][][]/ o ) hid wj
I won't say they are wrong on most accounts but it does push towards supporting Toyota and Honda in a way that isn't beneficial to this economy. I agree it takes time to rebuild a reputation of better quality and design but I must say Ford and GM, GM especially are trying and if they get any good chance it may become a big for Toyota, Honda, GM, and Ford quite frankly that wouldn't be too bad. That kind of division I see. I am a valet so I see the rentals the upper class and middle class tourists as they drive their cars to my hotel. Although Toyota has a nice refined touch to there new cars I can see that the same endurance and quality isn't there like it was. GM on the other hand is really trying to give Toyota a run for their money. The styling from GM is soooo much better and is similiar to Toyota's Honda has realised its market of yuppies and college kids who want something decent solid and fun, now Ford is trying but I can see them polarizing more towards a strong truck line and keeping one or two car platforms. It is easy to say yea the Big three screwed up and were bad and it will take forever. Honestly these top execs and media gurus aren't helping the economy nor the companies. I know that isn't their job but if they care about their country and economy maybe they can be more positive towards the two that are trying. Give them a chance, like it was said people do research so if there is a unbiased true rating of say the camry accord and impala or malibu hell let the truth be seen and say yea GM is trying to make it better give it a shot.
I get so tired of hearing people whine about this and that in whatever and do nothing but perpetuate the negative instead of looking for some good. Worse thing is most of the negative crap is rhetoric from the media which goes unchecked.
The proper way of using the word seen. It is not I seen it that would be I saw it. He has seen the car is the right way to use the word. English class is Cool. By the way thats my sig
Knoxfire wrote:#1 Cars are expensive, and not a flippant purchase. Back in the 60's a car's average price was like 1,000$-3,000$ so you could afford to just buy one, drive the hell out of it for a few years and toss it out when it was finished.
*fixed
Jookycola wrote:Tell me this nut swingers and nay-sayers...if the article is so wrong, so biased, so untrue....then why are the big 3 all about to go out of business?
the article is right you're all in denial.
One word. UNIONS. Crappy cars and bad direction aside, unions have been screwing U.S. automakers for too long. GM could have easily made the Cav higher quality for the same price or same quality for lower price if they didn't have to pay some shmuck $30 and hour to tighten the lug nuts. Hell, I'd do that for minimum wage and be happy.
And now that they've been building low quality cars for years they have to deal with the reputation they've earned. So, in the end it's lose-lose.
M-1 Erma Jean wrote: but it does push towards supporting Toyota and Honda in a way that isn't beneficial to this economy.
There's a big difference between telling the truth and pushing Toyota and Honda. Those two companies have vastly outplayed GM on a customer satisfaction and quality standpoint for a long time, now they're reaping the rewards. What this country needs is for someone to take buy out or take over the Big 3, kick out the UAW, and start running these companies like the japanese do. Wasn't it Einstein who said that repeating the same process and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity? Well, the same old Detroit corporate thinking is not going to get these companies out of the hole they're in.
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
I wonder who this dip@!#$ is?
While I can see a few points, most of it is crap....
urban... the problem is that carrying names through generations only works if the car carries a decent reputation. if the initial car is a pos or receives poor reviews, you don't want to revamp said car and have people think well it's still a "insert name here" just revised...
jerseyjay... you compared the 91 prelude to the 91 sunbird... what kind of inital cost difference was there in the purchase price of the two? Even a civic vs. j-body price differences? i understand this is two fold though as imports generally hold their resale but by not completely revamping the car every couple of years, the domestic manufacturers could offer their cars at a lower cost. the buyer is the one deciding whether they want to lay the cash out when they purchase.
i can see the reasoning behind the domestic manufacturers small car development... does it make it right? obviously not. they were too busy spending money on trucks and suvs (which lets face it... until gas prices went crazy, there was a LOT of money to be made in that market) and it bit them in the ass.
Dave Z wrote:I wonder who this dip@!#$ is?
While I can see a few points, most of it is crap....
You're right. I bet you also think the big 3 going broke is a lie too.
"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net
to me, it's stupid to point out 10 specific cars that ruined the US auto industry. how about flat-out poorly used resourses and overpaid union employees? the problem is not found in that stupid list.
87 Firebird
All stock...........lol.
^^^ because it wasn't a
car that sank Detroit..... you know, the subject of the article.
Jookycola wrote:
You're right. I bet you also think the big 3 going broke is a lie too.
I don't see how GM would go broke even if the government doesn't bail them out if it comes down to it im sure they could scrounge up some money by selling saturn or saab or maybe een onstar GM has various assents and the only way they will fail is if they didn't use them
