Domestic vs. Japanese cars

[HTSS_TR]

It may change now, but in the 80's and 90's GM tried to export some vehicles to Japan and could not sell many. Do you know why ? GM didn't bother to change the steering wheel from left side to right side for Japanese market where they drive on the left. Also most vehicles export to Japan were to big for their narrow streets.

In the same decades of 80's and 90's, we have a strict quota on number of Japanese vehicles import into US to save the Detroit Big 3. That was the main reason Japanese companies open plants here, starting with Honda first plant in Ohio.

 

[mechanicx]

That's not really what was happening. Japan protected its markets from foreign automakers including European whose cars were smaller. They only allowed special tie ups with foreign automakers to gain technology. GM and Ford built plants in Europe because of restrictions on imports there. And built cars that were suitable for the local market. Japan did not allow foreign automakers to set up their own plants. there simply was not a market open for the Domestics in Japan to build cars for the market or to set up plants there.

The voluntary import quotas on import cars in the 80's and early 90's were not very strict at all. Most estimates put it at only a few hundred thousand were prevented out of 1-2 million that were allowed which the cap was continuously allowed to increase.

The bottom line is Japan and Europe, Brazil, even Mexico etc had protectionist policies and this allowed Japnese and European automakers to catch up with the US. The US had very little obstacles to imports.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27

We bought an Accord of the same generation, a 1999, which we still have...

It's a four cylinder five speed LX.


This is how you do it, keep it simple. One gets better quality of service when their mechanic doesn't bloody his knuckles in tight quarters. There are lots of compromises making a 260 HP V6 minivan on a unibody car chassis, especially if it has dual AC, entertainment systems, etc...

Pretty happy with the lack of junk in my Saturn S-series and Chevy HHR.... but the transverse inline 4 powered many an awesome 1980s/90s Japanese sedan too.

 

[DuckRyder]

I don't think anyone is really making a truly bad car now, if someone did they would be out of business pretty quickly in the "information age".

Everyone has their moments but it is bad when you get one of their moments.

From my perspective:

Jetta - trouble free
Civic - trouble free (it did have a battery fail at about 2.99 years and was replaced free of cost under warranty)
Acura - troublesome (I did not buy it new, but have every record and it has been in my immediate family since day one)

1994 Civic EX - trouble free
1992 Integra GSR - trouble free
1991 GTI 16v - troublesome (bought back troublesome, but over 50% trouble was dealer idiocy)
1991 318iS - trouble free (wonderful car)
1988 CRX Si - trouble free

In addition my company gives me an "american" car or truck to drive. They've been for the most part trouble free. None as trouble free as the Civic, but none so troublesome as the Acura. In all I would say the company has spent 1500.00 on "repairs" for the most troublesome. I usually keep them at least 75,000 miles (I don't decide the company does).

COO/FAP:
Both Acuras and the CRX - Japan
Both Volkswagens - Mexico
BMW - Germany
Civic - USA (for the 05) Canada (I think, for the older one)

The company cars - IIRC one was Canada, the others (4) USA - I am only counting the ones I had exclusive care custody and control over. I previously worked in a department where there was a small fleet available, all american and it was small enough that practically it worked out that I (pretty much everyone in fact) used the same car a large portion of the time. One such car was a silver Taurus of the approximate vintage mentioned by the OP, it also was pretty trouble free IIRC but it was a long time ago.

Draw whatever conclusions you like, but (I find myself saying this a lot lately) I just don't think it matters a great deal.

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: johnachak
Originally Posted By: GenSan
Look at history for some answers.

After WWII Japan had absolutely no choice but to improve and change for the better in moving forward.

They even have a word for that: Kaizen


Does kaizen mean; "We can build better cars than the Americans because they just paid for all our new modern factories?" Or, " The American car companies can't afford to retool and their governmebt is giving us Billions in technology and equipment?"

Try not to forget how much the Japanese government subsidized those car companies so they were able to build better quality at cheaper prices.


I seem to recall a few news stories about GM and Chrysler getting a few dollars from the US taxpayer a few years ago.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
ALL cars these days seem to come from the same mold. They`re all cookie cutter cars. Cars nowadays have no soul and all look the same.

 

[Kestas]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: johnachak
Try not to forget how much the Japanese government subsidized those car companies so they were able to build better quality at cheaper prices.

I seem to recall a few news stories about GM and Chrysler getting a few dollars from the US taxpayer a few years ago.

I don't believe it was a subsidy. It was a taxpayer-backed loan. There's difference. Loans are paid back.

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: JavierG
So does that mean American quality died in the 70's? Because the 80's, 90's and early 2000 ones I had were junk? Of course it doesn't. It just means that the cars I bought were junk.

My take:

For example,compare an RX8 to an RX7 Twin Turbo. A 370Z to a 300ZX Twin Turbo. A Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 to an Eclipse GT. No more Acura NSX. No more Toyota Supra.

The Japanese lost their flagship breakthroughs.


I don't really see your point in this statement:

RX-7 is coming back.
NSX is coming back.
Supra is coming back.

The 3000GT was pretty much replaced by their Evo cars.
AWD, big turbos, they just had 4 doors.

And the Nissan 300ZX was more than replaced by the GT-R.
I can't even see the argument in that example.

So, your argument that Japan doesn't have Halo cars doesn't really hold any water.
Your sinking, and you might want to start bailing.

BC.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
ALL cars these days seem to come from the same mold. They`re all cookie cutter cars. Cars nowadays have no soul and all look the same.

Haha good one!

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Haha good one!

I saw that on TTAC not too long ago.... seemed appropriate.

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: johnachak
Try not to forget how much the Japanese government subsidized those car companies so they were able to build better quality at cheaper prices.

I seem to recall a few news stories about GM and Chrysler getting a few dollars from the US taxpayer a few years ago.

I don't believe it was a subsidy. It was a taxpayer-backed loan. There's difference. Loans are paid back.


But grants are not and GM and Chrysler were not the only ones who got money nor were the only ones who got money "american".

Also I think the price of GM stock needs to rise by about 1/3rd to one 1/2 for the ~30% of GM that the US taxpayer owns to be worth what the taxpayer paid. I'm thinking that an investment that broke even or lost 50% would not generally be considered prudent...

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
ALL cars these days seem to come from the same mold. They`re all cookie cutter cars. Cars nowadays have no soul and all look the same.

Thank you. I always am amazed when people say that cars all look the same these days. I point to the 50s and earlier, including the 70s and 80s a lot- just 3 boxes for big sedans. I'd say cars today look a lot more different from each other than old cars did.

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: johnachak
Try not to forget how much the Japanese government subsidized those car companies so they were able to build better quality at cheaper prices.

I seem to recall a few news stories about GM and Chrysler getting a few dollars from the US taxpayer a few years ago.

I don't believe it was a subsidy. It was a taxpayer-backed loan. There's difference. Loans are paid back.


But grants are not and GM and Chrysler were not the only ones who got money nor were the only ones who got money "american".

Also I think the price of GM stock needs to rise by about 1/3rd to one 1/2 for the ~30% of GM that the US taxpayer owns to be worth what the taxpayer paid. I'm thinking that an investment that broke even or lost 50% would not generally be considered prudent...



Grants to Ford and GM

None of this has to be paid back. The one in Claycomo has a special place in my heart because Ford's $25 million in tax credits were paid for by taking $25 million out of the state pension fund.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete



Grants to Ford and GM

None of this has to be paid back. The one in Claycomo has a special place in my heart because Ford's $25 million in tax credits were paid for by taking $25 million out of the state pension fund.


But how much did Henry Ford "grant" to the American people when he created the Willow Run plant on his land to produce bombers for the war effort? That plant was the highest yield of them all.

GM and Ford have invested a lot of money in North America, for a very long period of time. Yes, they've gotten grants and tax incentives along the way. But they also run a massive amount of facilities and provide employment to a staggering number of Americans.

 

[javacontour]

And the Japanese consumer loses out on the opportunity to buy other vehicles.

Closing off, or allowing only one-sided trade only hurts the consumer.

The Japanese largely miss out on owing a Corvette or a Harley.

I'm glad we are not prevented from sampling most of what the world offers in automotive technology. Unlike our poor Japanese brothers.


Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's not really what was happening. Japan protected its markets from foreign automakers including European whose cars were smaller. They only allowed special tie ups with foreign automakers to gain technology. GM and Ford built plants in Europe because of restrictions on imports there. And built cars that were suitable for the local market. Japan did not allow foreign automakers to set up their own plants. there simply was not a market open for the Domestics in Japan to build cars for the market or to set up plants there.

The voluntary import quotas on import cars in the 80's and early 90's were not very strict at all. Most estimates put it at only a few hundred thousand were prevented out of 1-2 million that were allowed which the cap was continuously allowed to increase.

The bottom line is Japan and Europe, Brazil, even Mexico etc had protectionist policies and this allowed Japnese and European automakers to catch up with the US. The US had very little obstacles to imports.

 

[bar1]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
The bottom line is Japan and Europe, Brazil, even Mexico etc had protectionist policies and this allowed Japnese and European automakers to catch up with the US. The US had very little obstacles to imports.


Not a problem for Ford and GM in Europe and Brasil. Ford and GM has been producing cars in local factories in Europe and Brasil the last century (almost a century in Brasil) to circumvent import taxes. Japan is another story...

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete



Grants to Ford and GM

None of this has to be paid back. The one in Claycomo has a special place in my heart because Ford's $25 million in tax credits were paid for by taking $25 million out of the state pension fund.


But how much did Henry Ford "grant" to the American people when he created the Willow Run plant on his land to produce bombers for the war effort? That plant was the highest yield of them all.

GM and Ford have invested a lot of money in North America, for a very long period of time. Yes, they've gotten grants and tax incentives along the way. But they also run a massive amount of facilities and provide employment to a staggering number of Americans.

My point was domestic automakers receive incentives and tax breaks just as the "foreign" companies who have plants here.

Did Henry give or sell those bombers to the government? I'd be willing to bet he was a shrewd enough business man to come out ahead on the deal, donated land or not.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
And the Japanese consumer loses out on the opportunity to buy other vehicles.

Closing off, or allowing only one-sided trade only hurts the consumer.

The Japanese largely miss out on owing a Corvette or a Harley.

I'm glad we are not prevented from sampling most of what the world offers in automotive technology. Unlike our poor Japanese brothers.

There was a magazine article many many years ago about bringing a C4 Corvette to Japan. It had to be modified with weird bits on the fenders and sidemarker lights up higher and further back but everywhere it parked it would collect a huge crowd of curious admirers
And the Germans have a Corvette club. A large number of the members are US military but there are German Corvette owners too.


Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's not really what was happening. Japan protected its markets from foreign automakers including European whose cars were smaller. They only allowed special tie ups with foreign automakers to gain technology.


GM sold Cavaliers (badged as Toyotas) and Saturn S-Series in Japan. I do not believe that the Japanese got much technology from those two.

 

[raaizin]

I had two new fords 1990 t-bird and 1996 explorer. Bother were very reliable. Only real issue I had transmission failure at 140k on explorer and yes I changed fluid every 30k miles. I also owned a 2002 Nissan new and at 10 years old it is way more rusty than either Ford. Ford definitely had either better metal or painting process.

 

[mechanicx]

The Japanese consumer may have had less choice, but that's thje choice Japan made. If they hadn't locked out US automakers from their market in the '50-60's, their fledgling, non-competitve auto industry may have not been able to develop and the US automakers may have taken over Japan's auto market. Japan chose to protect their market and automakers from competition so that the industry could develop. Once it did, the US had basically an open market for Japan to export to. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

Originally Posted By: javacontour
And the Japanese consumer loses out on the opportunity to buy other vehicles.

Closing off, or allowing only one-sided trade only hurts the consumer.

The Japanese largely miss out on owing a Corvette or a Harley.

I'm glad we are not prevented from sampling most of what the world offers in automotive technology. Unlike our poor Japanese brothers.


Originally Posted By: mechanicx
That's not really what was happening. Japan protected its markets from foreign automakers including European whose cars were smaller. They only allowed special tie ups with foreign automakers to gain technology. GM and Ford built plants in Europe because of restrictions on imports there. And built cars that were suitable for the local market. Japan did not allow foreign automakers to set up their own plants. there simply was not a market open for the Domestics in Japan to build cars for the market or to set up plants there.

The voluntary import quotas on import cars in the 80's and early 90's were not very strict at all. Most estimates put it at only a few hundred thousand were prevented out of 1-2 million that were allowed which the cap was continuously allowed to increase.

The bottom line is Japan and Europe, Brazil, even Mexico etc had protectionist policies and this allowed Japnese and European automakers to catch up with the US. The US had very little obstacles to imports.