Were American cars really that bad?

[the Teuton]

1989.  That was the year Honda finally overtook the Ford Taurus and became the best-selling car in America.  We all know that the 1980s cars for the Big Three mostly sucked across the board.  K-Cars sold well because it was the hip thing to do to buy them, and everyone loved and believed in Lee Iacocca. 

But when cars started getting rounder for the 1990s, catching up with Jack Telnak's Taurus's space-age design, were they really the vile, unreliable, abrasive rattle traps we all think they are now?  Or were they legitimately good cars?

Remember, the Cloud Cars were Motor Trend's North American Cars of the Year in 1995.  The Ford Contour made Car and Driver consider whether a BMW 3 Series was really worth the money, especially in SVT guise.  The Malibu was more accommodating than the much larger Lumina from the same year when it went on to win the Motor Trend award in 1997.  Chrysler minivans have always kept the competition on its feet with innovative designs and packaging, along with a myriad of features no one ever thinks of on their own but Chrysler.

In the 1990s up through now, The Big Three have come up with some designs unlike anything from Europe or Japan.  And if they were similar, the American companies always seemed like better values.  Cars like the 1996 Impala SS, the SVT cars, the Prowler, the Focus, the Neon, the trucks that have just recently found serious foreign rivals after more then 60 years of segment competition, and the Lincoln LS that was a seemingly svelte 5 Series competitor for far less money, all seemed like decent vehicles.

I drive my brothers' cars, a 2000 Accord and a 2001 Taurus, and while the Accord is far and away a sportier car with better materials and more features (being a top-of-the-line EX-L VTEC V6 versus the Taurus LX with the Vulcan V6), I can't help but think the Taurus rides better, has a much better transmission, and is generally easier to use.  If the interior were put together with better materials and with better quality, I can't help but think that a similarly-optioned Taurus might be a better car.

So as American companies lose market share with every passing month, I ask this:  Is it deserved?  Did the Big Three screw the pooch with generally lousy cars, whereas the foreign competition made everything well?  Or was it the perception of buyers that finally brought all of the Big Three to its knees?

What, if anything, is killing the Big Three, competition-wise?

[MX793]

The Taurus was a great car.  The problem was that Ford gave up on it.  I'm not even sure why (my guess is to focus on cash cow SUVs like the Explorer).  After they went to the weird oval styling in '96, they failed to give it anything more than cosmetic updates up until it was discontinued in '06 or '07.  Meanwhile, Honda steadily redesigned the Accord and Toyota redesigned the Camry like clockwork every 5-6 years, each iteration improving on the last.  A mid 90s Camry really didn't have anything on the Taurus, but compare the same models in '04 or '05?

This story repeats itself with other models as well.  GM's J-body went more than 20 years on the same platform.  The entire final decade of its life, it saw nothing more than cosmetic tweaks (updated headlights and tail lights).  Civic and Corolla got full redesigns every 5-6 years.

These are just 2 examples.

[GoCougs]

Yes, they were that bad, particularly in terms of reliability and quality.

[2o6]

Comparably.


Otherwise, they were not horrid. The 80's really did them in, as well as no work on their car lineup during the Mid 90's. There were a lot of good cars, but the minority usually has the loudest voice. The domestics had too many failures which has tarnished their reputation.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Half of the really good cars you mention were niche vehicles (Impala SS,Prowler,etc.) that were never meant to sell in huge numbers. Also one of the problems with the big 3 (GM and Chrysler more so then Ford) was the sharing of identicle models,especially in the 80's. How can you compete with the imports when your stealing sales from yourself. While GM was selling The Malibu,Cutlass,Regal,Bonneville in the same class, the imports rarely sold cars (same manufacturer) that competed directly with each other. IIRC the Corvette was the only GM car of the 80's that didn't fall prey to the "cookie cutter" mentality. In the end the big 3 only have themselves to blame for the way thier cars are percieved.

EDIT: The Fiero didn't have a twin along with the Corvette.

[Laconian]

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that the American companies have pigeonholed themselves as purveyors of  superior value for dollar, even though--as the wealthiest nation in the world--America is in NO position to make anything cheaply anymore.  We are unable to compete on that battlefield--we are at a huge competitive disadvantage to countries with lower labor costs and export-driven exchange rates.

[Laconian]

There were a lot of good cars, but the minority usually has the loudest voice.

Actually, a lot of the most well known failures were on cars with the biggest volumes. X-cars, J-bodies, yada..

[Secret Chimp]

I don't understand why it takes generation after generation for the big 3 to figure out how to make cars competitively. The re-introduction of the Malibu took three generations before they created a car that could be seriously weighed against the Camry or Accord. The newest Impala still has a rear suspension based on the Lumina (just look at either one from the rear, you can see the big old trailing arm in the exact same place). Look at the goofy fucking blob the Escort became compared to the Civic and Corolla.
And STILL they discount the shit out of them while makers like Honda and Subaru barely have to offer anything to move their cars.
Give them this: they depreciate like hell and often run badly longer than some cars run at all - without them, the poor would be relegated to bicycles.

[the Teuton]

That was scathing praise.

[Laconian]

They threw pushrod V6es into everything and said "look everybody, better value!" When in reality they needed the extra 2 cylinders to even be competitive with the other guys' I4s...

[Secret Chimp]

They threw pushrod V6es into everything and said "look everybody, better value!" When in reality they needed the extra 2 cylinders to even be competitive with the other guys' I4s...

Our V6 Citation had trouble passing a bicyclist one time. It also got about 18 mpg.

[3.0L V6]

Too many people got burned on shoddy reliability of the domestics. That was the killer. A mediocre car (in most respects) that works everyday and doesn't break down/need repairs will be viewed much better than a fancy one that needs tons of work and has lots of downtime.

I can list a few failings of the last couple of decades that annoyed a lot of people:

Ford 3.8L OHV V6 headgaskets
Chrysler Ultradrive transmissions
Ford AXOD transmissions
GM Quad4 headgaskets

[2o6]

Actually, a lot of the most well known failures were on cars with the biggest volumes. X-cars, J-bodies, yada..

Even though the "magazines" declared them failures, many people were happy with them. The Citation was an OK car, and the Cavalier was also an OK car.


Their niche vehicles were great, but their bread and butter was a bit lacking.

Their plastics, fit and finish is also a big thing as well, not to mention fuel economy. And efficency. The Japanese rivals were using higher quality materials and selling a similar, better-made product for the same price.

Look at the goofy fucking blob the Escort became compared to the Civic and Corolla.

The Focus happened. It was car of the year. However, compared to the 1998 Corolla, the Escort was ok. That gen of Corolla is dreadful.



Also, GM (and Ford and Chrysler) have a bad habit of overestimating production. They produce too much of a good car, and then shove the rest on the fleets. The fleets car is abused, and people form their opinions on the fleet car, which is not a good thing to do. Then the fleet car is flooded into the used car market, making the model's value severly drop. This cheap price, along with number put the image in to the consumers' mind that the car is really bad, even when it's not.

[Secret Chimp]

That was scathing praise.

Our 1968 Galaxie 500 was hard to start in the mornings but it ran great - we owned it for something like 6 years before the transmission took a poop. Our 1976 Grand Marquis had somehow destroyed its carburetor before it reached 80,000 miles. The air conditioning worked exactly once. Our 1980 Citation somehow managed to crack a head SITTING STILL IN THE DRIVEWAY.
Detriot made great cars back when you just put a V8 or an I6 and a cool body on a big ol' frame. Once you started throwing emissions requirements and demands for cars that had to be less than half a block long at them, they had no idea what to do. Meanwhile tons of little CVCCs and 210s were puttering off the boat from Japan as GM introduced works of genius like the seize-o-matic Vega.

[Secret Chimp]

The Citation was an OK car, and the Cavalier was also an OK car.

Right.

[the Teuton]

Our V6 Citation had trouble passing a bicyclist one time. It also got about 18 mpg.

By the time our Cutlass Cruiser was going out, the power steering pump was dying, the harmonic balancer, a $300 part that no junkyard had for the fairly rare 3.3 V6, died, so it idled rough, and the car was doing well if it got 18 mpg.  Otherwise, 12 was a good day, and fortunately, gas was still cheap at that point.

The Venture has been much better, and even with the problem-prone 3400 V6, ours never failed because of the engine (even with signs of the back manifold gasket).  It has rusted like a MF'er, and the car is not without some serious fault, but the engine and transmission have been fairly good.

But our Ford products have been much better, my car has been better yet, and the Hondas we've had have been better still.

Being in a family that buys used, I cannot recommend anything GM to my parents for the replacement car coming up in February, even though we have been a GM family seemingly forever.

[2o6]

Right.

Sorry, I was using iTunes, converting some songs to AAC. I didn't get to your post.........

[GoCougs]

Half of the really good cars you mention were niche vehicles (Impala SS,Prowler,etc.) that were never meant to sell in huge numbers. Also one of the problems with the big 3 (GM and Chrysler more so then Ford) was the sharing of identicle models,especially in the 80's. How can you compete with the imports when your stealing sales from yourself. While GM was selling The Malibu,Cutlass,Regal,Bonneville in the same class, the imports rarely sold cars (same manufacturer) that competed directly with each other. IIRC the Corvette was the only GM car of the 80's that didn't fall prey to the "cookie cutter" mentality. In the end the big 3 only have themselves to blame for the way thier cars are percieved.

EDIT: The Fiero didn't have a twin along with the Corvette.

And even then, the C3 lasted from '84 to '96 - 13 ridiculous years!

[2o6]

And even then, the C3 lasted from '84 to '96 - 13 ridiculous years!

The C3 was from 1968 to 1982.

[Secret Chimp]

The C3 was from 1968 to 1982.

THIS IS A MOMENT IN HISTORY

GOCOUGS IS CORRECTED BY A FUCKIN' KID IN BUTTFUCK OHIO

STOP THE PRESSES

[2o6]

THIS IS A MOMENT IN HISTORY

GOCOUGS IS CORRECTED BY A FUCKIN' KID IN BUTTFUCK OHIO

STOP THE PRESSES

Maybe he meant the C4..........

[Laconian]

You know he meant C4 :P

[Secret Chimp]

I know but still.

[2o6]

You know he meant C4 :P

Even so, It doesn't matter.



GM's finished.

[Secret Chimp]

Even so, It doesn't matter.



GM's finished.

No, Chrysler is. GM needs to shed their goddamn brand-for-every-finger-on-your-hand business structure and they have some good platforms. Chrysler doesn't have one good car compared even to Ford or GM, much less the rest of the competition.

[2o6]

No, Chrysler is. GM needs to shed their goddamn brand-for-every-finger-on-your-hand business structure and they have some good platforms. Chrysler doesn't have one good car compared even to Ford or GM, much less the rest of the competition.

They almost could get away with it if each marque didn't have a badge-engineered variant of every car that GM produces. Why in the world is there a G3? Why is there a Lambda Quartet? Or if you're going to do platform sharing (VW has like, three platforms........a short, a long and a really long) make them different from each other.

[Secret Chimp]

They almost could get away with it if each marque didn't have a badge-engineered variant of every car that GM produces. Why in the world is there a G3? Why is there a Lambda Quartet? Or if you're going to do platform sharing (VW has like, three platforms........a short, a long and a really long) make them different from each other.

Name me one good Chrysler car. You're the one that singled out GM, and Ford doesn't even need money.

[2o6]

Name me one good Chrysler car. You're the one that singled out GM, and Ford doesn't even need money.

The Minivans........

Besides, when did I say that?

[Secret Chimp]

The Minivans........

Besides, when did I say that?

You said it implicitly by saying that GM is fucked.
Also Chrysler dropped the ball on their minivans. The Pacifica was supposed to be using the same underpinnings as what would have been the next-gen of vans, then they just said fuck it to the Pacifica and gave their vans some weird Legoland styling and updated nothing, like GM did with theirs. They don't even bother advertising them now.

[the Teuton]

Let's look at Nissan's example for wisdom.  Their company, thanks to Carlos Ghosn, was saved because of platform engineering.

Small:
Sentra
Derivatives:
Smaller:  Cube
Small SUV:  Rogue

Medium FWD:
Altima
Derivatives:
Large FWD:  Maxima
Minivan:  Quest
SUV: Murano

FM:
370Z
G37
FX
M35/45

Very loose derivative:  GT-R

Truck:
Titan
Derivatives:
Compact truck:  Frontier
Midsize SUV:  Pathfinder
Fullsize SUV:  Armada/QX56

Then the Patrol platform and other commercial platforms for Asia and Europe.

Engines families:

4 cylinders from Cube to Altima
VQ V6
Endurance V8s
VR (based on VQ)
4.5 liter V8 for lux cars