10 Cars That Sunk Detroit.

[badatusrnames]

With all the bankruptcy talk going on, this article is interesting in that it describes ten vehicles that really epitomize where the Big Three went wrong - even if they were big sellers at the time:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/11/14/10-cars-that-sank-detroit.html

[Redlyne_mr2]

Hmm I'd say that the writers doesn't know much about cars or the industry in general. He contradicts himself by calling the Taurus a best seller (which it was, it helped Ford out huge in the 80s) then accuses it of hurting Ford when in reality it was the 500 that was a failure. As for the Jeep compass, it still sells quite well. It's cars like the charger, avenger, 300c, Durango, that are sitting on lots unsold. The cavalier and astro were hugely successful, the astros design is still used today in fleet vans. Ford pinto? Give me a break that was 30 years ago. Even though it's just a random blog entry, it is a very poorly done blog entry.

[schocker]

Yes, I dont also get the cavalier. Thas was a huge seller for them. Someone on here will be mighty upset with the sebring being on that list though.

[Weapon_R]

The author doesn't deny that the Pinto/Cavalier/Astro were great sellers. He's saying that while the Big 3 concentrated on developing SUVs, they largely neglected the markets that were doing so well like those I just mentioned.

Now that everyone is running away from SUVs and other gas guzzlers, people aren't coming back to the Domestic compacts because they have memories of their shoddy build quality that dates back to the 80s and 90s.

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by schocker
Yes, I dont also get the cavalier. Thas was a huge seller for them. Someone on here will be mighty upset with the sebring being on that list though.

Haha you don't get it. He's saying that although the Cavalier sold well, GM was totally clueless and neglected the segment of the market that was theirs for the taking. And while import automakers were updating their small car lines frequently and getting better each time, GM ignored their product line in the segment.

In the case of the Cavalier, GM didn't update both generations for a decade each. This meant that the design became stale and outdated compared to competitors offerings, giving GM the image of selling crappy small cars that people that don't know any better drive or leaving people with such a bad taste in their mouth after the first one they've owned, they'll never go back to it.

By selling millions of Cavaliers, GM saw short term gain, but did lasting, long term damage to its brand. To be honest, whenever I hear the words Chevrolet or Pontiac, I automatically associate the words with Cavalier and Sunfire and immediately think of small car crap and trashy drivers.

The cheap small car market was GM's to lose in many ways and they let cars such as the Corolla and Civic grab market share from them. The Civic and Corolla likely wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are today if the domestic manufacturers hadn't neglected the small car segment and produced stronger offerings.


Chevrolet Cavalier. GM sold millions of Cavaliers in the 1980s—and decided the thrifty car was so successful the company didn't need to update it for more than a decade. To milk the model, GM even added some lipstick and high heels and tried to peddle the upgrade as the Cadillac Cimarron—a legendary flop. Honda and Toyota, meanwhile, were updating their competing models every four or five years, and grabbing market share with each quality improvement. A new Cavalier came out in the mid 1990s—then languished for another decade, while GM put most of its money into big trucks and SUVs. GM has since improved its small cars. "But they have to be miles better than the imports for Americans to forget how bad their small cars used to be," says Jamie Page Deaton of U.S. News's Rankings and Reviews car-ranking site. Even if they are better, many Americans wonder why they should give Detroit a second—or third—chance.

[Graham_A_M]

I can think of a lot more flops then that, but I agree 100%.

More catastrophic flops would be

-Lumina
-Sunbird
-Grand am (90's)
-Trans am & Firebird line up... to an extent in comparison to the Japanese sports car counterparts (heavy, poorly made, very weak components, un-usuable sport-suspension other then on immaculate roads, just crap basically)
-pre 1997 Saturns. Its funny that GM created the GEO and the Saturn line up to compete with the growing japanese market, yet both of those brands did everything BUT sway the consumer towards buying those japanese brands. Would YOU own a '92 Saturn, looking back today?
I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at that.

[schocker]

Originally posted by badatusrnames


Haha you don't get it. He's saying that although the Cavalier sold well, GM was totally clueless and neglected the segment of the market that was theirs for the taking. And while import automakers were updating their small car lines frequently and getting better each time, GM ignored their product line in the segment.
snip


ah, didnt read everything, the guy should have added cliffs:rofl:

[Rocky]

If you look at the pattern, you'll see the major problem underlying all those bad decisions -- short sightedness. The company's going bankrupt, but they can only blame themselves for being terrible businessmen. Hard to take sympathy on a company that makes that many poor decisions.

[Godfuader]

Originally posted by Weapon_R
The author doesn't deny that the Pinto/Cavalier/Astro were great sellers. He's saying that while the Big 3 concentrated on developing SUVs, they largely neglected the markets that were doing so well like those I just mentioned.

Now that everyone is running away from SUVs and other gas guzzlers, people aren't coming back to the Domestic compacts because they have memories of their shoddy build quality that dates back to the 80s and 90s.
:werd: That sums it up really nicely.

[euro_racer]

10 Cars That Could Salvage Detroit:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/11/14/10-cars-that-could-salvage-detroit.html

one thing i notice about the salvage article is that the majority is GM, seems like Chrysler has the least to offer to stay in business

[Graham_A_M]

^ I agree with that too... I'm waiting to pick up either a new Camaro SS or a Chevy Volt.

[Xtrema]

:thumbsup: for Camaro.

With ZR1, CTS-V, I really wish GM will stick around. I can careless about Ford or Chrysler.

[tabouli]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
Hmm I'd say that the writers doesn't know much about cars or the industry in general.

:werd:

That list is :bullshit:

Everyone is trying to come across intelligently by stabbing in the dark as to where domestic manufacturers went wrong. You can't just give a 10 car list, or make a couple quick sentences in hypothesis .... The demise of domestics took decades of bad decisions.

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by tabouli


:werd:

That list is :bullshit:

Everyone is trying to come across intelligently by stabbing in the dark as to where domestic manufacturers went wrong. You can't just give a 10 car list, or make a couple quick sentences in hypothesis .... The demise of domestics took decades of bad decisions.

I guess you don't understand the premise of the article. He concedes your point, that you could write ad nauseum about the business reasons for the demise of the big three.

These 10 cars aren't the exact, precise reasons that the Big Three are going under, but he uses them as symbols/metaphors for the type of business decisions that lead them to their current predicament.


The global financial crisis is suffocating the Detroit automakers, but the problems at General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have been festering for years—even when the mighty "Big Three" were earning billions. Aging factories, inflexible unions, arrogant executives and shoddy quality have all damaged Detroit. Now, with panicky consumers fleeing showrooms, catastrophe looms: Without a dubious federal bailout, all three automakers face the prospect of bankruptcy.

There will be plenty of business-school case studies analyzing all the automakers' wrong turns.

[tabouli]

By not agreeing with the article, you assume I don't understand its' premise?

Not only has the author chosen extremely poor examples to prove his point, but his logic behind them is flawed. He's chosen flagship models which still provide butter to domestic bread. The article is written as opinion ; Not fact. It should be taken as such, and people interested in discussing the article shouldn't get offended when someone else's opinion is contradictory.

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by tabouli
It should be taken as such, and people interested in discussing the article shouldn't get offended when someone else's opinion is contradictory.

:rofl: You're always in such a bad mood.

Haven't you heard of debate, discussion, agreeing to disagree, entitled to have an opinion?

That's what I'm doing. Isn't that what people are supposed to do on forums? This would be pretty boring place if everyone just agreed with one another.

Don't worry, I'm not offended that you disagree with me and I certainly hope your aren't offended that I disagree with you.

Sure it's not a perfect article, but I think he makes some pretty good points, especially regarding the Cavalier and how GM let some of their models stagnate for so long, destroying their brand image.

[tabouli]

Originally posted by badatusrnames
:rofl: You're always in such a bad mood.

It's a character flaw. I only post on public forums when I'm perturbed on a personal level.

Let me attempt to steer back on track: The obscure & niche developments of domestic manufacturers were more influential to their demise when strictly looking at product. I would be far more inclined to blame automotive abortions like the Pontiac Vibe for the flop in sales. These ventures are responsible for stretching GM brand far too thin over the market at a crucial time when conservative attitudes were being taken by competitors (look at how Japan reacted ... no more Silvia, RX7, Supra, etc by 2000).
My chief complaint with the article is that it places blame on flagship lines, which if anything, helped extend the life of domestic brands (in my opinion). I'm much more inclined to point my finger at the trendy lines which never had a chance at longevity.

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by tabouli

My chief complaint with the article is that it places blame on flagship lines, which if anything, helped extend the life of domestic brands (in my opinion). I'm much more inclined to point my finger at the trendy lines which never had a chance at longevity.

Yep I agree, the cavalier created a massive amount of sales and showroom traffic for gm. Not everyone out there could afford a civic, sentra, etc so the cavalier offered similar amenities at a fraction of the price. The cavaliers werent sitting in storage compounds collecting dust like the Azteks and Impalas were. What the author is doing is tying the cavaliers lack of development and advancements to GM's failure when that really isnt the truth.

[A790]

Originally posted by tabouli


It's a character flaw. I only post on public forums when I'm perturbed on a personal level.

Let me attempt to steer back on track: The obscure & niche developments of domestic manufacturers were more influential to their demise when strictly looking at product. I would be far more inclined to blame automotive abortions like the Pontiac Vibe for the flop in sales. These ventures are responsible for stretching GM brand far too thin over the market at a crucial time when conservative attitudes were being taken by competitors (look at how Japan reacted ... no more Silvia, RX7, Supra, etc by 2000).
My chief complaint with the article is that it places blame on flagship lines, which if anything, helped extend the life of domestic brands (in my opinion). I'm much more inclined to point my finger at the trendy lines which never had a chance at longevity.
You are looking at it from a very myopic perspective, and I don't have any doubt that would be the reason your multi-billion dollar car business would fail in the same way that the Big 3's did.

From a sales perspective yes, the Cavalier/Taurus/etc. sold well and offered plenty of short-term cash for detroit. No one is arguing that. What IS being argued is that the damage to their brand and reputations is the cause of their current state, and it's that sentiment that I'm inclined to agree with.

This isn't even something that's all that debatable unfortunately- when Honda/Toyota/etc. were pushing small, reliable, dependable cars that grew to have a reputation for quality and reliability, GM/Ford/Chrysler continued to peddle products that were inconsistent in both reliablity, performance, and overall build quality. This wasn't confined to just one model- it was rampant throughout their various brands.

The majority of consumers today prefer import brands to domestic due to the Big 3's myopic mentality (yes, there's that word again). 20 years ago it was almost the opposite, with domestic manufacturers having plenty of support from the North American populace. Now, thanks largely to having ignored and/or alienated the marketplace, they are struggling to rebuild their brands in order to effectively compete against international competitors.

So yes, the Cavalier/Sunfire sold a stupid amount of vehicles, but at what cost? All it did was enable GM to continue to operate with bloated overhead costs and an underperforming product. Consumers now have wised up and changed their preference, and unfortunately for the Big 3, it's going to be a long and nearly impossible road back to the party.

Let's liken it to something a bit smaller: Dell vs. MDG. MDG sold a lot of computers at first because of their lower price points and their "distinctly Canadian" marketing. Dell also started small, expanding gradually and eventually exponentially due to a consistent product and dependable service. MDG, however, is known for shoddy products and horrible service.

One is floundering, the other is growing and expanding. For MDG to rebuild their reputation would take years of consistent products and service, and even then, the memories of their past will haunt them for years to come (people STILL bring up Hyundai's Pony years).

Bottom line: Detroit forgot the biggest variable in the free market... the consumer.

[badatusrnames]

^^ Thank you, I was going to type something to the same effect, but didn't want to take the time.

What happened with vehicles like the Cavalier it that GM were able to sell a large volume of units given their attractive price points and that they came relatively well equipped. But when people brought home these cars and had to live with them daily, they realized they were crap and were pushed towards a better rated import for their next vehicle. For these buyers, their perception of GM was forever altered negatively, never to return to the brand. These buyers of entry level vehicles were generally at the beginning of their car buying careers, and important time for a brand to build loyalty, which GM utterly failed in doing.

Short term gain, long term damage.

I haven't heard of many longtime, repeat Cavalier buyers, but I have heard of many long term repeat Civic buyers.

[shin0bi]

Has anyone here been behind the drivers seat of a new GM product lately?

I was, and I was pleasantly surprised.

The G8, the Astra, the Cobalt SS, the ZR1...
These vehicles are all great at what they are designed for. They aren't watered down to pander to a greater number of people. They are purpose built, and damn good at their jobs.
I'd dare say they are on par with most of their foreign competition.

GM products are becoming more and more stylish, while build quality is growing in leaps and bounds. Yet, just like the plight of Hyunday (Who are churning out vehicles of amazing quality these days), their biggest problem is swaying a jaded public's perception.

Most of the car buyers out there aren't gear heads. They are not likely to read about automotive news... The average joe still thinks that Hyundai's are crap, despite the fact that industry experts have been throwing accolade after accolade at the company for the better part of 5 years.

Brand perception is powerful. Its the dealbreaker. I'm thinking its going to take an aggressive and creative new approach to marketing in order to shift people back to domestics.

[bignerd]

Just had a G5 for a rental car on the weekend, uncomfortable, cheap, and floaty-no love lost there. I think my mom's 92 Cavalier had better handling then this thing. Granted this was the cheapy-rental-car model.

Now the Grand Prix I had last time was a different story... that I could almost drive more than once...


Personally I have always had good experiences with Honda's and I guess that is why we own three of them...

Our neighbor just traded in his Chevy (equivilant to the Envoy?) for a Pilot, he was driving the Chevy down the highway and some big piece of window trim flew off the back of the truck. He went to Chevy to have it dealt with under warranty and they told him there must of been ice jammed under it and to basically go away. I know he keeps the cars garaged, he got fed up and is now a happy Honda owner.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by shin0bi
Brand perception is powerful.
This.

Ask any non-car person (and even some car people :D ) which is a more reliable make, Mercedes or Hyundai. I bet you they'll get it wrong.

GM in particular is making some fantastic vehicles these days (New cobalt, camaro, volt, most of the Saturn line, the new Cadillacs, G8 etc.) but you don't see them on the road because people think they're the same as their old Pontiac 6000.

I would love to get a Volt DD & Camaro for fun. Such a sweet combo.

[A790]

Originally posted by shin0bi
Has anyone here been behind the drivers seat of a new GM product lately?

I was, and I was pleasantly surprised.

The G8, the Astra, the Cobalt SS, the ZR1...
These vehicles are all great at what they are designed for. They aren't watered down to pander to a greater number of people. They are purpose built, and damn good at their jobs.
I'd dare say they are on par with most of their foreign competition.

GM products are becoming more and more stylish, while build quality is growing in leaps and bounds. Yet, just like the plight of Hyunday (Who are churning out vehicles of amazing quality these days), their biggest problem is swaying a jaded public's perception.

Most of the car buyers out there aren't gear heads. They are not likely to read about automotive news... The average joe still thinks that Hyundai's are crap, despite the fact that industry experts have been throwing accolade after accolade at the company for the better part of 5 years.

Brand perception is powerful. Its the dealbreaker. I'm thinking its going to take an aggressive and creative new approach to marketing in order to shift people back to domestics.
Bingo.

I've got nothing but good things to say about the last several domestic vehicles I've driven, and when I tell people this they, more often than not, totally ignore me and start spouting off nonsensical bullshit that may have been relevant a decade ago.

So you and I might know that the latest GM isn't a total hunk of crap, Mr. and Mrs. Jones don't have a clue. They're still reeling from their prematurely-rusting Cavalier or almost-lemon-worthy Cadillac that they bought eons ago. To them, seeing their friends and neighbours with Toyota's and Honda's that are still running strong well past 200K pretty much puts the final nails in the domestic coffins.

That's not to say that the vehicles produced by GM/Ford/Chev were total crap, because they weren't. I know many Cavalier owners who are still driving without any major repairs, but that likely hasn't had much of an impact on their perception that their vehicle is like an appliance with wheels.

I find that I get into situations where I'm defending domestic manufacturers quite often, and in reality, that's just not something I should have to do. It isn't up to me to try and tell people that the new Saturn Astra is a kickass car with tons of cool features, it should be up to GM to do it. But, alas, GM's idea of marketing is offering huge discounts on their inventory and hoping that some of their customers stick.

Toyota has done a great job marketing their new trucks in ways that show of their dependability and their capability. Maybe GM should take a page out of their playbook?

Or, is it too late?

[nissanK]

Originally posted by euro_racer
10 Cars That Could Salvage Detroit:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/11/14/10-cars-that-could-salvage-detroit.html

one thing i notice about the salvage article is that the majority is GM, seems like Chrysler has the least to offer to stay in business

Even if these cars do provide a boost, they will have to pull all the loyal customers from their constantly high quality imports.

I think the damage is done.:guns:

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by A790
Toyota has done a great job marketing their new trucks in ways that show of their dependability and their capability.
Provided you don't need camshafts ;)

[shin0bi]

Originally posted by bignerd
Just had a G5 for a rental car on the weekend, uncomfortable, cheap, and floaty-no love lost there. I think my mom's 92 Cavalier had better handling then this thing. Granted this was the cheapy-rental-car model.

I think the trim levels might make a lot of difference too. My girlfriend's G6 GT is a pretty nice ride...

Fleet vehicles tend to be lower quality for cost reasons (which makes sense...) but what I think the big 3 car makers need to realize is that when people ride in a cab, or rent a vehicle, they are essentially taking it for a test drive. Its a powerful form of indirect advertisement.

I have no idea how it works, but I'm guessing its up to the rental agencies to decide what vehicles and trims to order, and of course, they're gonna want to order on the cheap side.

If I was in control over at GM , I'd be revising all of my fleet contracts to include a clause that states that fleet vehicle agencies need to buy my cars at a predetermined (well equipped, good quality) trim level. Sure... I might lose a bit of business from AVIS, but imagine how many sales they lose each year because the base model Chevy Impala Joe Smith rented in Florida was a piece of crap compared to his well appointed 91 Corolla?

[NickGT]

I've had nothing buy good experiences with my domestic and would not hesitate to purchase another new Ford (probably a ranger 4x4) in the near future.

Assuming they don't shut their doors in the next couple years lol.

[Diocletian]

Vehicles that sunk detroit hummm

The american companies didn't wreck their reputation over night. It started back in the mid 60's and carried on to present day. There was no single vehicle that killed them it best multiple generations of bad cars. If you look at the vehicles that have been made since the early 80's, far more of them are poor than are good. Things are looking a little brighter in terms of at least their quality these days but you can't just get rid of 30 years of damage over night.

Important vehicles that have really hurt the companies were:
1. the pontiac phenix/chevy citation of the early 80's
- this was GM's first aggressive stab at building a competitive FWD. The car turned out to be terrible.

2. GM trucks with the 350 olds diesel, the 6.2 diesel and the 6.5
- These engines insured that GM lost much of it's truck business to other automakers

3. Chrysler neon - this car clearly showed how much superior the japanese small cars were to the american ones

4.FWD cadillacs of the 90's and early 2000's- these cars were not worthy of the name that they carried and were responsible for cadillac losing many sales of competitors as well is discoloring people's view of the brad

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Diocletian


3. Chrysler neon - this car clearly showed how much superior the japanese small cars were to the american ones

Are you insane? The Neon sold incredibly well against its competitors and played a big part in keeping Chrysler quite profitable in the 90's.



Originally posted by Eleanor

Provided you don't need camshafts ;)

Or tailgates.

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Are you insane? The Neon sold incredibly well against its competitors and played a big part in keeping Chrysler quite profitable in the 90's.


Yes, but see the arguments (mostly about the cavalier) that while selling a large volume of crappy cars may keep you in the black short term, long term, it will harm your brand perception and make you known as a purveyor of a poor quality product, meaning many people will never return to your brand after that bad experience.

You could extend the same analogy to the K-Car of the 80s as well - it kept Chrysler afloat, but it also meant that for millions, the name Chrysler is forever associated with this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/PlymouthReliant1987.jpg

That's tough to shake.

[corsvette]

From what i have seen lately from GM is very promising,i agree 100% that they need better marketing,and it will take EXCELENT marketing to get people INTO the showrooms to see this product.As i see it some of the latest GM products have way more style than any Toyota ever dreamed of (malibu vs camry) and are competitive performers as well.I have owned several from the OLD GM,so has my family,its hard to put faith back into a company that built some big time junk over the years,after having the (dis)pleasure of driving a 07 Camry for 6 months,i can see toyotas quality reputation in jeopardy,(lets not forget the tundra as well)I hpe GM pulls out a stronger and leaner company,as the have finaly proven they CAN build competitive cars (not just trucks)

[wyattnation]

From a sales perspective yes, the Cavalier/Taurus/etc. sold well and offered plenty of short-term cash for detroit. No one is arguing that. What IS being argued is that the damage to their brand and reputations is the cause of their current state, and it's that sentiment that I'm inclined to agree with.

I agree entirely with this... I have a cavalier and ya it gets me from a to b but as far as the handling and driving enjoyment its far from a good car... The only thing it did well was gas mileage driving across Canada (52mpg on best tank and 49-50 on the rest).

Most people have a worse perception than that of domestic cars even though now they are making a decent vehicle

[Redlyne_mr2]

From a marketing standpoint you could argue that the cavalier ruined GM's image but that is a tough point to prove. From a financial standpoint it certainly wasnt the cavalier that contributed to GM's massive losses.

[shin0bi]

GM also went with the trend of badge engineering, which, yeah, short term boosted sales, but long term just made people thing GM was universally pumping out shit all accross the board.

IMO:

Chev should be cars for the masses (with the exception of the Camaro and Corvette which have too much heritage surrounding them to touch). This is the brand that should have small, cheap, efficient vehicles, plus the Trucks and SUVS. ONLY this stream of GM.

Pontiac should be the excitement brand. No watered down G5 Pursuit shit... Just fun, quality, inexpensive but sporty cars

Saturn should be the Euro-equivalent car maker. Facing off with VW and to some extent, Audi. Offering the SAME stuff Opel does (ie. Turbo Astra!!) as well as experimental vehicles. Its the newest company, therefore with the smallest legacy factor. Therefore, they can try new things. IE... The Volt.

Caddilac should be expensive but QUALITY REAR WHEEL DRIVE cars with big engines, "in your motherfucking inferior face" styling, and the latest safety, performance, and entertainment technologies to compette with the German luxury brands.

Buick to fill the entry level luxury niche, since Caddy would be moved upmarket, albeit with desirable products.

GMC doing what it does best, TRUCKS.

As for Hummer... drop it like the fat kid drops balls in gym class.