In reply to STM317 :
I have some in site that I can't share, but on the whole, as Alfa says, it's a mystery to me as well.
In reply to STM317 :
I have some in site that I can't share, but on the whole, as Alfa says, it's a mystery to me as well.
rslifkin said:I feel like some of this issue is this: Take your average non-car person and put 2 identical cars in front of them. One is badged as a Ford, the other a Toyota or Honda. They'll happily pay more for the Toyota / Honda even if it's exactly the same car just due to their perceptions.
I think that was true a few years ago and I'd love to hide behind that now, but if it's still true it's much reduced.
alfadriver said:In reply to STM317 :
If we knew that, we'd fix it. And sell products that have high margins like Toyota does.
(as an engineer, it's frustrating that we don't seem to want to fix that)
Yeah, of course. I wasn't trying to ask dumb questions. I just wasn't sure if the issue(s) came from a known cause or not. Or maybe if there were some systemic disadvantage that could or could not be addressed.
I do think it's interesting that Toyota is the example you chose. As a complete outsider, there are a couple of differences that come to mind. First, is perception as rslifkin mentioned. People may simply be willing to pay more for a badge that's seen as "more reliable" even if it's no longer holds true statistically. The other is Toyota's lack of turbocharging throughout their range compared to other companies. A turbo is pretty expensive hardware to put on millions of engines each year. When the selling price can't really be increased to compensate for the increased hardware cost without making the vehicle non-competitive in the market, that higher hardware cost eats into margin. Of course, that's just speculation from an outsider.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson :
The "Toyota is better" attitude has definitely reduced over time, but I still hear plenty of people talk about it and how they'd never buy an American car because they're unreliable.
In reply to STM317 :
Actually, I'm pretty sure someone knows, but the choice is to not fix it, and abandon it.
I use Toyota, as they are one of the biggest manufacturers, and because of that, have the highest revenues in the world selling cars. Be like them, and you make a lot of money.
I think the whole value thing for them is more historic- the turbo thing may be true, but seeing how many people are getting turbo V6s in F150s, that does not seem to matter that much. For my entire career, Toyota pretty much annually been making +$10B in profits. Some more, some less, but on average. When you look at their cars, they actually choose some pretty expensive options, especially on items that there's no chance the owner would even notice. But their margins let them do that. On the other hand, we (and that includes GM and Chrysler) have been pushing volume over value/margins for a LONG time. Which may give you short term profits, but the long term, you will suffer in the market- between low resale and constant "sale" expectations- margins are constantly pushed to the limit. That led to our premature crash before the 2008 crash.
When Alan Mullaly came in, he did a LOT of work to fix that. That's when the focus on value and quality really took off, and while sales dropped, profits soared. For whatever reason, when he retired and Mark Fields took over, he returned back to the "cut to profit" ideas, which really put a dent into all of that effort. And I don't see much of a change, for some reason, now. We should be doubling down on increasing customer value so that they would be willing to pay more for the vehicle instead of what we are doing, IMHO.
In terms of comparisons- I don't think there's that big of difference, structurally. I know many have blamed unions, but they are just a distraction. It's not as if their wages and benefits are *that* much different than what Toyota pays. Material costs are more commodity than anything else. Heck, the last time I checked the financials, both Ford and GM spent less money per unit to build them than Toyota. They really rely on the value and the historic nature of that. To the point that they are the ONLY manufacturer who is seeing expansion in the Camry/Accord/Fusion market.
rslifkin said:In reply to Adrian_Thompson :
The "Toyota is better" attitude has definitely reduced over time, but I still hear plenty of people talk about it and how they'd never buy an American car because they're unreliable.
So after much research I came to the same conclusion that the reliability gap has lessened and Ford made a good car. I bought a Ford focus and in 23k miles I've had 10x the problems I've had with my wifes Corolla. The Corolla was bought new in 2005 and has 163k on it now. Not to mention the depreciation on the Ford when compared to the Toyota. Unfortunately my next rig will likely be an F250 but when we finally replace my wife's car you better believe it will be an import!
" This will be the most expensive driving season since 2014" Tom Kioza,Oil price information service.
Wonder if that will have any effect on anything .
In reply to alfadriver :
Thanks for the insight!
I'm not sure that Toyota is even expanding in that market any more. I did a quick search the other day and found that Camry sales in the US peaked in 2014-2015 like pretty much every other midsized sedan. Maybe they offset that globally though.
Camry sales:
2014- 428,606
2015- 429,355
2016- 388,618
2017- 387,081
2018- On pace for 363,068
In reply to Enyar :
After working on enough cars for friends and family, I've started to feel like the Toyotas and such don't really need much less if you maintain both cars to 100%. But it seems like there's more stuff on the Toyotas that's easy to ignore (like worn bushings, etc.) until it's really obvious, at which point the car is usually old enough that the whole thing seems kinda worn out. A lot of other brands seem to be a bit more consistently needy, making them seem less reliable to the average person who only touches it when something is obviously wrong.
Then again, every once in a while every brand just puts out a bad apple (either a single car or a whole model). I'm pretty sure every single car company has made at least one pretty good and at least one pretty bad car model by now.
iceracer said:" This will be the most expensive driving season since 2014" Tom Kioza,Oil price information service.
Wonder if that will have any effect on anything .
Doubt it. Have you compared the economy of the new CUV's to the old sedans? Not losing much anymore.
Reliability is a funny thing, there aren't many good medium to long term metrics out there. People have a real fear of things breaking, even though the rate of failure is much lower than in the past. In the first 3-5 years there is little difference between all but a few brands. It's hard to say statistically what the reliability of a 8 year old Ford is vs. a 8 year old Toyota.
In terms of Ford, I'm going to list a few perceptions which have some basis in reality which negatively affect them. When it's not a one off, people perceive a trend. When was the last time you heard of a major reliability issue with a Toyota? That's how a reputation is made.
Another thing I have to wonder is Ford recently indicated they lose $800M/year on cars, while the make $3B/year on trucks/CUVs. How much of the $800M loss came from warranty and recalls? I have to imagine the transmission issues on the Focus/Fiesta have blown away any possible profit for the entire generation.
This affects all manufacturers, but "safety" recalls for various general mechanical issues now seem legion. The industry wide air bag recall is an example of why it is increasingly difficult to sell lower margin vehicles. One or two big recalls blows away all profits and can be applied to 10+ year old models.
In reply to STM317 :
It will be interesting to see how the rest of the year plays out- the new Camry is SO freaking good, it's stunning. Especially in the fuel economy part (there are some other details that rock, too- but only emissions nerds would care).
Here's a depressing thing for us to do- compare the 2.5l 2018 Camry to the 2.5l 2018 Fusion- both non hybrid. In a world where many consider fuel economy paramount- that is driving a lot of sales their direction. Maybe this will work- https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=38883&id=39295&id=39596
I added an advanced Honda Accord, which has a 1.5l turbo, but the simple Camry is better than it, too.
Like I've mentioned before- that engine really rocked everyone.
Snrub said:When was the last time you heard of a major reliability issue with a Toyota?
90 people died in the "Unintended Acceleration" scandal and rusty Tacoma frames that required full replacement come to mind immediately. And Takata airbags, although that one covers a large part of the industry.
^ Other than the floor mats, the unintended acceleration thing was debunked. I suspect any other manufacturer would have been permanently destroyed.
In reply to alfadriver :
That's definitely a stark contrast. And the new engine plays a role I'm sure. But we should also point out that the Camry has an 8 spd trans vs the Fusion's older 6 speed. The Accord gets a 7 speed auto, 10 speed auto, or CVT. The 1.5T/CVT combo in the Accord is rated at 33 city/38 hwy which is very much in the Camry ball park (32/39). The Fusion is just dealing with older powertrain mechanicals than the Japanese competition. Doesn't sound like that's in the cards to be updated either.
Snrub said:^ Other than the floor mats, the unintended acceleration thing was debunked. I suspect any other manufacturer would have been permanently destroyed.
Correct, it was mostly debunked way after the fact. But it remains in the public perception, and that's really what your post is about right? Some brands have better reputations than others, and that can impact purchasing decisions whether it's proven out by data or not. GM survived their deadly ignition switch scenario. Ford survived the Firestone/Explorer roll over issue. VW seems to have gotten through Dieselgate. But because of brand reputation (justified or not) Toyota remains less damaged than the others.
I come up with rusty frames (which they paid the consumer for admirably), the oil sludge issue of some V6 in camry's in the 90's, and... Uh, that is it.
That new Camry is really interesting, and the first Camry that I've liked the looks of since the early Lexus ES's. I really wish they'd rename it though. I don't like it just because I can't get over my bias against Camry's.
So I assume that Ford will also be out of racing?
I really tipped the hat to Ford when they didn't take a bailout and GM did. At the same time the structure of the bailout is essentially the government subsidizing their cars with government contracts for their vehicles pushing ford initially out of the game. I know that the vocal politically are worried about being politically correct and it's wrong to be xenophobiac, but it really is a shame that Ford could someday not exist. Perhaps the existence is what was America, but not now and in the future.
No, they are using Mustang-ish decals in NASCAR next year.
Snrub said:^ Other than the floor mats, the unintended acceleration thing was debunked. I suspect any other manufacturer would have been permanently destroyed.
Ask Audi about that. Not quite permanently destroyed, but they felt the effects for a long time.
Keith Tanner said:Snrub said:^ Other than the floor mats, the unintended acceleration thing was debunked. I suspect any other manufacturer would have been permanently destroyed.
Ask Audi about that. Not quite permanently destroyed, but they felt the effects for a long time.
Does anyone but a few enthusiasts even remember that now? I think they survived and thrived just fine.........right up until Dieslegate. But even that doesn't seem to be having as much effect as I thought.
In reply to Duke : I meant Roadracing, I assume that Chip G's IMSA car will be done after this year.
Adrian_Thompson said:Keith Tanner said:Snrub said:^ Other than the floor mats, the unintended acceleration thing was debunked. I suspect any other manufacturer would have been permanently destroyed.
Ask Audi about that. Not quite permanently destroyed, but they felt the effects for a long time.
Does anyone but a few enthusiasts even remember that now? I think they survived and thrived just fine.........right up until Dieslegate. But even that doesn't seem to be having as much effect as I thought.
I don't think people associate dieselgate with Audi.
Adrian_Thompson said:Keith Tanner said:Snrub said:^ Other than the floor mats, the unintended acceleration thing was debunked. I suspect any other manufacturer would have been permanently destroyed.
Ask Audi about that. Not quite permanently destroyed, but they felt the effects for a long time.
Does anyone but a few enthusiasts even remember that now? I think they survived and thrived just fine.........right up until Dieslegate. But even that doesn't seem to be having as much effect as I thought.
That's what makes it interesting, it's gone through the full cycle and is now ancient history. I don't think it has any residual effects on Audi anymore but you can see how it evolved and how long it did affect them.
I think Audi is separated enough from VW in the public consciousness that they're getting away with the diesel stuff.
trigun7469 said:In reply to Duke : I meant Roadracing, I assume that Chip G's IMSA car will be done after this year.
Depends on what they plan with the mustang I could honestly at the very least see them do a gt3 mustang since they have a gt4 car already. A gte/gtlm would be less likely but not impossible. Or just a mustang dpi .
You'll need to log in to post.
