I was driving an Aveo today, and it made me ask the question, why do some cars suck? It seems odd that manufactuers within the past 20 years made cars that were poorly designed for their marketplace. How do automakers let a bad car slip through the cracks?
Cars like the Aveo really make me wonder how the execs at GM thought their car was better than the competition. (Yes, I know the Aveo is a Daewoo in drag, but other automakers let this happen as well).
Couldn't they have just designed it to be the best from the start?
Here's my outsider view: they don't have to actually think it's the best, they just have to market it like it is, and gullible people will buy it. (Tave's cool though.) The Aveo is a cheap car done cheaply, because IMO GM only knows how to build cars down to a cost.
Quote from: Laconian on January 08, 2013, 10:36:54 PM
Here's my outsider view: they don't have to actually think it's the best, they just have to market it like it is, and gullible people will buy it. (Tave's cool though.) The Aveo is a cheap car done cheaply, because IMO GM only knows how to build cars down to a cost.
But it's so poorly made; sit in my car and it's shocking how much more resolved it is. Not just the quality, but the thought to the design. The fact that the car is proportioned in such a way to make the car have interior room a segment above (Aveo is tight inside), the fact that the design makes it aerodynamic. The fact that pretty much every other supermini is so much better executed.
The Aztek and Renzdezvous is also an example. The only thing the Rendezvous has going for it is that it's quiet and it has a lot of cargo space. How could GM have thought a bastardized already uncompetitive minivan would be a great basis for a competitor to the runaway success Lexus RX and kin?
Other manufacturers are guilty of this as well; the new Civic seems like it isn't great. The new Yaris is pretty irrelevant compared to everything else; Toyota had some huge equity there they lost. Back in 2007, the Yaris sold pretty strongly in the US.
- Delusional executives and/or designers that think their ideas rock
- They just don't care, as long as it will make some money
- They care, but the management and/or silly rules keep them from doing things right
- They suck themselves
I think ultimately it's the engineers being nickel and dimed to death by the bean counters and end up having to cut corners and make compromises, and unfortunately I think some of those times the compromises are too much, like in the Aveo's case.
I'm not a designer. Your guess is as good as mine.
It's pretty typical to see fancy designs early on, but then the manufacturer starts getting quotes back. They realize it costs money, so they cheapen it.
Quote from: thecarnut on January 08, 2013, 10:54:42 PM
I think ultimately it's the engineers being nickel and dimed to death by the bean counters and end up having to cut corners and make compromises, and unfortunately I think some of those times the compromises are too much, like in the Aveo's case.
There's some glaring issues with the Aveo that makes me think it was designed badly from the ground up.
It's not a engineering question but a product management question. The question wasn't, How do we build a great subcompact?, the question was, We can't afford to design an all-new subcompact for the USDM so how do we sell succompacts in the USDM?
Quote from: GoCougs on January 08, 2013, 11:20:40 PM
It's not a engineering question but a product management question. The question wasn't, How do we build a great subcompact?, the question was, We can't afford to design an all-new subcompact for the USDM so how do we sell succompacts in the USDM?
Ok, then why does the Daewoo suck? Its not a good car, and its slammed everywhere ot was sold. Did Daewoo just not know what to do?
Compromise, cost, and packaging are the biggest reasons from what I can see (as someone who has to reverse-engineer and fix their shit).
For example, the basics of suspension design were figured out 80 years ago; but we still use MacPherson struts and torsion bar suspension. Not because it's better, but because it's cheap and it works ok.
Like Cougs said, it's not that they're incapable of building good cars, it's that they don't always have to or want to. The phrase, "Building to a price-point," is exactly the way cars are built.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 08, 2013, 11:29:03 PM
Ok, then why does the Daewoo suck? Its not a good car, and its slammed everywhere ot was sold. Did Daewoo just not know what to do?
They have limited resources.
For a long time it seemed like GM refused to build good cars. It was almost like they aspired to building shit. Thankfully, things have changed there.
It's all cost/benefit. What's the incremental cost of making the car better compared to the incremental sales they'll get out of making it better?
Once that's done, they decide to leave it crappy.
It is very simple, and several of the replies above are on topic................ it's all about money and the business viability.
A car is the manifestation of a set of requirements - of which money constitute a set, along with what it is technically feasible, how it will be manufactured, compliance with all legal and regulatory demands for all the markets where the car will be sold, available time to design and launch the car etc etc.......... the result, inevitably, will be a compromise.
Given infinite time and money, I'd like to think that everyone would launch the perfect product......... of course there is an element of subjectivity as to which attributes are more important than others. Does space matter more than beautiful styling? Some requirements are mutually exclusive, or at least partially so.
Don't imagine that there aren't people in most if not all mfrs who are at all surprised at the reviews they get - they will mostly be well aware of what they would have liked to do differently, but could not.
The Aveo sold for under $10k, correct? What exactly do you expect?
The Aveo wasn't so wretched by 2004 standards -- or by the international third-world standards it was really designed to compete in. Like many GMs, it was just kept around for too long. The Scions that launched nationally a few months later were more modern, for sure, but they're quite bouncy and noisy and had no sedan variant. Here's the rest of the Aveo's competition:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/03-05_Hyundai_Accent_sedan.jpg/500px-03-05_Hyundai_Accent_sedan.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/2003-2005_Kia_Rio.jpg/500px-2003-2005_Kia_Rio.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/2002-2005_Toyota_Echo_%28NCP12R%29_sedan_01.jpg/500px-2002-2005_Toyota_Echo_%28NCP12R%29_sedan_01.jpg)
The 2009 Aveo and G3 I drove were not even all that miserable to drive, in my opinion, or even totally outclassed on space efficiency at that point. They had lousy safety scores and way too high prices, but even then the competition wasn't so great either.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 08, 2013, 10:42:14 PM
The new Yaris is pretty irrelevant compared to everything else; Toyota had some huge equity there they lost. Back in 2007, the Yaris sold pretty strongly in the US.
Back when there wasn't much real competition. The opposite of what happened with the Aveo. Since 2007, there have been more and better models. Toyota just didn't make the same dramatic changes as everyone else.
Was the Aveo really that bad of a car, considering it's price?
Let's compare a base 2009 Aveo5 to what is arguably the best B-segment hatch you can buy, the 2009 Honda Fit.
2009 Chevrolet Aveo5 LS: $11,965.
2009 Honda Fit base: $14,750.
A $2,785 difference on what are already fairly inexpensive cars is a considerably large difference. But the difference on what you actually pay will be more than that. The Chevy buyer would almost have certainly received a manufacturer rebate plus a discount from the dealer. Would the Honda Fit buyer get either of these? For an exceedingly popular car which was, and continues to be, in short supply? Fat chance!
By the time it's all said and done, the new Aveo buyer would have paid well over three grand less than the Fit buyer. For someone on a tight budget, this could make all the difference in the world.
Sure, it's no contest which is the better car. All things being equal, I'd pick the Fit every time. And so would all of you, too. But a $3K (possibly close to $4K) difference in price means you really can't judge these cars by the same set of standards. Considering the Aveo was marketed as an inexpensive, bare bones transportation appliance, was it really that bad?
Quote from: 2o6 on January 08, 2013, 10:42:14 PM
But it's so poorly made; sit in my car and it's shocking how much more resolved it is. Not just the quality, but the thought to the design. The fact that the car is proportioned in such a way to make the car have interior room a segment above (Aveo is tight inside), the fact that the design makes it aerodynamic. The fact that pretty much every other supermini is so much better executed.
The Aztek and Renzdezvous is also an example. The only thing the Rendezvous has going for it is that it's quiet and it has a lot of cargo space. How could GM have thought a bastardized already uncompetitive minivan would be a great basis for a competitor to the runaway success Lexus RX and kin?
Other manufacturers are guilty of this as well; the new Civic seems like it isn't great. The new Yaris is pretty irrelevant compared to everything else; Toyota had some huge equity there they lost. Back in 2007, the Yaris sold pretty strongly in the US.
There are reasons for each. What aspects of the design are objectively worse?
The Aztek and Rendezvous are both ancient. Back then, they were pretty competitive. RX was more expensive as well, and was also best in class. You're basically asking why everything can't be best in class...
And Toyota lost "equity" with the new Yaris? What? It's not like the name plate carried such a great reputation that people were buying on that alone, and the new one was such a step down it forever tarnished the name. :confused:
Quote from: Madman on January 09, 2013, 08:54:34 AM
Was the Aveo really that bad of a car, considering it's price?
Let's compare a base 2009 Aveo5 to what is arguably the best B-segment hatch you can buy, the 2009 Honda Fit.
2009 Chevrolet Aveo5 LS: $11,965.
2009 Honda Fit base: $14,750.
A $2,785 difference on what are already fairly inexpensive cars is a considerably large difference. But the difference on what you actually pay will be more than that. The Chevy buyer would almost have certainly received a manufacturer rebate plus a discount from the dealer. Would the Honda Fit buyer get either of these? For an exceedingly popular car which was, and continues to be, in short supply? Fat chance!
By the time it's all said and done, the new Aveo buyer would have paid well over three grand less than the Fit buyer. For someone on a tight budget, this could make all the difference in the world.
Sure, it's no contest which is the better car. All things being equal, I'd pick the Fit every time. And so would all of you, too. But a $3K (possibly close to $4K) difference in price means you really can't judge these cars by the same set of standards. Considering the Aveo was marketed as an inexpensive, bare bones transportation appliance, was it really that bad?
Im on my phone, but the Toyota and Honda are so much more thoughtfully designed than the Aveo was. They also hold up far better.
I would not take an Aveo for no reason, ever. It really is a bad car.
Quote from: ifcar on January 09, 2013, 08:44:58 AM
The Aveo wasn't so wretched by 2004 standards -- or by the international third-world standards it was really designed to compete in. Like many GMs, it was just kept around for too long. The Scions that launched nationally a few months later were more modern, for sure, but they're quite bouncy and noisy and had no sedan variant. Here's the rest of the Aveo's competition:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/03-05_Hyundai_Accent_sedan.jpg/500px-03-05_Hyundai_Accent_sedan.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/2003-2005_Kia_Rio.jpg/500px-2003-2005_Kia_Rio.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/2002-2005_Toyota_Echo_%28NCP12R%29_sedan_01.jpg/500px-2002-2005_Toyota_Echo_%28NCP12R%29_sedan_01.jpg)
The 2009 Aveo and G3 I drove were not even all that miserable to drive, in my opinion, or even totally outclassed on space efficiency at that point. They had lousy safety scores and way too high prices, but even then the competition wasn't so great either.
I dont agree, the Rio feels worse to drive (underneath its still the old Avella/Aspire) and the Accent feels pretty crude. The only thing I can say about the Echo is that it is ugly.
The Yaris also sold for around 10K, and i'd take a Yaris every day of the week.
And to top it off, the Aveo is not reliable at all.
(http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/2688/4741/6719870005_large.jpg)
(http://swotti.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheY2HLDNJVBGV0IGF2ZW8=QXV0B21VDGLVBI1DYXJZ/imgChevrolet%20Aveo1.jpg)
I also trust the Echo far more than the Aveo.
I dont think the interior of the Aveo was bad, I think the rest of the car was.
Quote from: 93JC on January 09, 2013, 09:40:08 AM
(http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/2688/4741/6719870005_large.jpg)
(http://swotti.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheY2HLDNJVBGV0IGF2ZW8=QXV0B21VDGLVBI1DYXJZ/imgChevrolet%20Aveo1.jpg)
To be brutally honest, the BOTH look pretty shitty. Then again, I'm not expecting much at this price point.
I'm pretty sure that someone buying an Aveo just wants a cheap and basic car to get them from A to B. They won't care much about how stiff the suspension is and how crappy the seats are or how cheap the interior is.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on January 09, 2013, 09:56:47 AM
I'm pretty sure that someone buying an Aveo just wants a cheap and basic car to get them from A to B. They won't care much about how stiff the suspension is and how crappy the seats are or how cheap the interior is.
Its unreliable.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 09, 2013, 10:17:04 AM
Its unreliable.
There are always used Hondas and Toyotas to buy! :lol:
Accents shall not be discussed in this thread.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 09, 2013, 10:17:04 AM
Its unreliable.
*It's
In other words your perception of how good or bad the Aveo is is based on its reputation, not its actual design merits, therefore there's no point in trying to answer the question you posed in the opening post in earnest.
Designing and building cars is expensive. A BMW is four times as much to buy as an Aveo, but the BMW does not cost anywhere near four times as much to design and build as an Aveo. Given the profit margins in small, inexpensive cars are incredibly thin the manufacturer has to scrimp and save as much money in building them as possible. That means every single part in it will be comparatively cheap.
For what it is I think the Aveo is a perfectly acceptable conveyance. It is not 'fun', but for its size it's reasonably practical and inexpensive to operate and maintain. I don't know what you expect otherwise.
It takes skill and effort to build a car as bad as the Aveo.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 08, 2013, 11:20:40 PM
It's not a engineering question but a product management question. The question wasn't, How do we build a great subcompact?, the question was, We can't afford to design an all-new subcompact for the USDM so how do we sell succompacts in the USDM?
+1. Management. Every car is a compromise. What matters is did management choose the right choice of the options presented.
Read the book All Corvettes Are Red and you'll (2o6) see the choices that the men in charge of the C5 program were presented, and then the choices that were presented to the President/Chairman/Board of GM. Choices from the way the door was constructed (opt 1 - lightweight and more stiff/ opt 2 - less costly parts and faster/easier to put together) in whcih GM chose the less expensive path, to trying to thin out the A pillars (opt 1 - keep them as is and within cost / opt 2 - more expensive but thin them out and make them more elegant for visibility) in which GM went with the more expensive option.
There were many more in the book, and I'm sure there's many more that didn't make it into the book. A midsize sedan program would have wayyyy more scrutiny from management since so much profitability rides on a platform like that. A small choice can cost the company millions.
Quote from: Madman on January 09, 2013, 08:54:34 AM
Was the Aveo really that bad of a car, considering it's price?
Let's compare a base 2009 Aveo5 to what is arguably the best B-segment hatch you can buy, the 2009 Honda Fit.
2009 Chevrolet Aveo5 LS: $11,965.
2009 Honda Fit base: $14,750.
A $2,785 difference on what are already fairly inexpensive cars is a considerably large difference. But the difference on what you actually pay will be more than that. The Chevy buyer would almost have certainly received a manufacturer rebate plus a discount from the dealer. Would the Honda Fit buyer get either of these? For an exceedingly popular car which was, and continues to be, in short supply? Fat chance!
By the time it's all said and done, the new Aveo buyer would have paid well over three grand less than the Fit buyer. For someone on a tight budget, this could make all the difference in the world.
Sure, it's no contest which is the better car. All things being equal, I'd pick the Fit every time. And so would all of you, too. But a $3K (possibly close to $4K) difference in price means you really can't judge these cars by the same set of standards. Considering the Aveo was marketed as an inexpensive, bare bones transportation appliance, was it really that bad?
An $11,995 Aveo had no a/c, crank windows and no ABS. It actually carried little to no sticker price advantage over a comparably equipped Fit, and discounts weren't nearly as big as they should have been.
It's stating the obvious, but some manufacturers have an easier time of getting more for the money - better processes, less expensive labor, modern manufacturing tech, better engineers, blahblahblah
Quote from: Laconian on January 09, 2013, 11:43:56 AM
It's stating the obvious, but some manufacturers have an easier time of getting more for the money - better processes, less expensive labor, modern manufacturing tech, better engineers, blahblahblah
Better management making better decisions.
Manipulated currency too
Quote from: MrH on January 09, 2013, 12:41:56 PM
Manipulated currency too
How can Dacia do it, then, seeing that they also use the Euro?
Dacia has almost zero tooling costs. They're just old platforms and vehicles, slightly changed. Makes things a whole lot cheaper when you can build everything in Eastern Europe with free tooling.
Quote from: Laconian on January 09, 2013, 01:14:58 PM
How can Dacia do it, then, seeing that they also use the Euro?
I'm sure cheap Romanian labour has a lot to do with it.
Quote from: MrH on January 09, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Dacia has almost zero tooling costs. They're just old platforms and vehicles, slightly changed. Makes things a whole lot cheaper when you can build everything in Eastern Europe with free tooling.
And GM made J-body cars for how long?
Quote from: Laconian on January 09, 2013, 01:14:58 PM
How can Dacia do it, then, seeing that they also use the Euro?
No they don't.
Roumania is in the EU but still has its own currency.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 08, 2013, 11:20:40 PM
It's not a engineering question but a product management question. The question wasn't, How do we build a great subcompact?, the question was, We can't afford to design an all-new subcompact for the USDM so how do we sell succompacts in the USDM?
+1. A design will only be as good as it is funded to be. Give me unlimited funds and resources, and I'll produce the greatest car ever seen. Give me $5000 and a roll of duct tape, and you're going to get a POS.
I would also make the distinction between poorly designed/engineered and poorly made. A well engineered design can still be a POS if it is poorly made, and a poorly designed item can be very well made.
Quote from: Colin on January 09, 2013, 02:31:39 PM
No they don't.
Roumania is in the EU but still has its own currency.
That's right. They use chickens. It's their main food source and their currency.
(inside joke with my Romanian friends)
They use the Leu. Swift code is RON. Roughly 3.5 RON to 1 USD.
I'm going to Romania next year. :lol:
Quote from: MX793 on January 09, 2013, 03:37:44 PM
+1. A design will only be as good as it is funded to be. Give me unlimited funds and resources, and I'll produce the greatest car ever seen. Give me $5000 and a roll of duct tape, and you're going to get a POS.
This is the exact pitch the designer of the Aveo made to the GM bosses.
Quote from: Raza on January 10, 2013, 08:21:31 AM
That's right. They use chickens. It's their main food source and their currency.
(inside joke with my Romanian friends)
They use the Leu. Swift code is RON. Roughly 3.5 RON to 1 USD.
I'm going to Romania next year. :lol:
You are? What for?
My Romanian teammate keeps talking shit about his country. Over lunch I ask him open ended questions like "what types of food are good in Romania?" and he says in his usual understated way, "
Jack shit. Romanian food is
fucking terrible. I guess the only thing that is even remotely edible is pickled vegetables, because it seems that we're good at pickling shit, but everything else? Nuh-uh." :lol:
Quote from: Laconian on January 10, 2013, 11:16:18 AM
You are? What for?
My Romanian teammate keeps talking shit about his country. Over lunch I ask him open ended questions like "what types of food are good in Romania?" and he says in his usual understated way, "Jack shit. Romanian food is fucking terrible. I guess the only thing that is even remotely edible is pickled vegetables, because it seems that we're good at pickling shit, but everything else? Nuh-uh." :lol:
I'm going to be the best man in my Romanian friend's wedding. Assuming his girl says yes when he proposes next week.
Quote from: Raza on January 11, 2013, 01:39:00 PM
I'm going to be the best man in my Romanian friend's wedding. Assuming his girl says yes when he proposes next week.
Romanian chicks are hot. You should get married over there too. Nail a friend of the bride.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on January 11, 2013, 02:03:20 PM
Romanian chicks are hot. You should get married over there too. Nail a friend of the bride.
That is the plan. :praise: