[email]gosinn@gmail.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> It is a problem when a company(lets call it G) tries to put as cheap a
> component in the car as possible
>
> Fo a long time starting with Ford they looked at cars thrown away and
> found out what component was still good
>
> Then they replaced that component with a cheaper one
>
> That has been going on for a very long time
>
> The component in the cars have been gradually been getting cheaper
>
> Then there is another company(lets call it T) that does the opposite
>
> They still look at cars that have failed and they try to replace the
> failing components in new cars with better components
>
> Slowly G gets worse and worse quality over the years
> Similarly then T slowly improves
>[/color]
Not really, if tank is kept fairly full of fuel and not run low a lot,
the pump will last the life of vehicle.
<gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139333914.639982.172090@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> It is a problem when a company(lets call it G) tries to put as cheap a
> component in the car as possible
>
> Fo a long time starting with Ford they looked at cars thrown away and
> found out what component was still good
>
> Then they replaced that component with a cheaper one
>
> That has been going on for a very long time
>
> The component in the cars have been gradually been getting cheaper
>
> Then there is another company(lets call it T) that does the opposite
>
> They still look at cars that have failed and they try to replace the
> failing components in new cars with better components
>
> Slowly G gets worse and worse quality over the years
> Similarly then T slowly improves
>[/color]
GM quality did increase, mainly because of competition from Toyota. I know
GM is still not as good as Toyota quality wise, but its not bad either. I
have a 2003 4runner, and it has been solid as a rock, my neighbor with a
2001 Envoy parks his SUV next to mine at the train station. Last year, we
had hail, and you can see my hood is peppered with indentations, his is not
(he was parked next to me). Shows there are certain things a little better
on GM.
> GM quality did increase, mainly because of competition from Toyota. I know[color=blue]
> GM is still not as good as Toyota quality wise, but its not bad either. I
> have a 2003 4runner, and it has been solid as a rock, my neighbor with a
> 2001 Envoy parks his SUV next to mine at the train station. Last year, we
> had hail, and you can see my hood is peppered with indentations, his is
> not (he was parked next to me). Shows there are certain things a little
> better on GM.
>[/color]
Ask him to check the crash test results for the Envoy. He won't like it.
I still like some GM vehicles. I believe the Buck Lucerne should help their
sales. As for me, I would like a GMC Yukon Denali :-)
Dan J.S. wrote:
[color=blue]
> <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139333914.639982.172090@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>[color=green]
>>It is a problem when a company(lets call it G) tries to put as cheap a
>>component in the car as possible
>>
>>Fo a long time starting with Ford they looked at cars thrown away and
>>found out what component was still good
>>
>>Then they replaced that component with a cheaper one
>>
>>That has been going on for a very long time
>>
>>The component in the cars have been gradually been getting cheaper
>>
>>Then there is another company(lets call it T) that does the opposite
>>
>>They still look at cars that have failed and they try to replace the
>>failing components in new cars with better components
>>
>>Slowly G gets worse and worse quality over the years
>>Similarly then T slowly improves
>>
>>[/color]
>
> GM quality did increase, mainly because of competition from Toyota. I know
> GM is still not as good as Toyota quality wise, but its not bad either. I
> have a 2003 4runner, and it has been solid as a rock, my neighbor with a
> 2001 Envoy parks his SUV next to mine at the train station. Last year, we
> had hail, and you can see my hood is peppered with indentations, his is not
> (he was parked next to me). Shows there are certain things a little better
> on GM.
>[/color]
After a few years, you may not care if there are dents in the hood. But
you will care if you had to replace your GM transmission before 100,000
miles :-) Perhaps this example indicates where GM is spending their
money - in appearances only and saving money on the engine,
transmission, brakes etc. Their electrical components suck. After GM
bought Saab, many electrical components on the Saabs failed - all had
one thing in common - GM part numbers. I drove a new Hummer on a test
drive, with broken GM electrical components - the salesman said "Not to
worry, those will be fixed under warranty". I will take a few dents in
the hood anyday over that attitude :-)
Check out Dent Wizard paintless dent removal. Works great.
"Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote in message
news:11uhuvo3c1fgve6@news.supernews.com...[color=blue]
>
> <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139333914.639982.172090@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>> It is a problem when a company(lets call it G) tries to put as cheap a
>> component in the car as possible
>>
>> Fo a long time starting with Ford they looked at cars thrown away and
>> found out what component was still good
>>
>> Then they replaced that component with a cheaper one
>>
>> That has been going on for a very long time
>>
>> The component in the cars have been gradually been getting cheaper
>>
>> Then there is another company(lets call it T) that does the opposite
>>
>> They still look at cars that have failed and they try to replace the
>> failing components in new cars with better components
>>
>> Slowly G gets worse and worse quality over the years
>> Similarly then T slowly improves
>>[/color]
>
> GM quality did increase, mainly because of competition from Toyota. I know
> GM is still not as good as Toyota quality wise, but its not bad either. I
> have a 2003 4runner, and it has been solid as a rock, my neighbor with a
> 2001 Envoy parks his SUV next to mine at the train station. Last year, we
> had hail, and you can see my hood is peppered with indentations, his is
> not (he was parked next to me). Shows there are certain things a little
> better on GM.
>[/color]
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uaaGf.15183$vU2.11637@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Check out Dent Wizard paintless dent removal. Works great.[/color]
Yup, Dent Wizard took out an 8 inch long crease in one of the doors in out
Sequoia with perfect results!
--
"ma_twain" <ma_twain@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43E92E50.5050005@yahoo.com...[color=blue]
>
>
> Dan J.S. wrote:
>[color=green]
>> <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139333914.639982.172090@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>It is a problem when a company(lets call it G) tries to put as cheap a
>>>component in the car as possible
>>>
>>>Fo a long time starting with Ford they looked at cars thrown away and
>>>found out what component was still good
>>>
>>>Then they replaced that component with a cheaper one
>>>
>>>That has been going on for a very long time
>>>
>>>The component in the cars have been gradually been getting cheaper
>>>
>>>Then there is another company(lets call it T) that does the opposite
>>>
>>>They still look at cars that have failed and they try to replace the
>>>failing components in new cars with better components
>>>
>>>Slowly G gets worse and worse quality over the years
>>>Similarly then T slowly improves
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>> GM quality did increase, mainly because of competition from Toyota. I
>> know GM is still not as good as Toyota quality wise, but its not bad
>> either. I have a 2003 4runner, and it has been solid as a rock, my
>> neighbor with a 2001 Envoy parks his SUV next to mine at the train
>> station. Last year, we had hail, and you can see my hood is peppered with
>> indentations, his is not (he was parked next to me). Shows there are
>> certain things a little better on GM.[/color]
>
> After a few years, you may not care if there are dents in the hood. But
> you will care if you had to replace your GM transmission before 100,000
> miles :-) Perhaps this example indicates where GM is spending their
> money - in appearances only and saving money on the engine, transmission,
> brakes etc. Their electrical components suck. After GM bought Saab, many
> electrical components on the Saabs failed - all had one thing in common -
> GM part numbers. I drove a new Hummer on a test drive, with broken GM
> electrical components - the salesman said "Not to worry, those will be
> fixed under warranty". I will take a few dents in the hood anyday over
> that attitude :-)
>
>[/color]
His 2001 Envoy has close to 70,000 miles with no problems. I am not so sure
parts are as bad as you may say, however, remember I do agree that Toyota is
better. Regarding electrical issues, A friend has a brand new BMW M5 (2005
model) and its in the shop for electrical problems all the time. We were
driving while the side mirrors started going in and out. Mercedes is so
plagued with issues they are actually cutting back on the toys they now
offer.
"High Tech Misfit" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.08.01.55.21.436833@hightech.misfit...[color=blue]
> Dan J.S. wrote:
>[color=green]
>> His 2001 Envoy has close to 70,000 miles with no problems. I am not so
>> sure
>> parts are as bad as you may say,[/color]
>
> Your friend has been lucky. Envoy and TrailBlazer have not been
> particularly reliable trucks, from what I have heard.
>
> GM just doesn't build their trucks like they used to.
>[/color]
I have been monitoring this carefully, and at least for the first 3 years of
ownership , according to JD powers, GM and Ford have been making better
truck since the 90s. I am not apologizing for them, or making them look
better, but to keep pounding that GM or Ford are getting worse is just plain
wrong. Competition from Toyota and Honda has made GM and Ford realize that
they need to make better cars and trucks - and they have.
I guess I am extremely unlucky with my 2005 Toyota Sienna that has been back
to the dealer 3 times because the moon roof rattles like its about to fall
off. I have two recalls sitting on my desk for seat belts and another item.
The Detroit giant is a weird, scarred combination: a carmaker doing
poorly, and an insurance company engulfed by its obligations. It's
heading for a wreck
And gravely, it is burdened by health costs, which it supplies for a
population bigger than Detroit's--that is, for a total of 1.1 million
employees, retirees, and dependents. Its thriving Japanese competitors,
such as Toyota (Research), pay health benefits for their U.S. active
employees and dependents too. But Toyota does not have GM's retiree
health burden, a mountain that at year-end totaled an unfunded $64
billion and that, in annual effect on the bottom line, adds about
$1,300 to the cost of every car and truck GM makes in the U.S.
Naturally, boulder evasion means that GM is deeply and broadly into
cost cutting: It is closing plants to kill its excess capacity,
terminating many thousands of people, negotiating with the UAW to free
itself at least partially from the nearly un-American JOBS bank, in
which laid-off union members get paid for not working. How many people
are in the JOBS bank? Analysts ask that repeatedly and are refused an
answer, probably because GM thinks nothing can be gained by hanging a
number out there that Wall Street and the press can beam their
attention on. But Sean McAlinden, chief economist of the Center for
Automotive Research, thinks there were 5,200 employees in the JOBS bank
at the end of 2005. He figures the annual cost of each to GM is at
least $100,000.
"I can't really believe," he says, "that the people who got GM into
this mess are going to be the people who can get GM out."
<gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139389139.818594.165970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> [url]http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/20/8369111/[/url]
>
> The Detroit giant is a weird, scarred combination: a carmaker doing
> poorly, and an insurance company engulfed by its obligations. It's
> heading for a wreck
>
> And gravely, it is burdened by health costs, which it supplies for a
> population bigger than Detroit's--that is, for a total of 1.1 million
> employees, retirees, and dependents. Its thriving Japanese competitors,
> such as Toyota (Research), pay health benefits for their U.S. active
> employees and dependents too. But Toyota does not have GM's retiree
> health burden, a mountain that at year-end totaled an unfunded $64
> billion and that, in annual effect on the bottom line, adds about
> $1,300 to the cost of every car and truck GM makes in the U.S.
>
> Naturally, boulder evasion means that GM is deeply and broadly into
> cost cutting: It is closing plants to kill its excess capacity,
> terminating many thousands of people, negotiating with the UAW to free
> itself at least partially from the nearly un-American JOBS bank, in
> which laid-off union members get paid for not working. How many people
> are in the JOBS bank? Analysts ask that repeatedly and are refused an
> answer, probably because GM thinks nothing can be gained by hanging a
> number out there that Wall Street and the press can beam their
> attention on. But Sean McAlinden, chief economist of the Center for
> Automotive Research, thinks there were 5,200 employees in the JOBS bank
> at the end of 2005. He figures the annual cost of each to GM is at
> least $100,000.
>
> "I can't really believe," he says, "that the people who got GM into
> this mess are going to be the people who can get GM out."[/color]
Exactly. GM management sucks and has sucked for as long as I can remember.
But the employees are the one who will be screwed. Same thing in the
airline industry. The carriers are exiting bankruptcy with sweetheart deals
for the management that put them there. Meanwhile employees and
stockholders are screwed.[color=blue]
>[/color]
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%gpGf.12464$rH5.1288@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
> <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139389139.818594.165970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>> [url]http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/20/8369111/[/url]
>>
>> The Detroit giant is a weird, scarred combination: a carmaker doing
>> poorly, and an insurance company engulfed by its obligations. It's
>> heading for a wreck
>>
>> And gravely, it is burdened by health costs, which it supplies for a
>> population bigger than Detroit's--that is, for a total of 1.1 million
>> employees, retirees, and dependents. Its thriving Japanese competitors,
>> such as Toyota (Research), pay health benefits for their U.S. active
>> employees and dependents too. But Toyota does not have GM's retiree
>> health burden, a mountain that at year-end totaled an unfunded $64
>> billion and that, in annual effect on the bottom line, adds about
>> $1,300 to the cost of every car and truck GM makes in the U.S.
>>
>> Naturally, boulder evasion means that GM is deeply and broadly into
>> cost cutting: It is closing plants to kill its excess capacity,
>> terminating many thousands of people, negotiating with the UAW to free
>> itself at least partially from the nearly un-American JOBS bank, in
>> which laid-off union members get paid for not working. How many people
>> are in the JOBS bank? Analysts ask that repeatedly and are refused an
>> answer, probably because GM thinks nothing can be gained by hanging a
>> number out there that Wall Street and the press can beam their
>> attention on. But Sean McAlinden, chief economist of the Center for
>> Automotive Research, thinks there were 5,200 employees in the JOBS bank
>> at the end of 2005. He figures the annual cost of each to GM is at
>> least $100,000.
>>
>> "I can't really believe," he says, "that the people who got GM into
>> this mess are going to be the people who can get GM out."[/color]
>
>
> Exactly. GM management sucks and has sucked for as long as I can
> remember. But the employees are the one who will be screwed. Same thing
> in the airline industry. The carriers are exiting bankruptcy with
> sweetheart deals for the management that put them there. Meanwhile
> employees and stockholders are screwed.[/color]
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:33:36 -0500, ma_twain <ma_twain@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
>Dan J.S. wrote:
>[color=green]
>> <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139333914.639982.172090@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>It is a problem when a company(lets call it G) tries to put as cheap a
>>>component in the car as possible
>>>
>>>Fo a long time starting with Ford they looked at cars thrown away and
>>>found out what component was still good
>>>
>>>Then they replaced that component with a cheaper one
>>>
>>>That has been going on for a very long time
>>>
>>>The component in the cars have been gradually been getting cheaper
>>>
>>>Then there is another company(lets call it T) that does the opposite
>>>
>>>They still look at cars that have failed and they try to replace the
>>>failing components in new cars with better components
>>>
>>>Slowly G gets worse and worse quality over the years
>>>Similarly then T slowly improves
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>> GM quality did increase, mainly because of competition from Toyota. I know
>> GM is still not as good as Toyota quality wise, but its not bad either. I
>> have a 2003 4runner, and it has been solid as a rock, my neighbor with a
>> 2001 Envoy parks his SUV next to mine at the train station. Last year, we
>> had hail, and you can see my hood is peppered with indentations, his is not
>> (he was parked next to me). Shows there are certain things a little better
>> on GM.
>>[/color]
>
>After a few years, you may not care if there are dents in the hood. But
>you will care if you had to replace your GM transmission before 100,000
>miles :-) Perhaps this example indicates where GM is spending their
>money - in appearances only and saving money on the engine,
>transmission, brakes etc. Their electrical components suck. After GM
>bought Saab, many electrical components on the Saabs failed - all had
>one thing in common - GM part numbers. I drove a new Hummer on a test
>drive, with broken GM electrical components - the salesman said "Not to
>worry, those will be fixed under warranty". I will take a few dents in
>the hood anyday over that attitude :-)
>[/color]
I used to own an Olds intrigue. That thigns like almost any other GM
product had failing window motors. And they are not cheap. GM uses
them on almost every car and they ALL fail way too early. And are
outrageously priced. Then there are tons of other issues with GM and
usually electrical issues. OH and lets not forget piston slap on
millions of their engines.
JD powers ratings show american cars are improving quite a bit, but I
think GM is still the worst one out there.
In article <1139333914.639982.172090@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
[email]gosinn@gmail.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
> It is a problem when a company(lets call it G) tries to put as cheap a
> component in the car as possible
>
> Fo a long time starting with Ford they looked at cars thrown away and
> found out what component was still good
>
> Then they replaced that component with a cheaper one
>
> That has been going on for a very long time
>
> The component in the cars have been gradually been getting cheaper
>
> Then there is another company(lets call it T) that does the opposite
>
> They still look at cars that have failed and they try to replace the
> failing components in new cars with better components
>
> Slowly G gets worse and worse quality over the years
> Similarly then T slowly improves[/color]
You've got it.
Just think a dollar saved on a million cars is one million dollars.
Also T car company may be more interested in advancing their designs
for things like better fuel mileage, yet retaining drive ability and
performance.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
ToyotaNation.com is an independent Toyota/Lexus enthusiast website. ToyotaNation.com is not sponsored by or in any way affiliated with Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. The Toyota, Lexus and Scion names and logos are trademarks owned by Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
Linear Mode
