The 10 Cars...... That Sank Detroit?
- Thread starter Hirev
- Start date
- Status
Hey, I wish they still made the Studebaker Avanti! Better than what is made here today as far as cars go, IMHO!
Chevy Astro, my parents had one, a 1987 model. 4.3L/auto. Us kids liked it, probably because it rode and acted like a truck! In all fairness, it wasn't that great a vehicle, although we did get about 250k out of it--first motor started chugging oil real bad at 100k, and was replaced by 127k. After 13+ years in coastal Maine, though, it was just starting to get some surface rust. Maybe truck based wasn't so bad afterall.
I can't argue with most of it, but hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
I had a 1983 Pontiac J2000. (Cavalier). It was actually a very good car with something the Cavalier did not have: A smooth 1.8 liter GM Brazil overhead cam engine. It was a sweet little motor that got great mileage. While it had only a 3 speed auto, it had a lockup torque converter and was a smooth shifting little slushbox. I loved that little car! Unfortunately, I was t-boned by a truck, right in the driver side door. I walked away without a scratch, so I also believe it was a safe little car.
I also had a 1990 Sunbird with a 2.0 version of that same engine, with more power and a 5 speed tranny. That one remains one of the best vehicles I've ever owned. I kept it a long time and never had any problem, whastoever. It also easily got 36mpg at 80mph cruising on the highway. It was quiet, and grey in color, so cops never paid attention to it. It was also fantastic in snow, with Goodyear Aquatreds. (Whatever happened to that tire? It looked funny, but performed unbelieveably well on that car, in all conditions!)
I had a 1983 Pontiac J2000. (Cavalier). It was actually a very good car with something the Cavalier did not have: A smooth 1.8 liter GM Brazil overhead cam engine. It was a sweet little motor that got great mileage. While it had only a 3 speed auto, it had a lockup torque converter and was a smooth shifting little slushbox. I loved that little car! Unfortunately, I was t-boned by a truck, right in the driver side door. I walked away without a scratch, so I also believe it was a safe little car.
I also had a 1990 Sunbird with a 2.0 version of that same engine, with more power and a 5 speed tranny. That one remains one of the best vehicles I've ever owned. I kept it a long time and never had any problem, whastoever. It also easily got 36mpg at 80mph cruising on the highway. It was quiet, and grey in color, so cops never paid attention to it. It was also fantastic in snow, with Goodyear Aquatreds. (Whatever happened to that tire? It looked funny, but performed unbelieveably well on that car, in all conditions!)
Wow, what a useless and biased article. I thought they were going to pick ten absolute flops that threatened to bankrupt their respective companies, but instead the majority are well loved best sellers?
Seriously, the Taurus? Not my cup of tea but one of the best selling cars of all time. Revolutionary at its inception, but almost sunk Detroit because it was "dowdy?" Woo-hoo, better break out the champagne (said the Ford execs) this "perennial best seller" is dowdying us into the red!
Ford Pinto, yeah it was a pretty crummy car but it was cheap, basic transportation and as such sold huge numbers. To call the Corrolas and Civics of the time "High Tech and better built" requires a major leap of faith or an extreme exercise in creative re-imagining.
The Cavalier, once again one of the few models that GM could consistently count on to bring in a profit year after year. How this "sunk Detroit" again is beyond me. What, was the Cavalier "too dowdy" as well, therefore an awful car? Once again, cheap basic transport that was every bit as cruddy (or great) as the typical Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan or Mitsu at the time.
The Astro was a poor van. But, in its defense, what else was there at the time? The Chrysler mini-vans that blew headgaskets and burned up transmissions every five minutes? The Astro drove and handled like [censored], but so did every Minivan at the time. And you could get one cheaper than the Chrysler, so they sold well and I still see a lot of them on the road, much more than the other vintage vans of that era.
The Ford Explorer in no way causes Ford embarrassment. This SUV gave Ford billions of dollars in revenue over the years and is still a sought after vehicle even in the gas crunch of today. Blaming ONE VEHICLE for an ENTIRE INDUSTRY's short sightedness is inexcusably biased and ignorant. This vehicle in no way, shape, or form caused Detroit to "sink", instead it helped put America back on top and put millions and millions in Ford's pocket. Stupidly, the corresponding article about the 10 cars that will save Detroit lists the Cadillac Escalade near the top of the list...
The Jaguar and the Hummer, both niche vehicles that the typical American doesn't put too much thought into. They just weren't turning a profit, not because of Ford and GM but the fact that by the time Jaguar and the Hummer both made their way into the market, we were in a pretty good economic swing. Immediately following the intro of these two vehicles at their perspective times we had a full economic meltdown and a burdensome gas crunch in the case of the Hummer. There was a market for these marques at the time they were acquired, but it was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
In the case of the Jag, the article is grossly incorrect in stating that the Ford purchase rendered Jag "down market" thereby causing weak sales. Jag's quality had been flagging for years and the company was on its deathbed when Ford swooped down and took them in. The cars sold better than they had in years, and were built better than they had been in two decades. The quality and prestige were there, but the market wasn't.
As for the hybrid Prius, I can't comment on it because I don't know anyone that owns one or desires to own one. Same as the Hummer!
Quote:
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.
Yes, I'm sure Chrysler keeps those lines running just to make it look like they make cars, not that anyone buys them.
Though they don't sell as well as the comparable Toyota or Honda, they still sell, so what's the big deal? The writer again attacks it as an unimaginative and bland car. Seriously, for the price, can you name a better looking car? I'm trying real hard Ringo, real hard...
Lastly, the Jeep Compass. Yes, it's the same as the Dodge Caliber. Yes, Jeep has two or three other models. And yes, it's all part of a sinister conspiracy to rob America of its intelligence!
See, Chrysler is sure being sneaky. They rebadge the Dodge Caliber as a jeep model, thinking that if you won't buy the Caliber, you'll buy the compass. IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY! Why no other automaker has attempted this is beyond me, I mean in the last sixty years no other automaker has ever attempted to rebadge the same vehicle across different marks! By GOD, the SKY IS FALLING!!!!! This signals the end of Detroit and America as we know it! Dang you best selling Jeep Compass, Dang you to HECK!!!!!
Seriously, the Taurus? Not my cup of tea but one of the best selling cars of all time. Revolutionary at its inception, but almost sunk Detroit because it was "dowdy?" Woo-hoo, better break out the champagne (said the Ford execs) this "perennial best seller" is dowdying us into the red!
Ford Pinto, yeah it was a pretty crummy car but it was cheap, basic transportation and as such sold huge numbers. To call the Corrolas and Civics of the time "High Tech and better built" requires a major leap of faith or an extreme exercise in creative re-imagining.
The Cavalier, once again one of the few models that GM could consistently count on to bring in a profit year after year. How this "sunk Detroit" again is beyond me. What, was the Cavalier "too dowdy" as well, therefore an awful car? Once again, cheap basic transport that was every bit as cruddy (or great) as the typical Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan or Mitsu at the time.
The Astro was a poor van. But, in its defense, what else was there at the time? The Chrysler mini-vans that blew headgaskets and burned up transmissions every five minutes? The Astro drove and handled like [censored], but so did every Minivan at the time. And you could get one cheaper than the Chrysler, so they sold well and I still see a lot of them on the road, much more than the other vintage vans of that era.
The Ford Explorer in no way causes Ford embarrassment. This SUV gave Ford billions of dollars in revenue over the years and is still a sought after vehicle even in the gas crunch of today. Blaming ONE VEHICLE for an ENTIRE INDUSTRY's short sightedness is inexcusably biased and ignorant. This vehicle in no way, shape, or form caused Detroit to "sink", instead it helped put America back on top and put millions and millions in Ford's pocket. Stupidly, the corresponding article about the 10 cars that will save Detroit lists the Cadillac Escalade near the top of the list...
The Jaguar and the Hummer, both niche vehicles that the typical American doesn't put too much thought into. They just weren't turning a profit, not because of Ford and GM but the fact that by the time Jaguar and the Hummer both made their way into the market, we were in a pretty good economic swing. Immediately following the intro of these two vehicles at their perspective times we had a full economic meltdown and a burdensome gas crunch in the case of the Hummer. There was a market for these marques at the time they were acquired, but it was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
In the case of the Jag, the article is grossly incorrect in stating that the Ford purchase rendered Jag "down market" thereby causing weak sales. Jag's quality had been flagging for years and the company was on its deathbed when Ford swooped down and took them in. The cars sold better than they had in years, and were built better than they had been in two decades. The quality and prestige were there, but the market wasn't.
As for the hybrid Prius, I can't comment on it because I don't know anyone that owns one or desires to own one. Same as the Hummer!
Quote:
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.
Yes, I'm sure Chrysler keeps those lines running just to make it look like they make cars, not that anyone buys them.
Though they don't sell as well as the comparable Toyota or Honda, they still sell, so what's the big deal? The writer again attacks it as an unimaginative and bland car. Seriously, for the price, can you name a better looking car? I'm trying real hard Ringo, real hard...
Lastly, the Jeep Compass. Yes, it's the same as the Dodge Caliber. Yes, Jeep has two or three other models. And yes, it's all part of a sinister conspiracy to rob America of its intelligence!
See, Chrysler is sure being sneaky. They rebadge the Dodge Caliber as a jeep model, thinking that if you won't buy the Caliber, you'll buy the compass. IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY! Why no other automaker has attempted this is beyond me, I mean in the last sixty years no other automaker has ever attempted to rebadge the same vehicle across different marks! By GOD, the SKY IS FALLING!!!!! This signals the end of Detroit and America as we know it! Dang you best selling Jeep Compass, Dang you to HECK!!!!!
Originally Posted By: supton
Chevy Astro, my parents had one, a 1987 model. 4.3L/auto. Us kids liked it, probably because it rode and acted like a truck! In all fairness, it wasn't that great a vehicle, although we did get about 250k out of it--first motor started chugging oil real bad at 100k, and was replaced by 127k. After 13+ years in coastal Maine, though, it was just starting to get some surface rust. Maybe truck based wasn't so bad afterall.
It wasn't the Astro that did it. That was actually a good vehicle for what it was, if you needed to tow.
It was the Pontiac Trans Sport and the Chevrolet Lumina APV that hurt GM on the minivan front. They looked like a dustbuster and sucked like one, too!
Chevy Astro, my parents had one, a 1987 model. 4.3L/auto. Us kids liked it, probably because it rode and acted like a truck! In all fairness, it wasn't that great a vehicle, although we did get about 250k out of it--first motor started chugging oil real bad at 100k, and was replaced by 127k. After 13+ years in coastal Maine, though, it was just starting to get some surface rust. Maybe truck based wasn't so bad afterall.
It wasn't the Astro that did it. That was actually a good vehicle for what it was, if you needed to tow.
It was the Pontiac Trans Sport and the Chevrolet Lumina APV that hurt GM on the minivan front. They looked like a dustbuster and sucked like one, too!
They dint mention the Mercury Topaz and its Ford clone.
Piece of [censored] ended my affliction with Ford.
Piece of [censored] ended my affliction with Ford.
Last edited:
Just another attempt (of many) to re-write some aspect of history.
Small cars were obviously singled out in this article, for their lack of quality. One reason why Detroit small cars are of poor quality is that it is difficult for the big 3 to make money on them. Their costs per unit are too high. One need not look farther than the union contracts for one source of these high costs.
These proposed government bailouts are not to keep the Big 3 afloat. Bankruptcy will keep them afloat. These bailouts are to keep the unions afloat...
Small cars were obviously singled out in this article, for their lack of quality. One reason why Detroit small cars are of poor quality is that it is difficult for the big 3 to make money on them. Their costs per unit are too high. One need not look farther than the union contracts for one source of these high costs.
These proposed government bailouts are not to keep the Big 3 afloat. Bankruptcy will keep them afloat. These bailouts are to keep the unions afloat...
These proposed government bailouts are not to keep the Big 3 afloat. Bankruptcy will keep them afloat. These bailouts are to keep the unions afloat... [/quote]
I think I agree with you. These companies should go bankrupt and re-organize without unions. If the Big 3 could pay the same wages that Hyundai pays in Alabama or Toyota pays in Kentucky I think they might have some money left for product development. They should also get rid of 'layers' of management and get back to engineering IMO.
I think I agree with you. These companies should go bankrupt and re-organize without unions. If the Big 3 could pay the same wages that Hyundai pays in Alabama or Toyota pays in Kentucky I think they might have some money left for product development. They should also get rid of 'layers' of management and get back to engineering IMO.
Starting in 1990 GM had a choice between FWD dustbuster vans and RWD Astros... dustbuster for hauling kids, Astros for towing, telephone fleet trucks, etc. As it was on a S10 chassis the additional R&D costs were low... smart move. Ford overlapped the aerostar and windstar by a few years as well.
The Olds silhouette had the first sliding door on both sides.
Cavaliers were barely profitable... takes maybe 90% as much time to put together as an SUV, but had to sell at a subsidized price to meet the CAFE standards.
Marketing floundered at all big 3 as far as making Neons, cavaliers, escorts "cool" with 20-somethings buying first new cars and getting them in the family. They still fail at this.
I had a 17 year old cimarron/cavalier and it was a GOOD CAR, never left me stranded, quieter inside than the mazda it replaced. Only got oil changes and cap/rotor/plugs/wires the year I had it. By the time I got it it had depreciated in value and I can see how, at 2x the price of a base cavi, it was a marketing/sales disaster when new.
Really the article should be the ten executives who sank detroit because it is really the board rooms that green light these stupid shortsighted decisions that are spiraling these makers downhill! Blacklist those names so stockholders vote 'em out wherever they try to work!
The Olds silhouette had the first sliding door on both sides.
Cavaliers were barely profitable... takes maybe 90% as much time to put together as an SUV, but had to sell at a subsidized price to meet the CAFE standards.
Marketing floundered at all big 3 as far as making Neons, cavaliers, escorts "cool" with 20-somethings buying first new cars and getting them in the family. They still fail at this.
I had a 17 year old cimarron/cavalier and it was a GOOD CAR, never left me stranded, quieter inside than the mazda it replaced. Only got oil changes and cap/rotor/plugs/wires the year I had it. By the time I got it it had depreciated in value and I can see how, at 2x the price of a base cavi, it was a marketing/sales disaster when new.
Really the article should be the ten executives who sank detroit because it is really the board rooms that green light these stupid shortsighted decisions that are spiraling these makers downhill! Blacklist those names so stockholders vote 'em out wherever they try to work!
..Unions sank Detroit! CAW,UAW. Big 3 forever paying 50% more per hour then they should + pensions and everything else.The big there are forever screwed. I always bought American car but finally bought a Kia when I drove past a ford assembly plant and noticed a lot of employees that built ford cars don't buy them. They don't care about their job ...why should I?
Can't blame the cars for something thats not the car's fault.
Where's the Vega ?
The article brings up some good points, but misses others.
When your car is the #1 selling car in the country, that's a good thing. I'm not exactly follwing the leap from good selling vehicles to company bankruptcy.
The thing that "sunk Detroit" is $4/gal gas. Let's face it. 5000 lb. vehicles were the staple of the "American Family" and when those vehicles cost too much to operate, people abandoned them. When big vehicles were selling, they didn't want to make higher MPG vehicles, and who could blame them?
As a side note, fighting the CAFE proposals of years ago was a good business decision at the time, but has contributed to the issues of today. "Letting the market decide" can also be harmful to a business.
When your car is the #1 selling car in the country, that's a good thing. I'm not exactly follwing the leap from good selling vehicles to company bankruptcy.
The thing that "sunk Detroit" is $4/gal gas. Let's face it. 5000 lb. vehicles were the staple of the "American Family" and when those vehicles cost too much to operate, people abandoned them. When big vehicles were selling, they didn't want to make higher MPG vehicles, and who could blame them?
As a side note, fighting the CAFE proposals of years ago was a good business decision at the time, but has contributed to the issues of today. "Letting the market decide" can also be harmful to a business.
Originally Posted By: IndyFan
I had a 1983 Pontiac J2000. (Cavalier). I was t-boned by a truck, right in the driver side door. I walked away without a scratch, so I also believe it was a safe little car.
My reference materials have the Cavalier set aside alone in a special super-poor safety performance catagory. The worst, by a factor, not just a percent.
I had a 1983 Pontiac J2000. (Cavalier). I was t-boned by a truck, right in the driver side door. I walked away without a scratch, so I also believe it was a safe little car.
My reference materials have the Cavalier set aside alone in a special super-poor safety performance catagory. The worst, by a factor, not just a percent.
Originally Posted By: aaxb970
..Unions sank Detroit! CAW,UAW. Big 3 forever paying 50% more per hour then they should + pensions and everything else.The big there are forever screwed.
A deal is an agreement between two parties. That the UAW is a better negotiator only proves the angle that automaker management was and is completely incompetent on levels beyond product line decisions and materials bean counting/cheapening.
Big 3 are not forever screwed, there are ways to reorganize and effect contracts... for example bankruptcy... that they have not yet publicly declared they have decided upon. Bankruptcy requires they run out of cash, which is in progress at a rapid pace.
..Unions sank Detroit! CAW,UAW. Big 3 forever paying 50% more per hour then they should + pensions and everything else.The big there are forever screwed.
A deal is an agreement between two parties. That the UAW is a better negotiator only proves the angle that automaker management was and is completely incompetent on levels beyond product line decisions and materials bean counting/cheapening.
Big 3 are not forever screwed, there are ways to reorganize and effect contracts... for example bankruptcy... that they have not yet publicly declared they have decided upon. Bankruptcy requires they run out of cash, which is in progress at a rapid pace.
Quality (or lack thereof) is what sank Detroit. I guarantee you the intake gasket fiasco and the Dexsludge bee ess cost GM millions of buyers. They've finally caught up, but it's a day late and a dollar short.
I hope they go under and don't get bailed out. Bailing out Detroit isn't going to change the number of vehicles America buys, so whats the point? Throw them a ton of money and people still aren't gonna buy their [censored]?
A better option is to let them go bankrupt and allow companies like Toyota and Honda to buy up assets they can use - maybe even open some new plants in the upper midwest. America is buying their cars!
Or perhaps the big 3 can reorganize themselves. Regardless, govnmt money isn't going to change them, they themselves will need to change and adapt to the current marketplace.
I hope they go under and don't get bailed out. Bailing out Detroit isn't going to change the number of vehicles America buys, so whats the point? Throw them a ton of money and people still aren't gonna buy their [censored]?
A better option is to let them go bankrupt and allow companies like Toyota and Honda to buy up assets they can use - maybe even open some new plants in the upper midwest. America is buying their cars!
Or perhaps the big 3 can reorganize themselves. Regardless, govnmt money isn't going to change them, they themselves will need to change and adapt to the current marketplace.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Boomer
Hey, I wish they still made the Studebaker Avanti! Better than what is made here today as far as cars go, IMHO!
You are the MAN!!!!!!!!!
Hey, I wish they still made the Studebaker Avanti! Better than what is made here today as far as cars go, IMHO!
You are the MAN!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted By: SevenBizzos
The thing that "sunk Detroit" is $4/gal gas. Let's face it. 5000 lb. vehicles were the staple of the "American Family" and when those vehicles cost too much to operate, people abandoned them. When big vehicles were selling, they didn't want to make higher MPG vehicles, and who could blame them?
You're partially there. Gas went to $4 a gallon, and people changed what they were buying, going to smaller cars. Problem is, GM can't survive by selling a bunch of Pontiac G5's and Chevy Cobalts.... instead of a bunch of Escalades and Tahoes.
Management can be blamed all day and all night. Problem is, when you're in business, you sell what makes you money... otherwise, you fail. The Big 3 are right there, right now. If they make $1,000 profit on a Cobalt, and $10,000 profit on a Tahoe... which vehicle are YOU going to push to the buying public?
The thing that "sunk Detroit" is $4/gal gas. Let's face it. 5000 lb. vehicles were the staple of the "American Family" and when those vehicles cost too much to operate, people abandoned them. When big vehicles were selling, they didn't want to make higher MPG vehicles, and who could blame them?
You're partially there. Gas went to $4 a gallon, and people changed what they were buying, going to smaller cars. Problem is, GM can't survive by selling a bunch of Pontiac G5's and Chevy Cobalts.... instead of a bunch of Escalades and Tahoes.
Management can be blamed all day and all night. Problem is, when you're in business, you sell what makes you money... otherwise, you fail. The Big 3 are right there, right now. If they make $1,000 profit on a Cobalt, and $10,000 profit on a Tahoe... which vehicle are YOU going to push to the buying public?
The writer of that article certainly has an interesting (and wrong) view of the mentioned cars.
I'll give it to them that the Pinto probably marked the start of the domestic brands having to deal with poor perception, but a lot of the cars mentioned were great vehicles.
The problem with the domestics isn't so much the vehicles they build, it's the way they operate. They burn so much money on labor and benefit costs that they start to run out of money to put into the cars. The 1986 Taurus was a revolutionary car for its time. There was no other family sedan with that kind of design and build quality available at the time. Ford sold tons of them until the last few years when they just let the car die off...then realized they f'd up and rebadged the 500 as the Taurus.
The Explorer is a great vehicle as well. Why do they want to blame the automakers for creating a vehicle buyers LOVED? Isn't that the point? In the 1980s Bronco II sales were DOUBLE what Ford had predicted. Why wouldn't Ford build a new, four door version of the Bronco II? Where Ford messed up is spending too much of their limited cash supply on their trucks while not spending on cars like the Taurus.
I don't see how the Astro contributed at all to GM's problems. In the 1980s it was a strong competitor as a minivan, and in the 1990s and 2000s it became a strong competitor as a niche van. Like eljefino said, they had wide use comercially, and if you wanted a small van that could tow a lot your choices were the Astro and Aerostar. When people started to move to SUVs there was just less market share available, and there wasn't room for niche vans anymore. Even now, if you need an AWD van that can tow a lot, your best choices would be the Astro and Aerostar.
One problem with the domestics is that they let some very successful lines die off. The Ranger is an example. In the late 1990s it was outselling the Camry and many other vehicles. Then when all of the other brands went to new designs, Ford did nothing. No crew cab, no engine updates since 2001, no new sheetmetal, no new interior. The Ranger has drifted from the mainstream to niche vehicle status, and like the Astro and Aerostar, there just isn't much market to go around. The Ranger could be a very big seller again though if Ford would put some money in it.
I'll give it to them that the Pinto probably marked the start of the domestic brands having to deal with poor perception, but a lot of the cars mentioned were great vehicles.
The problem with the domestics isn't so much the vehicles they build, it's the way they operate. They burn so much money on labor and benefit costs that they start to run out of money to put into the cars. The 1986 Taurus was a revolutionary car for its time. There was no other family sedan with that kind of design and build quality available at the time. Ford sold tons of them until the last few years when they just let the car die off...then realized they f'd up and rebadged the 500 as the Taurus.
The Explorer is a great vehicle as well. Why do they want to blame the automakers for creating a vehicle buyers LOVED? Isn't that the point? In the 1980s Bronco II sales were DOUBLE what Ford had predicted. Why wouldn't Ford build a new, four door version of the Bronco II? Where Ford messed up is spending too much of their limited cash supply on their trucks while not spending on cars like the Taurus.
I don't see how the Astro contributed at all to GM's problems. In the 1980s it was a strong competitor as a minivan, and in the 1990s and 2000s it became a strong competitor as a niche van. Like eljefino said, they had wide use comercially, and if you wanted a small van that could tow a lot your choices were the Astro and Aerostar. When people started to move to SUVs there was just less market share available, and there wasn't room for niche vans anymore. Even now, if you need an AWD van that can tow a lot, your best choices would be the Astro and Aerostar.
One problem with the domestics is that they let some very successful lines die off. The Ranger is an example. In the late 1990s it was outselling the Camry and many other vehicles. Then when all of the other brands went to new designs, Ford did nothing. No crew cab, no engine updates since 2001, no new sheetmetal, no new interior. The Ranger has drifted from the mainstream to niche vehicle status, and like the Astro and Aerostar, there just isn't much market to go around. The Ranger could be a very big seller again though if Ford would put some money in it.
- Status