Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Can US automakers ever return to glory days?
- Thread starter JesseJames
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's quite unfortunate Toyota is getting a lot of their work done here in the USA, because new Toyota vehicles (especially the new Camry) is not up to the quality previously set by the car. The Japanese built Camry's (from what I have seen) are much tighter built cars and don't have the problems the USA Cam's do. I still love Toyota, but they need to work on their quality issues (and thankfully, most of them have been fixed).
Everything on my Impreza was made in Japan. That includes the wheels (my OEM wheels were made by Enkei), tires (Bridgestone), and DBW throttle sender (DENSO). The only exception are the headlight bulbs, which are Sylvania, so probably made in the US.
not any time soon
Speaking as a native Michigander, Michigan being the center of the crumbling US auto industry, the answer is no, or at least not for a long time. Saddled by a variety of problems, including boring products, questionable reliability (go check ConsumerReports.org to see, and my own experience with my '95 Ford Taurus), and fat support for union workers (GM wasn't called Generous Motors for nothing), American car companies are hosed. The stress they are under financially is just too great, just look at what GM and Ford are doing - desperate to cut costs, they are buying out the union workers by the tens of thousands.
I think for too long American car manufacturers thought people would buy American out of loyalty, but when your car breaks every 6 months and your neighbor's Honda just kept going, you sit up and take notice. Suddenly that loyalty is costing you a lot of money, money most people can't afford to lose.
The only American car I would consider would be a Ford Escape Hybrid, and that's about it, and I would worry about its reliability if I did get it.
My next car will be a Honda or Subaru, most likely, unless I win the lottery in which case I'll flip a coin between a BMW and a Lexus.
Speaking as a native Michigander, Michigan being the center of the crumbling US auto industry, the answer is no, or at least not for a long time. Saddled by a variety of problems, including boring products, questionable reliability (go check ConsumerReports.org to see, and my own experience with my '95 Ford Taurus), and fat support for union workers (GM wasn't called Generous Motors for nothing), American car companies are hosed. The stress they are under financially is just too great, just look at what GM and Ford are doing - desperate to cut costs, they are buying out the union workers by the tens of thousands.
I think for too long American car manufacturers thought people would buy American out of loyalty, but when your car breaks every 6 months and your neighbor's Honda just kept going, you sit up and take notice. Suddenly that loyalty is costing you a lot of money, money most people can't afford to lose.
The only American car I would consider would be a Ford Escape Hybrid, and that's about it, and I would worry about its reliability if I did get it.
My next car will be a Honda or Subaru, most likely, unless I win the lottery in which case I'll flip a coin between a BMW and a Lexus.
I agree in the term "glory days" is very ambiguous. To me, the glory days of US auto makers was the 50's, 60's and early 70's (pre-gas regulations/unleaded gas). This may be because of good design (aesthetically pleasing and/or reliable transportation), "coolness factor" generated by muscle cars or a product of America having finally moved out of the Great Depression, having been victorious in WWII, etc. While America was moving on after 1945 (baby boom, economy growth, 50's housing boom as well as a surge in confidence asa country) most of Europe as well as Japan were rebuilding both literally and figuratively.
VW was the first real "attack" against the American auto makers, as VW offered inexpensive cars that were efficient (decent mpg/air cooled) and reliable. In the 1970's fuel became more of an issue combined with the strains of Vietnam, thus the inexpensive and efficient VW gained a larger foothold in the USA, while also opening the market to the Honda bikes. Instead of changing strategy in the 80's, US auto makers kept on going in the same direction as the 70's, producing big, poorly designed, inefficient cars with the "best" example of American cars being the minivan. The 90's didn't offer much in the way of change in American cars other than a welcome change (in regards to the 80's) in exterior design. Honda, Toyota and other companies were "new" to the US market and offered decent vehicles that were economic and reliable. With US automakers not changing their strategy it is not surprising to see them in the predicament they are in now.
I totally agree once again. A return to making reliable, affordable, attractive cars while increasing fuel efficiency is the only way I can see American automobiles returning to the "glory days". I guess my other question is: Was the glory days of the American auto a product of the American auto industry itself, or rather a byproduct of the American economy in comparison to the rest of the world?
Yes, I have always driven American cars, and with the exception of one car they all are from what I think of as the glory days of American autos (50's-early 70's).
That is what GM is doing. Chevy just released the Traverse which is Chevy's Lambda CUV meant to replace the Trailblazer. Come the next generation the Outlook is dead. The Traverse came because of the death of the Trailblazer. GM had planned to redesign the Trailblazer and Chevy was never meant to get a Lambda. With rising gas prices, GM scrapped the next gen Trailblazer and gave them a Lambda. The Outlook was only greenlighted due to the Lambda program was extremely over budget so they approved it to help recoup the cost.
RWD Impala= dead. Thanks to CAFE GM got scared putting a high volume nameplate on a RWD platform. So the next Impala will most likely be on an extended version of the Epsilon II platform. There are still talks of a RWD Chevy so it can remain low volume so it won't effect CAFE under maybe the Chevelle nameplate.
Cadillac still needs help. Everyone is distracted by the Escalade's and CTS's success that they are blind to the horrible mess that is STS and DTS. Also the poor selling SRX( even though it is a good product. It won C&D's best luxury SUV 3 years in a row). The new CTS is beautiful. 3.6 DI engine producing 304 HP, an amazing interior, and the front end styling is amazing. Now the CTS-V with the LSA producing 550 HP 550 lb of torque is going to give the M5 a run for its money. There lies the other problem with Cadillac. The CTS is confused to which car it competes against. The 3 series or 5 series? Price and feature wise it competes with the 3. Weight, performance, and size wise it competes with the 5. Luckily and hopefully( CAFE!!!!) the Alpha platform will bring a smaller Caddy to compete with the 3 series and then can effectively move the CTS up market.
See, Toyota can survive on top with 2 car companies- Toyota and Lexus.
GMC is hardly getting by and they have GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, Daewoo, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall, Isuzu, and Saab (am I forgetting anyone). What is that 13 car companies?
GMC needs to drop their extra weight. Seriously, why do they try to restore these old car companies whose names have gone to crap. They spend money trying to revolutionize these companies but no one cares. It's the history of poor fit and finish and just the name that hurts their sales I believe.
I dunno about you guys but when ford hits rock bottom I am investing in them. There is no way they'll go out of business. There are too many people employed.
GMC is hardly getting by and they have GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, Daewoo, Holden, Opel, Vauxhall, Isuzu, and Saab (am I forgetting anyone). What is that 13 car companies?
GMC needs to drop their extra weight. Seriously, why do they try to restore these old car companies whose names have gone to crap. They spend money trying to revolutionize these companies but no one cares. It's the history of poor fit and finish and just the name that hurts their sales I believe.
I dunno about you guys but when ford hits rock bottom I am investing in them. There is no way they'll go out of business. There are too many people employed.
That is what GM is doing. Chevy just released the Traverse which is Chevy's Lambda CUV meant to replace the Trailblazer. Come the next generation the Outlook is dead. The Traverse came because of the death of the Trailblazer. GM had planned to redesign the Trailblazer and Chevy was never meant to get a Lambda. With rising gas prices, GM scrapped the next gen Trailblazer and gave them a Lambda. The Outlook was only greenlighted due to the Lambda program was extremely over budget so they approved it to help recoup the cost.
RWD Impala= dead. Thanks to CAFE GM got scared putting a high volume nameplate on a RWD platform. So the next Impala will most likely be on an extended version of the Epsilon II platform. There are still talks of a RWD Chevy so it can remain low volume so it won't effect CAFE under maybe the Chevelle nameplate.
Cadillac still needs help. Everyone is distracted by the Escalade's and CTS's success that they are blind to the horrible mess that is STS and DTS. Also the poor selling SRX( even though it is a good product. It won C&D's best luxury SUV 3 years in a row). The new CTS is beautiful. 3.6 DI engine producing 304 HP, an amazing interior, and the front end styling is amazing. Now the CTS-V with the LSA producing 550 HP 550 lb of torque is going to give the M5 a run for its money. There lies the other problem with Cadillac. The CTS is confused to which car it competes against. The 3 series or 5 series? Price and feature wise it competes with the 3. Weight, performance, and size wise it competes with the 5. Luckily and hopefully( CAFE!!!!) the Alpha platform will bring a smaller Caddy to compete with the 3 series and then can effectively move the CTS up market.
I think GM will be able to pull it off, but it all depends on what the Traverse price is gonna be. From what I read, somewhere between Outlook and Acadia. Personally, the Acadia looks the best in my opinion. But the Chevrolet will most likely have the higher sales due to Chevy being GM's highest selling divison.
Of course, the damn government will kill what was most likely going to be an awesome car. I do like the current Impala, especially in SS form. But, it still doesn't have the handling to match the power. Torque steer on the SS is insane, and it just handles like a big car. It's unfortunate when I think my Camry LE is a better handling car, but then again, the Impala platform dates back to the early 90's.
The STS (in my opinion) was a downgrade from what the Seville STS was of the late 90's. People were too distracted by the RWD and excellent handling to notice the cheap interior or bloated CTS design. I have never been a huge fan of the STS, while I always loved the Seville. Same with DTS; the exterior is better looking, but the interior is too similar to Impala and Lucerne to be worth the $2-3K over the cost of a Lucerne CXS. The SRX has always been a great product, even when the original version had a average interior. With the '07 redesign, it just made that crossover much better. But the public doesn't see how great of a car it is, and it has never sold well.
CTS is amazing. Just sitting inside of one makes me feel like a million bucks. The materials, the design, the execution, and the power just makes it seem like a completely different vehicle from the first generation. The CTS-V also looks kick ass, and that engine is a screamer. But i have never completely understood where Cadillac wants that car to compete: 3 or 5 series category? I believe if (and when) Cadillac brings over the BLS platform from Europe, they'll figure out which goes where.
^^ Cough Scion cough. ( at Eric)
Opel, Holden, Vauxhall are all fine. They're GM's Australian and European brands which will sell their products here in the US under Pontiac( Holden, CAFE might kill it though) and Saturn(Opel/Vauxhall). Isuzu was never fully owned by GM, but partially owned and then sold off. I can only see Pontiac being killed, Hummer/Saab sold, and removing Buick from NA( Buick is extremely successful in China). GMC won't be killed. Even though GMC are mostly rebadged Chevy's, they are loyal to GMC and brings in money for GM since GMC has a low R&D cost. And look at what happened with Oldsmobile. Again, nothing but dressed up Chevy's, but when GM killed Olds, where did the buyers go to? The imports. GM will lose customers if they kill a brand right now. Hummer is profitable and being positioned as GM's Jeep competitor. Saturn won't be killed because out of GM's homegrown and heritage brands, Saturn has the best image out of all of them( even though it doesn't reflect sales wise).
Opel, Holden, Vauxhall are all fine. They're GM's Australian and European brands which will sell their products here in the US under Pontiac( Holden, CAFE might kill it though) and Saturn(Opel/Vauxhall). Isuzu was never fully owned by GM, but partially owned and then sold off. I can only see Pontiac being killed, Hummer/Saab sold, and removing Buick from NA( Buick is extremely successful in China). GMC won't be killed. Even though GMC are mostly rebadged Chevy's, they are loyal to GMC and brings in money for GM since GMC has a low R&D cost. And look at what happened with Oldsmobile. Again, nothing but dressed up Chevy's, but when GM killed Olds, where did the buyers go to? The imports. GM will lose customers if they kill a brand right now. Hummer is profitable and being positioned as GM's Jeep competitor. Saturn won't be killed because out of GM's homegrown and heritage brands, Saturn has the best image out of all of them( even though it doesn't reflect sales wise).
Ehhh... as we all know GM isn't too happy with dropping an nameplate that was once profitable. They did themselves a huge disfavor when they dropped Oldsmobile, a company that (I believe) would have done a fine job in today's time, but instead kept around Pontiac or Buick, two companies that aren't doing so hot right now.
Some of both, I'd say. During the '50s and '60s the US auto industry feasted off of awesome economies of scale, the growing disposable income of the American consumer, the expansion of the interstate highway system and suburbia, and virtually no foreign competition. The oil shocks of the '70s changed all of that forever. The foreign manufacturers were far better prepared to respond to a demand for more fuel-efficient cars, and this is also the period during which the American working class began a long, slow slide into downward mobility. Remarkably, all these decades later, the US manufacturers still haven't quite figured out how to respond to the products offered by the foreign makers.
Pretty much I agree with you, and to answer the original question, I don't think any of the US car makers will ever return to glory days in sense of total market dominance like GM in pre-1970s. They should become profitable within 3-4 years but as far as market share is concerned there is too much competition plus there will be even more of it from China and India. US will have to adjust to it somehow but as IJ Reily mentioned, US manufacturing hasn't really recovered from the 1970s manufacturing attack from Europe and now Asia.
World War II really helped US become the superpower it still is today as it's main land was virtually unaffected by the war (except Pearl Harbor and few Japanese bombs that landed in Cali and Washington state). So while after WW2 most of the world was rebuilding destroyed towns/separated families, US took advantage of it and rebuilt it's economy. I don't think US would be a superpower that it is today if WW2 took a hit on our land like it did in Europe or Asia, I know we live in 21st century and people today are different than people 60 years ago but just take a look at our rebuilding process of New Orleans or WTC, US probably would have fallen apart if it would suffer the damage of WW2 Europe/Asia.
Anyway, back to the topic, US car companies,after they will restructure the UAW contracts, will become profitable again. Toyota/Honda and other non-US automakers that have factories on US soil are profitable because they don't have a burden of Unions. And Ford won't bring European products to USA until the value of dollar will rise and Euro be less competitive against it. As an example, GM imports the new Saturn Astra from Europe at a loss, same thing with Chrysler and Crossfire, another loss. Importing cars from Europe by American companies currently is not cost efficient. And to bring over a platform and set up a factory in US that will produce European models also takes a lot of time and money and might be not as cost efficient considering that Americans do have a bit different car tastes than most Europeans.
The Traverse is supposed to be the cheapest of the bunch. ~$25K. But, that is due to feature stripping. Like it has regular halogens with optional projectors, but no HID's. Where the other Lambda's has projectors standard with HID's optional.
That sounds a lot more promising than what I had originally heard. We'll see how it does in the market. That class has gotten so confusing its hard to follow what goes where.
America is a mature automotive market. The real question is, who will win in China, India, the Middle East, and Africa. These emerging car markets have the real potential. GM is presently kicking ass on the global front.
I would think that it would only be possible with a severe paradigm shift. GM or Ford would have to turn the auto industry on their head and that will not be a design thing - it will have to be a power thing a new way to get cars to move that is so far ahead of the competition. That is the only way - so no it will never happen since the corporate espionage and actual possibility of the shift happening are slim to none.
I tend to gravitate towards this answer as well. Though the lack of change of American auto makers is shocking. If one of the Big Three popularizes/improves hybrid/alternative vehicles then we may see a true glory days return. I am not holding my breath.
The problem is that they are always looking at the nest quarter financial reports. Just 90 days into the future. Short term is the only thing that matters to them. For years and years they have resisted making smaller cars. The reason is that it costs not much more to make a small vs. a large car. (After all they have about the same number of parts.) But buyers will pay more for a larger car. So the large cars are far more profitable to build and sell. They held onto this model for far to long. One way to fix this would be to pay the execs only in stock that does is only vested in 10 years
Another think that hurt the American car campaniles badly was the import quota. They paid congress to pass a quota limiting the number of imported cars. So what the Japanese did when told they could sell only so many cars was to switch to selling much more expensive models. In the long run this turned out to be a gift to the Japanese auto makers because it forced them for move away from enco-boxes to upscale.
Another think that hurt the American car campaniles badly was the import quota. They paid congress to pass a quota limiting the number of imported cars. So what the Japanese did when told they could sell only so many cars was to switch to selling much more expensive models. In the long run this turned out to be a gift to the Japanese auto makers because it forced them for move away from enco-boxes to upscale.
Another area where the US makers have conceded leadership to the Japanese manufacturers. Lest we forget though, the US auto makers have cup holders nailed. They could sure teach the Asian and European manufacturers some lessons on that design subject.
When I read this I cued up my iTunes track of the Star Spangled Banner, put my hand over my heart and sang along! Something to be proud of! But seriously, I did try to look up some international drunk driving statistics, just to see if there was a "correlation" between superior US auto cup holders and the inferior foreign ones. Unfortunately I couldn't find many international comparisons via a few google searches.
Reliability wise, Buick. Tied with Lexus for #1. Driving dynamics, neither. Both suck at everything. The only Buick I would buy now would be A) the Chinese Buick Park Avenue and B) the Enclave. Those are some nice looking Buicks.
Depends... if I wanted a luxury car, Buick. If I wanted something that people wouldn't laugh at me uncontrollably in, Toyota.
As for Toyota... they don't suck at everything.
Depends... if I wanted a luxury car, Buick. If I wanted something that people wouldn't laugh at me uncontrollably in, Toyota.
As for Toyota... they don't suck at everything.
Name one Toyota currently in production that is actually fun to drive. You can only make the argument for the Camry V6. But, even that will fail. Then again, driving a BMW would sort of skew my expectations.