American-brand cars prove poipular with millennial

[ram_man]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: ram_man
...
So far i know one person who owns a 2012 cruze and 38, 000 miles it popped a head gasket and screwed a few things up and the dealer is fighting to not have to fix it because its out of its 36, 000 bumper 2 bumper warranty and she must have done something to the car to cause the issue......


I thought GM still had the 5yr/100K powertrain warranty in the United States?


They do which is why its ridiculous that they are fighting her on it. They only have a 3yr 36, 000 bumper to bumper though. But it still should be covered....

 

[ram_man]

Originally Posted By: cchase
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
You seem to think that Japanese had some sort of great foresight about the whole success of small segment. They did not. They were forced to build cars in a segment that was weak, otherwise they had no chances of competing with big three because, drum roll... the big three had the superior designs and extensive experience.


That's a great point, and not one that's well understood. The fact that they were rolling out these small cars just when oil prices skyrocketed was probably a fortuitous coincidence more than anything else.



Though that is true. It should have been quickly noticed that the small car trend was strong and they didn't the import kicked the snot out of them and did easily for 30 yrs. Look at a mid 90's Taurus vs accord/Camry or Corsica or Malibu to the same and tell me which is nicer. They made better cars and still do but the gap is much smaller.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: ram_man
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
A lot of incorrect statements in there. One of the biggest that American auotmakers were producing junk in the 80's and 90's and would've failed on a level playing field. Absolutely not and if the Big 3 were playing on a level field with Japanese makers, none of the Big 3 would even been in finacial difficulty at any level.


The cavalier of the 80's and 90's or an escort or the shadow or neon weren't even close to a civic or corolla to pretend like they were is foolish.
Based on quality of product they should've failed. And when they were going bankrupt america bailed them out....
Would American bail out Honda or Toyota? Would they ever even need to?
Go read about Honda they're an excellent company. Worth giving credit to. America companies had the attitude of we are fine they'll drive what we build no reason to try harder.
If the Asian cars never came over we would still be driving junk like the omni the chevette and the pinto. The competition has made american cars better.


What do you know about '95 up Cavaliers and Sunfires? They were reliable and just as nice or nicer than Corollas and Civics in many ways. And what about American cars in the 50's and 60's? As far as competition is what made American cars better, there was no real Japanese or European competiton yet America cars of the time were considered the msot reliable in the world. Everything you say is really just biased baloney.

I know more about Honda than you think. From some of it's executives involved in one of the worst corruption business cases in the US, to the ~$8/hr temporary workers they employed in the US. But you probably buy into that caring Honda hype.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: ram_man
...
So far i know one person who owns a 2012 cruze and 38, 000 miles it popped a head gasket and screwed a few things up and the dealer is fighting to not have to fix it because its out of its 36, 000 bumper 2 bumper warranty and she must have done something to the car to cause the issue......


I thought GM still had the 5yr/100K powertrain warranty in the United States?


Ram_man can't keep his stories and facts straight. Earlier he said the Big 3 were producing such junk in the 70's to the 90's they should've all went out of business. Then a little later he said, " The truck the 2010 replaced was a 82 f150 300 i6 4speed manual. Paint didn't fall of it until it was 15 years old. The old 89 tbirds paint never failed car never squeaked either. It had close to 300, 000 when it was wrecked."

And who knows what really is going on with the Cruze. GM is generally good at honoring its warranty.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: cchase
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
You seem to think that Japanese had some sort of great foresight about the whole success of small segment. They did not. They were forced to build cars in a segment that was weak, otherwise they had no chances of competing with big three because, drum roll... the big three had the superior designs and extensive experience.


That's a great point, and not one that's well understood. The fact that they were rolling out these small cars just when oil prices skyrocketed was probably a fortuitous coincidence more than anything else.


And people forget that the Big 3 started rolling out small cars in 1960! And for the most part Americans might say they wanted smaller more fuel efficient cars, but they bought larger cars.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: ram_man
...
So far i know one person who owns a 2012 cruze and 38, 000 miles it popped a head gasket and screwed a few things up and the dealer is fighting to not have to fix it because its out of its 36, 000 bumper 2 bumper warranty and she must have done something to the car to cause the issue......


I thought GM still had the 5yr/100K powertrain warranty in the United States?


I haven't run across that story yet. Based on the threads of other reported engine issues on a major Cruze forum, GM Corporate would be tearing that dealer a new one if the owner were truly not at fault. And, Cruze head gasket issues are extremely rare. Even the turbo Cruzes pop pistons before they pop head gaskets.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
As usual, lots of people look at the heyday of Japanese car manufacturers that is 80s and 90s with rose colored glasses. Just because the big three had poor compact offerings doesn't mean their entire lineup was junk. But of course that's what the import fan boys always seem to forget. The fact that the big three had some of the best offerings in large sedan segment, THE BEST PUs and SUVs always seems to be forgotten.

Also, it was easy for Honda and Toyota to excel in US market when they only offered a handful of models, most of them in compact segment, when that market segment was practically handed to them by the big three.
On the other hand just look at how miserable they are doing in Europe, where small cars were always the primary segment and tons of great cars, including the big three offerings, were competing against each other. How come Japanese supposed “superior engineering” did not work there?


You make some great points. The 80's and 90's Japanese cars weren't all they are claimed to be. They were maintenance and repair intensive with timing belts, valve adjustment, non-stainless steel exhausts, distributors instead of DIS, adjustable drive belts, inferior OBD, etc.

GM and Ford had been in European doing well for years.

 

[ram_man]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Win

...
So far i know one person who owns a 2012 cruze and 38, 000 miles it popped a head gasket and screwed a few things up and the dealer is fighting to not have to fix it because its out of its 36, 000 bumper 2 bumper warranty and she must have done something to the car to cause the issue......


I thought GM still had the 5yr/100K powertrain warranty in the United States?





My point was and is the quality hasn't gotten better like the hype says. The american small cars were [censored] from the 70's -90's

The big 3 could always build good trucks and v8 powered cars. The small cars were awful junk.

You do not honestly believe the cavalier was even close to a civic or corolla do you? Look i am not biased I've owned both i have owned more american cars than anything. But facts are facts.

The civic and corolla are more reliable, better interior and MUCH SAFER! the cavalier was a death trap. Pretending like it was anything more is ridiculous. The escort was generally okay. Wasn't as reliable as an import but was atleast a safer car to be in the the GM offerings. The neon was a dangerous pile as well. Before that was the shadow it was also junk. So give me a break.

The cavaliers ate brakes, blew head gaskets, interior bits always cracked.
Neon blew heads and interior rattled, the ford had some issues dropping valves, and trans woes to, the neon trans wasn't very good either.

 

[Silverado12]

I think most of the domestic bashing is an attempt to justify the import buyer's purchase. But like I said before, my domestics have been very reliable and get decent fuel mileage for what they are. In fact, I don't think there is anything that can be more reliable than a basic Chevy six cyl pickup truck. Nice ride, comfortable to drive and safe in an accident.

 

[TomYoung]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
A lot of incorrect statements in there. One of the biggest that American auotmakers were producing junk in the 80's and 90's and would've failed on a level playing field. Absolutely not and if the Big 3 were playing on a level field with Japanese makers, none of the Big 3 would even been in finacial difficulty at any level.


Get real. Many American cars in the eighties were horrible and that is when the Japanese made huge inroads. In the nineties things got a little better. Your point on the level playing field may be true, but not near as true as the absolute superiority or eighties Civics over eighties Chevettes.

 

[ram_man]

Originally Posted By: Silverado12
I think most of the domestic bashing is an attempt to justify the import buyer's purchase. But like I said before, my domestics have been very reliable and get decent fuel mileage for what they are. In fact, I don't think there is anything that can be more reliable than a basic Chevy six cyl pickup truck. Nice ride, comfortable to drive and safe in an accident.


No facts are facts . Chevy trucks are generally pretty reliable the old 4.3 was a good work horse. I have zero issues with american vehicles but Japanese builds nicer cars. Trucks are a different story. But minivans car suv and cross overs the import has a competitive vehicle or better than the competition. Trucks well you got toyota and nissan both are good trucks but the american trucks imo are better. Not including ford. They may be good trucks but I wouldn't want one. I love the new rams.

But small car is the japanese niche. They are good at it. American companies are getting better but I personally do not think they are equal....yet.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: ram_man
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Win

...
So far i know one person who owns a 2012 cruze and 38, 000 miles it popped a head gasket and screwed a few things up and the dealer is fighting to not have to fix it because its out of its 36, 000 bumper 2 bumper warranty and she must have done something to the car to cause the issue......


I thought GM still had the 5yr/100K powertrain warranty in the United States?






My point was and is the quality hasn't gotten better like the hype says. The american small cars were [censored] from the 70's -90's

The big 3 could always build good trucks and v8 powered cars. The small cars were awful junk.

You do not honestly believe the cavalier was even close to a civic or corolla do you? Look i am not biased I've owned both i have owned more american cars than anything. But facts are facts.

The civic and corolla are more reliable, better interior and MUCH SAFER! the cavalier was a death trap. Pretending like it was anything more is ridiculous. The escort was generally okay. Wasn't as reliable as an import but was atleast a safer car to be in the the GM offerings. The neon was a dangerous pile as well. Before that was the shadow it was also junk. So give me a break.

The cavaliers ate brakes, blew head gaskets, interior bits always cracked.
Neon blew heads and interior rattled, the ford had some issues dropping valves, and trans woes to, the neon trans wasn't very good either.


Nothing you are saying here is really true. So you are saying domestics were junk in the 70's to 90's and haven't improved like the "hype" says? They must've been darn good back then if that's the case.

The Cavalier did not have the highest occupant fatality rate. It's actually quiet safe in a frontal impact. I've seen plenty of 15 year old Cavaliers without a single crack in the interior, or a blown head gasket. They don't eat brakes or blow headgaskets unless they are overheated, which will blow just about any headgasket. You think Hondas and other imports didn't have most of those types of issues and some others unique to them? You are very clearly anti-GM biased and to a lesser extent anti-Domestic biased.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: TomYoung
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
A lot of incorrect statements in there. One of the biggest that American auotmakers were producing junk in the 80's and 90's and would've failed on a level playing field. Absolutely not and if the Big 3 were playing on a level field with Japanese makers, none of the Big 3 would even been in finacial difficulty at any level.


Get real. Many American cars in the eighties were horrible and that is when the Japanese made huge inroads. In the nineties things got a little better. Your point on the level playing field may be true, but not near as true as the absolute superiority or eighties Civics over eighties Chevettes.


I wouldn't say American cars were horrible in the 80's. Civics were more in the price range of a Grand Am or Corsica/Beretta. I seen many ~'89 W-bodies, Cutlasses, Grand Prix etc looking and running good for up to 20 years. Now the interior and switch gear could be considered horrible. That's probably where a lot of people get the perception. Also the ride quality, room and styling was better than most comparable Japanese models at the time.

 

[Silverado12]

I can tell you from experience working on them that 90's Civics had ign switch problems and high parts prices. IMO the Cavalier was better with no inherent problems. Split CV boots are an unheard of problem on the Cav too. Don't want to get into the brand war, but just saying domestics aren't as bad as some are saying, or rather the Japanese aren't as superior as some think.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: TomYoung

Get real. Many American cars in the eighties were horrible and that is when the Japanese made huge inroads. In the nineties things got a little better. Your point on the level playing field may be true, but not near as true as the absolute superiority or eighties Civics over eighties Chevettes.


Here we go with rose coloured glasses again. What about the piles of junk that Japanese called cars from 70s? They usually started to rust out within the first year. Besides engine and tranny, everything would fall apart on them. Honda had severe rust problems all the way till late 90s. 90s corollas were uncomfortable penalty boxes that would rattle after few years. Camry from that vintage was nice though. Lexus was also very nice, but it had to be in order to rake sales away from Germans and domestics in that segment.

Yes Japanese made huge strides to improve their cars from 70s. Part of that was consistent model upgrade every 5 years or so while domestics let their bottom line models slide without major upgrades for decades. But all in all these cars were not as horrible as many people seem to think.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: ram_man
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Win

...
So far i know one person who owns a 2012 cruze and 38, 000 miles it popped a head gasket and screwed a few things up and the dealer is fighting to not have to fix it because its out of its 36, 000 bumper 2 bumper warranty and she must have done something to the car to cause the issue......


I thought GM still had the 5yr/100K powertrain warranty in the United States?





My point was and is the quality hasn't gotten better like the hype says. The american small cars were [censored] from the 70's -90's

The big 3 could always build good trucks and v8 powered cars. The small cars were awful junk.

You do not honestly believe the cavalier was even close to a civic or corolla do you? Look i am not biased I've owned both i have owned more american cars than anything. But facts are facts.

The civic and corolla are more reliable, better interior and MUCH SAFER! the cavalier was a death trap. Pretending like it was anything more is ridiculous. The escort was generally okay. Wasn't as reliable as an import but was atleast a safer car to be in the the GM offerings. The neon was a dangerous pile as well. Before that was the shadow it was also junk. So give me a break.

The cavaliers ate brakes, blew head gaskets, interior bits always cracked.
Neon blew heads and interior rattled, the ford had some issues dropping valves, and trans woes to, the neon trans wasn't very good either.


I don't have a dog in this Honda vs Cavalier fight, but I can tell you that the absolute worst car I ever owned, nothing else even comes remotely close, was a '79 Honda that I bought brand new so I would have a reliable, economical, car for school.

If it could bend, break, bust, corrode, drip, leak, rip, rust, rot, short, squeal or sometimes just fall off going down the road, it pretty much did. Even the guy downstairs with the 2CV dissed my Honda as a POS.

I would have gladly traded it for a Vega, but no suckers could be found. To this day, if I had a choice between driving a new Honda or getting pulled around in the blazing sun in a radio flyer wagon, with out of round wheels, hitched to a team of three legged, week old slop fed, flatulent hogs, well, It would be a tough choice.

But I'm glad you like Honda's

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: ram_man

The cavalier of the 80's and 90's or an escort or the shadow or neon weren't even close to a civic or corolla to pretend like they were is foolish.


Sorry, did time in an 87 Escort hand me down. Besides a few timing belts and a TFI module or 2 it was drop dead reliable. Traded it in with 120k or so on a 97 Cobra. But then again we maintained it - oil changes ever 3k, etc.

They were every bit as good as a Civic or Corolla from that vintage when maintained.


Quote:
Go read about Honda they're an excellent company. Worth giving credit to. America companies had the attitude of we are fine they'll drive what we build no reason to try harder.


Sure, the same company (Honda) that built a defectrive transmission for 5 or so years, denied it, and was forced kicking and screaming to fix it.

The same company that has a defective V6 in the Odyssey and has been dragged kicking and screaming to fix it.

That same company that is no better or worse than any other car company.

Yeah, Honda is just the same as everyone else. Nothing worth worshipping or saying they are better. They are not. Honda is probably one of the most overrated companies in the car business.

 

[Win]

Don't forget the great Honda rust recall. Or rigging the odometers to run fast.

But that's probably just piling on.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: TomYoung
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
A lot of incorrect statements in there. One of the biggest that American auotmakers were producing junk in the 80's and 90's and would've failed on a level playing field. Absolutely not and if the Big 3 were playing on a level field with Japanese makers, none of the Big 3 would even been in finacial difficulty at any level.


Get real. Many American cars in the eighties were horrible and that is when the Japanese made huge inroads. In the nineties things got a little better. Your point on the level playing field may be true, but not near as true as the absolute superiority or eighties Civics over eighties Chevettes.



I wouldn't say American cars were horrible in the 80's. Civics were more in the price range of a Grand Am or Corsica/Beretta. I seen many ~'89 W-bodies, Cutlasses, Grand Prix etc looking and running good for up to 20 years. Now the interior and switch gear could be considered horrible. That's probably where a lot of people get the perception. Also the ride quality, room and styling was better than most comparable Japanese models at the time.


Circa 1980, you had to wait several months to buy an Accord and it cost more than the then new Citation. Ironically, you could probably negotiate enough to buy a lesser A-body car (ie: Malibu, LeMans instead of a Grand Prix or Monte Carlo) for the same price as the Honda Accord. You wouldn't have to wait for it and the A/G body cars are pretty darn good.

GM made huge leaps forward when they downsized the B and A body cars. They shed hundreds of pounds and kept almost all the interior room of it's predecessors. In spite of this, people were still on waiting lists for the Accord.

Didn't help matters that the Citation was so problematic. Didn't matter how good the Cavalier was (I didn't like any of them that did not have the 2.8/3.1 V6. It was a crude car in OHV 4 cylinder form) Didn't matter how durable the FWD A-body with a Buick V6 was. For whatever reason, people bought the Accord and Camry in increasing numbers. By the time the Acura Legend hit the showroom floor and put Mercedes Benz and BMW on notice, the die had been cast.

The Taurus, GM W-bodies, and Chrysler LH-bodies were a small step back in the right direction, but in the '90s, Chrysler was the only one to pay attention to the small car market with the Neon. Unfortunately, it had teething problems with head gasket scrubbing, but it drove more like what people came to expect in a Japanese car with one exception: It had torque. As much torque as horsepower. Say what you will about the Cavalier and Escort's reliability, but they did not drive well compared to a Civic or Corolla. The Neon would at least drive well before it chewed up it's own head gasket.

 

[ram_man]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: TomYoung
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
A lot of incorrect statements in there. One of the biggest that American auotmakers were producing junk in the 80's and 90's and would've failed on a level playing field. Absolutely not and if the Big 3 were playing on a level field with Japanese makers, none of the Big 3 would even been in finacial difficulty at any level.


Get real. Many American cars in the eighties were horrible and that is when the Japanese made huge inroads. In the nineties things got a little better. Your point on the level playing field may be true, but not near as true as the absolute superiority or eighties Civics over eighties Chevettes.



I wouldn't say American cars were horrible in the 80's. Civics were more in the price range of a Grand Am or Corsica/Beretta. I seen many ~'89 W-bodies, Cutlasses, Grand Prix etc looking and running good for up to 20 years. Now the interior and switch gear could be considered horrible. That's probably where a lot of people get the perception. Also the ride quality, room and styling was better than most comparable Japanese models at the time.


Circa 1980, you had to wait several months to buy an Accord and it cost more than the then new Citation. Ironically, you could probably negotiate enough to buy a lesser A-body car (ie: Malibu, LeMans instead of a Grand Prix or Monte Carlo) for the same price as the Honda Accord. You wouldn't have to wait for it and the A/G body cars are pretty darn good.

GM made huge leaps forward when they downsized the B and A body cars. They shed hundreds of pounds and kept almost all the interior room of it's predecessors. In spite of this, people were still on waiting lists for the Accord.

Didn't help matters that the Citation was so problematic. Didn't matter how good the Cavalier was (I didn't like any of them that did not have the 2.8/3.1 V6. It was a crude car in OHV 4 cylinder form) Didn't matter how durable the FWD A-body with a Buick V6 was. For whatever reason, people bought the Accord and Camry in increasing numbers. By the time the Acura Legend hit the showroom floor and put Mercedes Benz and BMW on notice, the die had been cast.

The Taurus, GM W-bodies, and Chrysler LH-bodies were a small step back in the right direction, but in the '90s, Chrysler was the only one to pay attention to the small car market with the Neon. Unfortunately, it had teething problems with head gasket scrubbing, but it drove more like what people came to expect in a Japanese car with one exception: It had torque. As much torque as horsepower. Say what you will about the Cavalier and Escort's reliability, but they did not drive well compared to a Civic or Corolla. The Neon would at least drive well before it chewed up it's own head gasket.



I agree with this. Its not that the cavi or the escort were bad cars they had their issues but overall not bad . American cars never had the complete package it was either reliable and that was it or it was fun but not very reliable. Civics and corollas look decent drive well and are reliable. Do they have common faults, yes but atleast its an enjoyable car to own. Cavalier for example the seats have no support so yes it starts and runs everyday but it is uncomfortable and drives like a log wagon.
Besides reliable which I think the cavalier is a nickel and dime you kind of car its not a safe vehicle. The honda and toyota are much safer in comparison.