The myth/lie that foreign cars are better built

[FLAprogressive]

This myth (actually a lie) has been spread by the media to discredit domestic auto manufactures and their mostly unionized workforce. While it's true that American cars lagged throughout the 90s and early 2000s, let's see who's top of the top now....

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/

Domestic Auto Manufacturer
Domestic Auto Manufacturer/UAW Built in the US

Small Cars (out of 33):
#1 Ford Fiesta
#5 Chevrolet Cruze
the new UAW made Ford Focus is supposed to be good too, but it is unranked
...some of the bottom ranked cars include
#21 Toyota Corolla
#24 Honda CR-Z
#24 Honda Insight
#26 Toyota Yaris
#28 Kia Rio
#30 Hyundai Accent
#31 Nissan Sentra

Affordable Midsize (out of 19):
#1/#3 Ford Fusion
#7 Chevrolet Malibu (Ranked higher than the Camry and Accord)

Upscale Midsize (out of 22):
#2 Buick Regal
#3 Chevrolet Volt
#6 Cadillac CTS

Affordable Large (out of 7):
#1 Ford Taurus
#3 Buick LaCrosse

I'm not posting the rest, you can look it up yourselves, but I think I've made my point. The myth that American car companies are not making cars America wants to buy is a LIE and plays into the hands of right-to-work, union busting Toyota/Honda/etc.

[Initech]

1. The new Ford Focus is incredibly nice.

Ford did a good job redesigning the thing inside and out, very solid. I test drove one and really liked it.

However I must point this out:

Buick Regal - nice car, built in Songheim, Germany out of GM's Opel plant
Ford Fusion - Another nice car (I'm planning to buy one, actually), built in Hermosillo, Mexico

[FLAprogressive]

2. Yeah, that's why I didn't bold them. Still, the money goes to support many more employees in the US

than the imports. AND some parts are union-made. Plus, the Buick Regal will be union-made by the CAW in Oshawa, Ontario beginning soon.

[Initech]

16. Interesting.

I'm buying the Ford because I'm in desperate need of a hybrid but if I didn't have that need the Buick Regal would be at the top of my list. GM did a really nice job redesigning it. And Ford has tremendously improved over the ast four years - I'm very impressed with many of their new models.

[FLAprogressive]

20. The next Buick LaCrosse is supposed to get 37 MPG, not sure the cost though.

[Honeycombe8]

55. Buick LaCrosse is coming out in hybrid form...25city/37hwy.

I hope they make it smaller. That's one of the biggest cars...no one needs such a big car. It's almost 200 inches long! That won't even fit in a lot of garages in cities.

Make it more European, where space is less than here, parking spaces are tight, and space is valued. Their cars are smaller, and since their fuel is much more expensive, a mfr can't make it there unless their cars get good gas mileage (unless it's a specialty car, I guess).

A car doesn't HAVE to be a hybrid to get good gas mileage.

Still, I like hybrids. Lexus has come out with an entry level hatchback hybrid....43 MPG in the city. Now THAT'S a hybrid. And it's small, of course. Maybe too small? But very comfortable, and drives very smoothly with a quiet interior. It's a beauty.

[FLAprogressive]

58. What about a family with 2 kids? A car like the LaCrosse would be a smarter, more fuel-efficient

choice.

[Honeycombe8]

115. Many more cars more practical than a luxury sedan 200 inches long for a family.

Get a hatchback wagon type of vehicle that has an easy-load cargo area, fold down seats, and seats six comfortably. You can find them with decent gas mileage. And shorter than 197 inches long.

Sedan's, IMO, are for old folks, or for people who have a primary vehicle, and they use the sedan for luxury purposes. Sedans aren't very useful for running errands to Home Depot, Sam's, baseball equipment, etc., and commuting to work. Hatchback wagons are very utilitarian, and they come in different sizes with varying mgp.

[Initech]

72. I looked at that Lexus hybrid.

It's nice but when I sat in it it was quite small. It's good to know that GM is building more hybrids though.

[Honeycombe8]

116. Yeah, it's pretty small. Best as a 2nd vehicle, I think. Still...

it had a very useful cargo area. No wasted space. Seats fold down flat. And the ride was great, the experience was comfortable and upscale. The audio was one of the best I've heard. Low road noise. It's a quality vehicle. Lexus is one of the best makes on the market with extremely high reliability.

If I get the Lexus CT200h, I'd probably keep my old Subaru as my go-to-Home-Depot and tote-the-dogs-around car. But I've decided to wait to buy because of the Tsunami.

I'm going to test drive the new Ford hatchback, though. It gets great gas mileage and is supposedly upscale inside. But Ford has a bad habit of making its cargo areas not useful...seats don't fold down flat to maximize the space or for dogs to ride in. But I'll check it out.

[Initech]

163. I drove the hatchback Focus as well.

It seems Ford has learned from their past mistakes. It was designed in conjunction with Ford Europe and the results are crazy. No wasted space at all and I actually read a review where they said it used better quality interior materials than the Audi A4 did. And it's built in Michigan at that.

[blue_onyx]

169. I like the Foucs

Ford has been test driving them like crazy near me. I probably past 15 of them on the five minute drive to Meijer today. Looks like a really nice vehicle. Should be a big hit for Ford.

[Initech]

171. I can't wait until I get my Fusion.

[madokie]

105. Electric assist

is what they're calling it as it uses a small battery to assist the ICE during accelerating and hill climbing. I like the idea and I'm a full bore ford man.

[Honeycombe8]

118. 25 mpg city is not very good for a hybrid. But it's better than 19.

Some hybrids increase mileage only a few mpgs, but the car costs $5,000 to $7,000 more. Not worth it. I'd never buy a car like that. It's gimmicky. Other hybrids cost just several thousand more, and increase mileage significantly. Those are the ones I'm considering. Other cars aren't hybrids, but get great gas mileage. That's my preference.

The new Lexus is small, but gets 43mpg city.

Prius gets about 48mpg city.

Volt (plug-in)...gets...well, it's so much that it's hard to calculate. (But you can't buy them now; all sold out.)

[Honeycombe8]

44. Ford Fiesta is made in Mexico.

I test drove one.

[FLAprogressive]

48. I know that, I'm not a dumbass. That's why I didn't bold it. Take some time and read the OP.

[DainBramaged]

82. Prius is made in Japan

feel better?

[peacebird]

3. I prefer a small fuel efficient car, and looked at American companies first always

Mid-80s - nope. Big cars, no small ones. Bought a Suzuki Samurai
Mid 90's - tried again - I bought a jeep wrangler.
Early 2000's - nope - got a Prius
Last year - gave in to my hubby and ended up with a monster suv - Subaru...

[FLAprogressive]

4. the new Ford Focus gets up to 40 MPG....

[peacebird]

6. I was saying that HISTORICALLY the American car company has not built cars I wanted

As I said - this last car was chosen by my hubby - who wanted the allwheel drive of the Subaru.
This last car was his choice, not mine.

[we can do it]

161. I Bought My Subaru For Multiple Reasons. 1 Safety. 2 Manual Transmission

3. interior room in a small car 4. outstanding winter driving 5. functionality

Sorry GM lost me after not offering manual transmission, telling a long term customer that no one drives a stick - having interiors too small for my dad to fit in (my outback sport is the same size as our 96 saturn sc1) - he couldn't fit in it if he tried - we'd have to cut his poor old stiff legs off.

I don't need to have my car lock the doors for me, I can do that myself.

[Honeycombe8]

62. Me, too. In 1997...and this year. I REALLY researched American cars.

Ford is the only mfr that had models I was looking for.

I test drove the Ford Fiesta (I was considering a small, urban type car that gets good mileage). Cute car. Nice interior. But it's larger than other cars I looked at, dimension-wise, but inside, it's like...where's all the space? I can't figure out how they made it so cramped and small inside. The back seat is really useless for adults. Really. And the back seats don't fold down flat for the cargo area. Which makes the already tiny cargo area even less useful. It drove great, though, handled bumps well, had a lot of techie stuff (that I don't care about), decent audio, and was very comfortable for the driver. (Did I mention how cool and cute it is? It's WAY cute and funky looking. And I was SO comfortable driving it. It's a great car, if a person doesn't need the back seat, which I don't. But I DO need more cargo space.)

I decided not to buy a car THAT small, though.

I'm testing driving the new Ford Focus hatchback as soon as I get the time. I'm afraid I'll find the same faults as I found w/the Fiesta, but I'll see. The seats not folding down flat in the back is a deal killer for me.

I researched all sorts of SUVs, hatchbacks, wagons, compact cars, subcompact cars. Almost never did an American car make it to my list because of RELIABILITY and OWNER SATISFACTION. Other mfrs also had trouble w/reliability and owner satisfaction, though, like BMW and Audi. Just because a car is expensive doesn't mean it's reliable. I guess rich people buy a new car every few years, so reliability doesn't matter.

[SheilaT]

5. If it had not been for the Japanese and

German car makers, American cars would still be the pieces of crap that they were up to the 1980's.

I can recall in the early 80's, my husband (who'd worked for a while for the National Automobile Dealers Association in DC) telling me that the U.S. auto companies were beginning to get very nervous about the Japanese car makers, who were overtly striving to win as much of the U.S. market as possible.

Up to that point the Japanese cars tended to have a deserved reputation for being not only inexpensive to own and operate, but to be small and uncomfortable, and quite frankly not the kind of car most middle-class people would want to own.

[FLAprogressive]

7. Well, it's different now, so I don't know why those stereotypes continue to linger

[SheilaT]

49. I have gotten used to driving Hondas.

When my Civic needs replacing, I think I'll get the Fit, which gets at least 35 mpg. Somehow, at my age, I still have trouble seeing American cars as being well made and having good fuel economy. Yes, I read the OP.

[FLAprogressive]

51. Why are you allowing stereotypes to linger??? Why not get a 2012 Focus, bigger and gets better MPG

and it is rated higher than the Fit. Plus, it is built by UNION workers.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/ford_focus_2012

http://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/honda_fit_2011

[SheilaT]

97. I currently drive a 2004 Civic. 65,000 miles on it.

I don't need a replacement car, and when I get one it will probably be a used car. And I'm oddly addicted to the amazing reliability of a Honda.

[BobbyBoring]

132. I don't know either

Since Americans usually have very short memories:eyes:

[elias49]

8. Sorry, I'd rather drive my 1997 BMW than a brand new Chevy Volt.

Just saying.

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. Can I be your mechanic? n/t

[elias49]

166. Haha! Everything's already been fixed. A couple of times!

[darkstar3]

9. That list is crap

It doesn't deal with reliability (note the NA), and on some cars they didn't even bother to investigate safety. The list deals entirely with critera which are subjective, yet have been quantified, such as performance, exterior, and interior. As compared to what?

If you want car rankings, check Edmonds, and check Consumer Reports. They actually take into account the fact that a car is an investment, not a status symbol, toy, or fashion statement.

[FLAprogressive]

13. That rag? It is well known that CR is biased in favor of Toyota.

[darkstar3]

14. Of course they are. Why their top 10 of 2010 is just LITTERED with Toyotas...

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/cr-recommended/top-picks/overview/top-picks-ov.htm

:sarcasm:

[FLAprogressive]

15. Consumer reports has had a long, well-known bias against American cars

http://www.autospies.com/news/Should-You-Trust-Consumer-Reports-18905/

[darkstar3]

33. The article you link to lacks rigor.

Take this section:

The current issue of Consumer Reports purports to offer a comparison test of the new Toyota Tundra pick-up truck and the Chevy Silverado, as well as the Dodge Ram and Ford F-150.

So, you’d expect them to get comparable vehicles, wouldn’t you?

Apparently not if you’re the people at Consumer Reports. They pitted the Tundra with the optional 5.7 liter V-8 against the Chevy with the standard 5.3 liter engine, producing 66 hp less than the Tundra. They could have used the 6.0 liter optional Vortec V-9 MAX which is more closely comparable to the optional Toyota engine, but they chose not to.

The author's opinion is immaterial to the fact of Consumer Reports comparing apples to apples. They compared Toyota's V8 offering with Chevy's V8 offering. That the horsepowers are different is merely a fact of engineering. One car or truck maker can put more horsepower into a V8 package than another, and Toyota did just that. Consumer reports was right not to use the V9 Chevy package, because that would have been an apples to oranges comparison.

I'm not surprised at the ire raised in the webpage you link to, though. In my experience in rural MO, when Chevys lose, someone's manhood is insulted.

[FLAprogressive]

35. No, they compared an optional piece of equipment to a standard piece of equipment

[darkstar3]

41. Rationalize it all you want. They compared the V8 from one manufacturer to the V8 from the other.

[EOTE]

113. They compared the base V8 GM to the optional V8 Toyota.

They could have used the optional V8 in the GM as well, no? It's far closer to the hp/tq figures of the optional Toyota V8 (which add a full liter of displacement), it also brings the cost of the GM closer to the Toyota's. So why, exactly, is this a fair comparison?

[darkstar3]

120. Again, apples to apples means that they compare the closest block size and type.

The Chevy didn't HAVE a 5.7 liter V8. It has either a 5.3L V8, a 6.2L V8, or a 6.0L V9. The V9 is obviously out because it isn't apples to apples with the Toyota V8. That leaves either the 5.3L or the 6.2L. Now, simple math, which one is closer to the 5.7L offered by Toyota?

5.7 - 5.3 = 0.4L
6.2 - 5.7 = 0.5L <-- Bigger difference

The 5.3L V8 from the Chevy is the closest comparable engine to the 5.7L V8 from Toyota.

[EOTE]

124. You have got to be kidding me.

Either you know extremely little about cars or you're being incredibly obtuse. First of all, you should know that there's no such thing as a "V9". You can't have a "V" engine with an odd number of cylinders. That you thought this was referring to an engine which doesn't exist should automatically disqualify you from making a comment regarding this. The V9, in this case, is referring to the model, which as part of the Vortec series, is LQ9. Once again, we're talking about a V8 here, not a V9, which doesn't exist. And for you to talk simply in terms of displacement shows even more how uninformed you are about this subject. The Toyota uses overhead cams which allow for a greater specific output (a figure which means absolutely nothing by itself). For comparable hp and tq figures, the GM not only will out tow the Toyota, but provide better fuel economy as well. So, comparing the 5.3 liter V8 to the 5.7 liter V8 of the Toyota instead of the 6.0 liter V8 is incredibly stupid and unfair. As to why you're mentioning the 6.2 liter, that's well beyond me as that wasn't even mentioned in the section you're talking about. The 6.0 liter V8 is far closer in terms of output figures and in terms of the overall cost. Once again, the 6 liter is the one that should have been compared and ANY respectable car magazine will tell you that.

Really, I'd suggest learning a little something about cars before making such ridiculous statements. A V9 engine? Really?

[darkstar3]

153. You need to calm the fuck down and read.

The V9 Vortec is a special package available for the Chevy Silverado. I KNOW it's not ACTUALLY 9 cylinders, as that would be ridiculous, but one of the reasons it's referred to AS a V9 is because of the extra injection power of the Vortec package. It's not a standard V8, by any stretch of the imagination.

Once again, the V9 Vortec package is unfair to compare with standard V8s. That leaves the 5.3L offering, because on further review, the 6.2L that I found on the Chevy website is actually the 2011 Vortec package.

BTW: Displacement is directly related to torque and horsepower capacities, and increasing the displacement is the most reliable way to increase those capacities. Cams, valve trains, and injection features can only do so much. But what do I know? I'm just a well-educated engineer...If you want to know which of these trucks is better from a purely quantitative standpoint, then I or Consumer Reports can help you. If you want to know which truck is more "manly", I suggest you drive them both and find out which one makes you feel better.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

185. "It has either a 5.3L V8, a 6.2L V8, or a 6.0L V9."

Yep, it's clear that you didn't think it didn't have 9 cylinders. Let me repeat "a 6.0L V9".

Then you say "but one of the reasons it's referred to AS a V9 is because of the extra injection power of the Vortec package. It's not a standard V8, by any stretch of the imagination."

Oh my sides, they ache. No, it's not referred to as a V9, there's no such thing as a V9, V9 is a typo and you think it's real. The author meant to refer to LQ9. And "extra injection power of the Vortech package" really? You are aware that ALL of these GM V8s are Vortec engines, right? Including the 5.3. It has nothing to do with "extra injection power", but it did give me a big chuckle. Once again, THESE ARE ALL VORTEC ENGINES. Nothing you've said on this subject has been even remotely accurate.

[darkstar3]

277. This

from the poster who has turned this thread into a laughingstock of a flamefest. I'll bet your truck can out-tow my truck, your dad can beat up my dad, and on, and on, and on...

I don't need a ruler to measure my self worth, and therefore I refuse to get into a measuring contest with you. Goodbye.

[EOTE]

283. LOL.

So you still insist that autospies was referring to a V9 engine? Are you so petty that you can't admit that you tried to use a typo as one of your talking points? Care to explain to me what this V9 engine is again?

[EOTE]

285. And please tell me where I mentioned anything about "my truck".

I have no interest in a truck, will never own one. But you need to find some way to insult me because I've pointed out how incredibly ignorant you are on this subject. Please tell me more about this V9 with Vortec injection package. I'm dying to know about it.

[EOTE]

289. But I've got so much more I can learn from you.

V9s, Vortec injection packages. There's so much automotive know-how you've amassed in your career as an engineer. Surely you deem me worthy of learning from your massive experience. I come to you in all humility.

[EOTE]

188. " It's not a standard V8, by any stretch of the imagination."

This is the one thing you've said that's accurate. GM makes the best OHV V8s in the world. And some of the best V8s overall.

[darkstar3]

276. An unsubstantiated claim.

[EOTE]

284. It's far more substantiated than your V9 engine.

Please explain that one to me again. Something about the "Vortec injection package" wasn't it? Please educate me. I'm dying to learn more about this V9. I think it could really revolutionize engine design.

[EOTE]

125. And a little more math for you.

Not that this is really applicable at all because we're talking about entirely different valve trains, but:

5.7 - 5.3 = .4L
6.0 - 5.7 = .3L

Now which is the bigger difference?

Not that this should even apply because when comparing engines, overall displacement doesn't mean a whole lot without factoring in valve trains, type of induction, fuel injection and such. Really, without having the slightest knowledge of automotive technology, you're really not qualified to make any statements on the topic.

[darkstar3]

154. And neither is Consumer Reports in your book, correct?

Which just shows me that you care more about passionate and pointless brand-loyalty than you do about fair and effective quantitative analysis. Face it, if the shoe was on the other foot and your precious Chevy had won the comparison test, you'd be touting Consumer Reports to everyone who cared about the topic, and trashing anyone who said the comparison was unfair as a paid Toyota shill.

Frankly, when I want the opinion of an authority on product testing and selection, I know where to turn. Anonymous internet sites and blogs don't factor into my decision-making.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

186. ""but one of the reasons it's referred to AS a V9 is because of the extra injection power of the Vor

No, it's not referred to as a V9 at all, you made that up from a typo in the article. Devry owes you a refund.

[EOTE]

139. Crickets?

I'm awaiting your next brilliant reply as to why Consumer Reports is a bastion of fairness and equality.

[darkstar3]

151. Some people have work to do.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

290. There are those crickets again.

As soon as you get the chance, I'd love to learn more about this V9 of yours. And how the LQ9 is wildly different from the other GM OHV V8s even though they're all Vortecs and share all parts in common except for those pertaining to bore and stroke. I mean, as you said, it's not a typical V8 by any stretch of the imagination, right? Surely you should be able to educate me on these things. Isn't it fun talking about things of which you're wholly uneducated?

[NoGOPZone]

152. On their blog, they explain the rationale behind the equipment they selected

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2007/08/pickup-truck-te.html#comments-content

[darkstar3]

155. It doesn't matter because they're biased.

They showed their bias clearly by not engaging in American Superiority, so no matter what they say it can't be true...:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoGOPZone]

149. What autospies, whoever they are, isn't telling you is this

CR puts a big emphasis on fuel economy with their ratings. If in fact they did test the Chevy with a bigger engine and the numerically higher axle ratio, the mileage would have suffered as the towing and acceleration improved. I'd suspect overall the Chevy would have gotten an even lower overall score had it been outfitted as suggested.

P.S. The only two car companies to sue CR over negative reviews were not domestic manufactures, and were, in fact, Japanese.

[EOTE]

178. The 6.0 gets the same fuel economy as Toyota's 5.7.

While producing better torque and with better towing figures. So, that's a bullshit excuse.

[NoGOPZone]

182. Even if it does get the same as the similar Toyota, it doesn't get the same

mileage as the smaller Chevy engine, nor would the numerically higher axle ratio get the same mileage. This is addressed in the blog posting. The scores for fuel economy are based on an absolute scale, not relative to its competitors. The fact is, increasing the Chevy's towing and acceleration ability with the better drivetrain would result in a lower score for fuel economy and most likely a lower overall score given the weighting.

"Even if we picked a Silverado that towed more, either via a different axle ratio or the 6.0-liter engine, it is no guarantee that it would result in a higher Overall Score. We weigh fuel economy more than towing capacity, and either change in the truck's equipment would adversely affect the fuel economy score."

[EOTE]

184. That makes plenty of sense.

They don't harp on the Toyota's inferior fuel economy, but they do make quite a note of the Chevy's acceleration and lack of torque. All of these issues would be resolved with the larger engine, and would have placed the cars far more equally in terms of equipment. But an equal match was never the intention.

[NoGOPZone]

187. If you bothered actually reading the issue

you'd find that the Toyota's tested mileage actually EXCEEDED the Chevy's, by a small margin, so it would be pretty hard to harp on inferior fuel mileage, wouldn't it? You'd also learn that the towing rating was only a small portion of the total score, as it is every time CR tests trucks, so the lack of torque was hardly a major issue. Furthermore, you continue to ignore the fact that this supposedly equal equipment would have likely resulted in lower overall score for the Chevy due to the decrease in fuel mileage.

Therefore, the party here attempting to obscure the facts is Autospies, which never bothered adressing the issues CR made in their blog entry, nor did they bother telling you that the Chevy Avalanche, when tested, easily outscored the Tundra.

[EOTE]

189. EPA ratings for the larger engine are the same.

So any differences very well could be attributed to the same Toyota bias CR is renowned for. CR will of course say that they configured the vehicles in the most positive light, but their review reveals that lie quite plainly. If they want to do a decent review, they need to equip the vehicles similarly. A 60+ hp deficit does not do that at all.

[NoGOPZone]

190. EPA ratings don't always translate to the real world results, do they?

That the whole purpose of actually measuring mileage, isn't it? Of course, you'll assume that the test was biased somehow, without any proof, only with the reverse argument that the since the Toyota did better, this somehow proves bias. Nothing like using results to make a conclusion about how the data was gathered, instead of using data to come up with results. What's really funny is that if CR didn't bother testing the vehicles, I'm sure we'd hear whining that they're mileage ratings are useless without any real world data.

Now why don't you address the issue you keep avoiding? The 6.0 Chevy has an EPA rating of two MPG highway less than the smaller CHevy engine that was used. This most likely would have in lower real world mileage in the test. Lower real world mileage, given the emphasis on this measurement, likely would have resulted in a lower overall score.

[EOTE]

191. Reverse argument is exactly what CR is doing there.

It's pretty hilarious that you don't see it. They lambaste Chevy for deficits they themselves created by not comparing equal cars. Then when called on their ridiculous and biased testing standards, the excuse they use is "Well, if we HAD done a fair comparison, Chevy would have done even worse." Yep, that's entirely scientific.

On edit: typo.

[NoGOPZone]

192. Keep avoiding the facts

The torque and tow rating were only a small portion of the score. The bigger Chevy engine would have resulted in lower fuel milegae. A better acceleration score would have been offset by the lower mileage score. What's you argument going to be now? The bigger chevy engine would have increased towing, fuel economy, and acceleration? Talk about hilarous.

On edit: What's the CR is biased conspiracy theory about how the Avalanche did so well? Is it because they had to praise at least one Chevy to maintain the appearance of neutrality?

[EOTE]

193. Keep justifying shoddy journalism.

Why not compare a 2WD Chevy to a 4WD Toyota? The Chevy would have better fuel economy, right? How about standard vs. King cab? Hell, why not compare a Tundra to a Chevy Cruze Eco, the Eco would get twice as good fuel economy, have much better handling and cost about half as much. Wow, what a decisive win! I mean, direct comparisons are worthless, right?

[NoGOPZone]

195. If I wanted to justify shoddy journalism, I'd be endorsing Autospies

Which considered only one possible explanation for the differing scores and never bothered addressing the issues that CR raised, nor explained to its readers how an organization biased against domestics gave such high praise to a domestic model.

Furthermore, it's Autospies who introduced the V-9 error, another example of shoddy journalism. I suspect they're confused with the V-9 Supercharge Vortech Industries makes for certain Chevy engines, including the 6.0

[EOTE]

198. CR's retort to the myriad claims was worthless.

It basically amounted to a ton of hemming and hawing followed by them saying that they never intended to compare similarly equipped vehicles. Then by saying; "Besides, if we had done a fair comparison, Chevy would have done worse." Yep, that's totally scientific. That's objective journalism right there.

[NoGOPZone]

199. Right, worthless, and in depth review of all the points the

two paragraph Autospies hit and run piece address and more. If there's anything that's worthless, it's the arguments of those who claim CR is biased.

and whether you like it or not, the Chevy WOULD have done worse with the different equipment. I guess now were back to bias over incompetence.

[EOTE]

201. Keep telling yourself that.

Swallow everything CR says without question. Every major automotive publication will compare vehicles of similar trim and option levels. If CR wants to go against the grain, that's fine, but they shouldn't attempt to hide their bias with their bullshit claims. And the ridiculous assertion that if they had done a fair comparison that the opposition would have done worse is plain despicable. If they had done a fair comparison to begin with, they wouldn't need to make such a journalistic travesty.

[NoGOPZone]

204. Seems you've swallowed everything Autospies told you

without any critical thinking. Furthermore, my argument here is not beliving all of CR reviews. simply that those who claim they are biased are as more biased then CR is. You claim that CR is going against the grain and not comparing similar vehicles is your opinion, one that doesn't conform to what I've seen and read. Now about those geniuses at Autospies, why are they confusing a supercharger with an engine itself?

[EOTE]

208. Your argument IS to believe all of CR reviews.

You've used numerous appeals to authority in your comments. And what you've seen and read doesn't have all that much weight considering your limited knowledge in cars. As for a simple mistake on their part (V9 vs. LQ9), that's a lot less foolish than the argument I'm having regarding this CR review. Who seems to think that a V9 is an actual engine type. Talk about confused.

[NoGOPZone]

212. There's a difference bettween believing CR reviews, and believing

that they are HONEST in the reviews. I can believing in someone's integrity without concuring in their opinon. And it's funny that you're accusing me of an appeal to authority the same time you tell me I have a limited knowledge of cars. And where have I said the V9 is an actual engine type? Talk about confused, indeed!

[EOTE]

214. I wasn't talking about you.

I was talking about this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=886832&mesg_id=890390

You can add this hilarity to your belief that there are 1.22 cubic inch automotive engines.

[NoGOPZone]

216. You said "who seems to think V9 is an actual engine type?"

if you weren't referring to me, address the other poster. I can't be responsible for other peoples comments.

[EOTE]

219. You're both making the same arguments.

And you both have the same level of automotive knowledge. You think Ford makes an engine with the same displacement as a model aircraft engine for a passenger car. Same thing with Volkswagen. That alone makes your opinion utterly unqualified.

[NoGOPZone]

221. Nice try, but you screwed up

you confused me with another poster. That says all I need to know about your reading skills. I see you continue to make appeals to authority after accusing me of doing so, saying that my supposed lack of technical knowledge somehow impacts my analysis of CR supposed bias.

[EOTE]

225. Your journalistic skills are just as lame as your automotive skills

Most people tend not to throw around numbers and units they're completely in the dark about. And once again, I wasn't referring to you (do you need to be told this again?). I was talking about the collective automotive knowledge of those defending CR. You both are at the same level, you know absolutely nothing about cars. That makes your opinion less than irrelevant.

[NoGOPZone]

230. Collective Knowledge! How brilliant! You want me to defend

statements other people have made! Makes sense, since you aren't making a dent in my statements.

Keep it up with the appeal to authority. Since I supposedly know nothing about cars, I can't comment on CR neutrality. Brilliant reasoning.

[EOTE]

232. I've made more than a dent, I've destroyed them.

And proven that you know absolutely zero about cars to begin with. You got units off by two entire orders of magnitude and you want to be taken seriously.

[NoGOPZone]

236. You don't even realize that the bigger engine would decrease the gas mileage

but you're claiming superior knowledge? :rofl:

[EOTE]

238. The bigger engine would have provided fuel economy equal to the bigger Toyota engine.

Which is what I've said from the start. Your idiotic attempts at deflection aside. This is exactly why it's the only reasonable choice for the comparison.

[NoGOPZone]

240. But it wouldn't have provided fuel economy EQUAL TO THE SMALLER CHEVY

engine. I know what you've said from the start, and you keep missing the point. You use a bigger Chevy engine, and the Chevy's mileage suffers, not the Toyota. Hence the Chevy score suffers.

[EOTE]

243. Are you suggesting that Toyota's 5.7 liter gets the same fuel economy as the 4.7?

Because BOTH manufacturers fuel economy suffers when moving to the larger engine. But they decided not to include the Chevy's larger engine so they could slam it. If they had used comparable engines, they'd THEN have the authority to slam the Chevy for getting worse MPG. But the EPA's testings are far more thorough than CR's.

[NoGOPZone]

246. Nope, I'm not. Switching the Toyota's engine wasn't the basis of AutoSpies complaint

They said if you use the Toyota 5.7, which was done, then use the Chevy 6.0. That does a lot for the Chevy's acceleration and towing. It hurts the fuel economy.

"But the EPA's testings are far more thorough than CR's" CR records it's real world mileage based on its test track. If CR used EPA numbers, people would complain that their mileage ratings are realistic since they're based on EPA estimates.

[EOTE]

248. So they used the smaller Chevy because it gets better fuel economy.

And they used the larger Toyota because it gets worse fuel economy. That makes plenty of sense.

[NoGOPZone]

251. Again, they used the smaller Chevy engine because manufacturer's data

indicated that was the most popular. Strange idea huh, a consumer magazine comparing cars that people have a tendency to buy. :rofl:

[EOTE]

254. So which is it?

You've waffled back and for numerous times. Is it because it's the more popular engine or because it gets better fuel economy. You can't seem to decide.

[NoGOPZone]

257. Who said it was picked BECAUSE it gets better fuel economy? nt

[EOTE]

259. Both you and consumer reports.

Numerous times.

[NoGOPZone]

261. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[EOTE]

265. Hilarious, huh?

"Now why don't you address the issue you keep avoiding? The 6.0 Chevy has an EPA rating of two MPG highway less than the smaller CHevy engine that was used. This most likely would have in lower real world mileage in the test."

"The bigger Chevy engine would have resulted in lower fuel milegae. A better acceleration score would have been offset by the lower mileage score."

[NoGOPZone]

267. Neither of which indicates that mileage was the REASON the particular Chevy engine was picked.

You're too funny.

[EOTE]

194. And if CR values fuel economy so much, why didn't they equip the Toyota with the 4.7?

It gets much better fuel economy. Why are they hobbling Toyota with the disadvantage of using the larger engine? And your comment regarding the Avalanche is priceless. They praised the Avalanche for much of the same reason, because they're a worthless reviewing organization. The Avalanche is a piece of crap. That they'd praise that monstrosity is no surprise with me.

[NoGOPZone]

196. If you bothered reading the article

you learn that, as much as possible, they buy vehicles with options and trim levels that reflect manufacturers sales figures and hence what most people buy, subject of course to lot availabilty.

What's priceless is how quickly you're changing your complaints. When shown that CR will praise domestics, now the major issue is incompetence, not outright bias. More of the damned if they do, damned if they don't mentality of CR haters. When they criticize a domestic, it's because of bias. If they praise a domestic, it's because of incompetence.

[EOTE]

197. It's incompetence AND bias.

I haven't seen their review of the Avalanche, but it's pretty much in a class of its own. I can't imagine they'd be comparing it to any Toyota, so it seems like that's quite a moot point that it's a domestic.

And if you're not going to be comparing vehicles of at least semi-comparable levels of equipment, you can't really say you're doing an unbiased review. And you certainly lose the right to complain about issue that solely arise due to the way the test was setup. If you want to do a car comparison, you need comparable cars. It's as simple as that.

[NoGOPZone]

200. A class of its own? Tell the to the EPA

I'm pretty sure it's classified as a Full Size SUV, and when tested by CR would have been tested with other newly redesigned full size SUVs, with the scores then compared to previously tested vehicles. The Avalanche did quite well overall, both

Now, you can claim that the difference in engine size is so great that the two vehicles aren't even 'semi-comparable'. I find that claim ridiculous, and the conclusions based on that assumption equally invalid.

[EOTE]

202. A full size SUV with a truck bed.

THAT is what people are looking for when they buy such a vehicle. It's also a vehicle that no Japanese manufacturers make. Comprende?

[NoGOPZone]

205. Do you understand EPA categories? nt

[EOTE]

209. Do you understand vehicle classes?

Clearly you don't.

[NoGOPZone]

210. I know how the EPA classified it. But I guess the EPA matters only

when we are comparing the gas mileage ratings of Toyota and Chevy vehicle!

[EOTE]

231. Because everyone looking for a full size SUV with a truck bed is going to look for a Toyota.

Your arguments are so silly, I can't imagine you expect to be taken seriously.

On edit: typo.

[NoGOPZone]

247. You're insistence on generating your own classes are what's silly nt

[EOTE]

250. Yep. Because people looking for a BMW 1 series are also looking at Chevy Aveos.

Because they're both compact cars according to the EPA. They're obviously in the same class.

[NoGOPZone]

253. Right, but people who consider the Avalanche won't consider another full size SUV

which is your argument.

[EOTE]

256. Not without a truck bed.

Which is what you don't seem to understand.

[NoGOPZone]

260. So I guess people who want a pickup won't even consider an Avalanche.

[EOTE]

262. Sure they would.

Are you telling me that CR included Japanese pickups in this comparison?

[NoGOPZone]

264. I'm telling you that they tested it against other full size SUvs

don't recall which ones. Imagine that, comparing the Avalanche with other vehicles people might buy.

On edit: My mistake. The tested it against a Yaris. There's that CR incompetence, again.

[EOTE]

300. Yep. The Ford F150 and Dodge Ram.

Three domestics and surprise, surprise, a domestic wins! Clearly this proves that CR isn't biased.

[EOTE]

301. Another of your lame notions is destroyed.

Yes, Chevy recommending the Avalanche is definitive proof that CR doesn't have a bias against domestics. Even though when they praised the vehicle so, it was up against two other domestics. Brilliant reasoning here. You bring being wrong to a whole other level.

[EOTE]

203. It's not only engine size, it's overhead cams vs. overhead valves.

That's why the larger Chevy engine is more comparable. Not only does the Toyota have almost a half liter displacement advantage, but also overhead valves. If you knew anything about automotive technology at all, you'd know this is the bigger factor.

[NoGOPZone]

207. I don't know about auto technology? I know the difference between

an engine and a supercharger. Apparently, autospies doesn't. ;-)

Right, so the cam system make the two vehicles not even semi comparable. Maybe I ought to go through every Car and Driver and Road and Track review ever to make sure they've always OHV to OHV and OHC to OHC, and accuse them of bias if they havent.

On edit: Speak of the Devil! C&D compares a Forc Focus SEl with 1.22 ci Four with a Volkswagend Jetta 2.5 SEl with a 1.51 inline 5. Bias! Incompetence! Shoddy Journalism!

[EOTE]

211. What don't you understand? It's both.

It's not JUST the cams, it's the fact that the engine not only has that advantage, but nearly half a liter of displacement too. That makes the engines not comparable. That's why the 6 liter would be the only obvious and fair choice. And the reason you won't obviously find car review sites always comparing OHC to OHC and OHV to OHV is because car manufacturers obviously have different engine designs. That's why they simply compare vehicles of comparable POWER, got it? They obviously didn't do that here. I've seen many a Buick 3.8 go against a Toyota 3.0. That's obviously a fair comparison.

And for you to bring up the V9 typo is pretty hilarious. The other CR defender here thinks that a V9 IS an engine.

[NoGOPZone]

215. The point you keep missing, likely deliberately

is that CR was never comparing acceleration to acceleration, or towing to towing, or power to power. If they were, you'd have a point. They were comparing the OVERALL vehicle. And the fact is that the overall score would not have changed much and likely would have gone down with the different engine.

By the way, in the C&D article, they compare a 170HP VW with a 138 HP Cruze. UNfair.

I brought up the V9 'typo' because of you point on shoddy journalism. Even if we assume that is the source of the Autospies error, it is still shoddy journalism.

[EOTE]

220. You're once again taking everything they say at face value.

And yes, that is a poor comparison, they should have used the 2.0 in VW instead, but that would have put it at a deficit at only 115hp. And they couldn't have used a more powerful Chevy engine, because they don't put one in the Cruze. So, when you've got limited engine options, you do what you have to do. In CR's case, they didn't have limited options, they had an engine that was directly comparable and they didn't use it. Then the lambasted Chevy for the choice that they made. In this case, they had a directly comparable engine. They didn't use it.

[NoGOPZone]

224. You're making faulty assumptions

Specifically, the assumption that Chevy was somehow 'lambasted', and the assumption that the Chevy would have done better OVERALL with the different engine. Furthermore, as already explained to you, CR buys it vehicles with options based on manufacturers sales figures regarding what people buy . Of course, you assume that it's to handicap a certain maker.

[EOTE]

227. It doesn't matter what the assumptions are.

Just that because CR decided to do a ridiculous and biased review to begin with, assumptions have to be made. You're perfectly fine with an organization that's supposed to be objective, to the effect saying that it's OK that they didn't do a fair review to begin with, because if they had, the Chevy would have lost worse. You're perfectly fine with that journalistic abortion.

[EOTE]

213. 1.22 ci four? 1.51 inline 5?

Are you aware that 1.22 ci is about 2/100ths of a liter? 1.51 is a little more. I'm supposed to take you seriously on this subject when you can't even get automotive units correct within 2 orders of magnitude? And once again, I've addressed this issue, BOTH ENGINES MAKE SIMILAR POWER. Understand? Of course not. Was this Ford Focus powered by a single cylinder model aircraft engine?

[NoGOPZone]

217. I'm supposed to take you seriously for hyping on an obvious typo?

You are aware that one is a four cylinder engine and one is a five?

[EOTE]

218. Obvious typo that you made twice in the same thought.

Yeah, I buy that. I type random periods everywhere twice, especially right after numbers and units I'm completely oblivious of. Are you aware that my contention from the beginning is that engines of similar POWER should be used?

[NoGOPZone]

222. You are apparently good at leaving out question marks,

Like when you asked "Who think the V-9 is an actual engine?" or whatever it was. So I guess that disqualifies everything you've said.


Yeah, I am aware of your contention. Again, here is the problem. The comparison was never SOLELY about the Chevy vs Toyota power, acceleration and towing. If it was, you'd have a point. IT was a comparison of two vehicles on SEVERAL criteria, with fuel economy being a major one. The contention of mine that you keep avoiding is that the engine you desire would have hurt the fuel economy score. You never address that issue.

[EOTE]

223. That's because it was a statement, not a question.

I tend to leave question marks out of statement, maybe you do things differently. So wanna try again, genius?

[NoGOPZone]

226. OK, so that was a declarative statement.

As in, "Who's on first"! That makes sense.

You succeeded in one thing, making this discussion about grammar. Good job, since you weren't succeeding at the other topic.

[EOTE]

229. This is Karen, who happens to work for the government.

Notice how that statement doesn't have a question mark? Or are you going to go after me for the lack of a comma? Your other arguments are certainly as devoid of substance.

[NoGOPZone]

233. Well sure I am going to go after you for that.

If you want to make this discussion about periods and grammar, why not?

[EOTE]

234. This has nothing to do with grammar.

It has to do with you not having any idea what a cubic inch is and still expecting to be taken seriously in a discussion regarding cars.

[NoGOPZone]

237. It doesn't? If you take the period out, you get 122 cubic inches, don't you?

Yeah, it's about grammar, and you made it about grammar. Can't say I blame you considering how poorly you were doing otherwise.

[EOTE]

239. You don't make two of the same typos in the same sentence.

You were obviously confusing liters with cubic inches. If you made the mistake once, I'd say it was about an errant period, twice shows that you have no idea what a cubic inch is.

[NoGOPZone]

242. Sure, no one's ever done that. Funny thing is, you've provided a plausible explanation for

my typo, and don't even realize it!

[EOTE]

244. The plausible explanation is that you confused liters for cubic inches.

And that's every bit as dumb as not realizing they don't make such liliputian engines to begin with. Perhaps even moreso.

[NoGOPZone]

249. Ah, the limited possible explanations of an Autospies supporter! nt

[EOTE]

252. What's so funny is that the VW you were talking about had its displacement in it name.

It's a 2.5 liter engine. You were either thinking it was a 1.51 liter 5 cylinder or a 1.51 cubic inch engine. Either one is wholly ridiculous.

[NoGOPZone]

255. What's 2.5 liters in cubic inches? nt

[EOTE]

258. 151 cubic inches.

Perhaps you have some disorder where you instinctively divide everything by 100?

[NoGOPZone]

263. Is that similar to a disorder where you put periods in place of commas? nt

[EOTE]

266. That's right.

A missed comma makes me equally unqualified in this discussion with you who doesn't know the difference between cubic inches and liters.

[NoGOPZone]

268. No, but the assumption that a misused period means one doesn't know

the difference between cubic inches and liters might. ;-)

[EOTE]

269. Once again, you don't make the same typo multiple times in the same sentence.

If you didn't learn the difference between a cubic inch and a liter within the past half hour, I'd be amazed. Someone who knows something about cars would not make that mistake once, much less twice.

on edit: typo.

[NoGOPZone]

270. Of course not! It's unprecedented in the world of typed communications!

I'm glad I could teach you how to convert cubic inches to cubic liters, though. :rofl:

[EOTE]

271. Even if you did confuse the units, you wrote down ridiculous numbers as well.

If you thought you were referring to liters, why would you write "ci" in your sentence. And even ignoring the "ci", the numbers as liters would make no sense. A 1.5 liter five cylinder in a Jetta 2.5? Once again, the displacement of the engine is in the model name of the car. That's not a mistake someone who knows anything about cars would make. Period.

[NoGOPZone]

272. I guess I didn't teach you as well as I thought

Try that conversion again. It's OK, I've got time, raining here so I can't do the yardwork I had planned.

[EOTE]

274. Yes. Please inform me.

I'm sure I can learn tons from someone who doesn't know the most basic of automotive units.

[NoGOPZone]

275. OK. Type 'cubic inches to cubic liters' in a search engine

and leave out the question mark. :rofl:

[EOTE]

282. Hey chief, I've been working on big blocks since my early teens.

There is absolutely nothing you could teach me about anything related to the engine. Once again, I won't be lectured by someone who thinks that Ford makes a 1.22 ci engine. Please explain to me the brilliance of your fuckup.

[NoGOPZone]

291. I've taught you what a V-9 supercharger is! nt

[EOTE]

295. V9 is a freaking model of a supercharger. And no, you did not teach me what one is.

And why you're bringing in talk of a supercharger in this conversation is well beyond me. This was never a discussion regarding superchargers. If you think that automobile manufacturers make engines with less than 2 cubic inches of displacement, you certainly haven't a fucking clue what a supercharger is.

[NoGOPZone]

296. No freaking kidding!

It's a model of a supercharger! Wow, you think maybe an Eagle GT Tire refers to the model? Why am I mentioning it? I don't know. Can it be because if you actually had heard of it like you claim, when the Chevy Vortec 6.0 was referred to as a V-9, your first thought would have been that it was being confused with an identically named supercharger, the V-9, from a similarly named company, Vortech Engineering, available for that very engine, instead of thinking the error came from confusing it with the three character code for the engine? I guess you're one of those people that always confuses a 'V' with an 'L' and an 'S' with a hyphen. Which likely isn't as bad as having worked on big blocks since being a teen but not being familiar with superchargers. :rofl:

[EOTE]

297. Yes, I'm supposed to assume an automotive blog is referring to a supercharger rather than an engine.

When they're OBVIOUSLY referring to an engine. Yet I'm supposed to assume they're referring to a supercharger which is meant for numerous foreign and domestic vehicles. Makes plenty of sense, chief. And that you're still referring to superchargers after making your utter ignorance on this issue is rather telling. And once again, to correct your massive ignorance, it's V9, not V-9 which would be refferring to an engine "Vee". Does your ignorance ALWAYS need to be on display? And I suggested the engine code because the engine code is LQ9, makes far more sense than an automotive blog referring to a supercharger rather than an engine. These people don't have your level of ignorance, after all. Once again, there is nothing you can teach me about anything automotive. When I was in grade school, I already knew far more than you will ever know about anything automotive. Find out the difference between a cubic inch and a liter and then maybe get back to me.

[EOTE]

298. Are you ever planning on explaining your ridiculous mistakes?

You seem to have all sorts of insane explanations for Autospies' mistake, but you've never even come close to explaining your own. So please explain to me how you could suggest that Ford makes 1.22 cubic inch engines, VW makes 1.51 cubic inch engines and still know ANYTHING about anything pertaining to engines. Please explain, I've been dying to hear this. Or you can once again harp on Autospies because there's absolutely no way anything other than an automotive dunce could think that. Either way.

[EOTE]

302. "a Forc Focus SEl with 1.22 ci Four with a Volkswagend Jetta 2.5 SEl with a 1.51 inline 5."

See that? All I need to do is quote you to expose your all-encompassing ignorance on the subject. I don't even need to use all sorts of twisted and tortured logic. According to what passes for logic in your mind, if my buddies and I were discussing Nissan engines and one of my friends brought up the Z28, if I assumed he was referring to Z22 or Z24, I wouldn't know that the high-performance Camaro option ever existed. Yep, that's some brilliant logic there. But don't stop, my friends and I are getting a huge kick regarding this. I'm almost tempted to go to an ER and tell the doctors there that they haven't a clue of what they're doing.

[EOTE]

286. Explain your mistake.

You've made a number of references to me not quite understand how brilliant your mistake is, but you've done nothing to explain why you made such a bone-headed mistake to begin with. Please tell me how you made this mistake without admitting that you either have no idea of the range of typical engine displacements or that you have no idea how cubic inches compare to liters. Just admit that you don't know anything about cars, there's no shame in that. It's certainly a lot less shameful than pretending you do when you're clueless.

[EOTE]

299. Wow, you can use Google.

Still don't know a damn thing about any automotive units, but you're sure good at trying to explain away your idiotic mistakes as some stroke of genius. Your ability to use google doesn't explain away how you thought Ford makes a 1.22 ci engine. Imagine that. You use google and you're still every bit as bit of an idiot as you were yesterday. I guess google can't do everything.

[EOTE]

281. Yeah, likely.

I'm quite aware how to convert CI to liters. You obviously don't know either as they pertain to engines. That's why you made such an egregious mistake twice in the same sentence. But you're welcome to explain your myriad mistakes. I'm very much interested in hearing your excuse. And not more ethereal bullshit how I don't understand the brilliance of your stupid errors.

[NoGOPZone]

287. Tell me how knowledgeable Autospies is

when, by YOUR own theory, they confused an engine code, LQ9 with a cylinder arrangement V-8.

Now, let's follow the reasoning you've displayed and see if you are consistent in how you use it. This mistake can't be a simple typo; they obviously can't tell the difference between the two. Therefore they have no technical knowledge. Therefore, everything they say about CR can't be trusted. Therefore, this entire discussion has been pointless.

[EOTE]

288. There was no confusion. It was a simple typo.

Unlike your assertion that Ford and VW make engines with displacements less than .1 liters. Do you know every month Consumer Reports issues corrections to their last issue? Listen, if you don't know how a cubic inch pertains to engine design, you cannot be considered knowledgable about cars. If you'd like to explain your mistake, you're more than welcome to.

[NoGOPZone]

292. Funny how that works

Someone you concur with makes a mistake, it's a 'simple typo'. Other people are assumed to have no technical knowledge. What marvelous consistency and objectivity! I guess it was also a simple typo that Autospies never mentioned to its readers that the Toyota outscored the Chevy by a mere total of four points out of a hundred, and that BOTH qualified as Very Good under Consumer Reports grading. We already know CR has the guts to issue corrections, will Autospies? Did Autospies ever inform its readers that when 2007 model year reliability data came in, it was the Chevy and not the Toyota which became a recommended model in the 2009 buying guide, since the Toyota did so poorly? Interesting how CR would rig a test but not modify its survey data.

[EOTE]

294. You still haven't explained how you made your mistake.

If it were a simple typo, you wouldn't have repeated it in the same sentence. You're more than welcome to explain how you made such a typo, yet still have any automotive knowledge whatsoever.

[kysrsoze]

10. First of all, it's not a myth if it went on for three solid decades

Second, these ratings are based on a range of factors, measures and reviews. Reliability is only one of numerous measures in that article, and it's based on a three year J. D. power trend of INITIAL quality in the first year after production. It says nothing of a car's long-term rating, where American cars are still slaughtered by imports. Consumer Reports cites owner-reported frequency of repairs, by type, over a decade. This is a true measure of quality. And Autospies is a crappy car ogling website with idiotic editors.

That said, Ford appears to be making huge leaps in quality and their styling/drive quality is downright great. The Focus is one pretty awesome little car. GM apparently has a ways to go, but seems to be well on their way. But I want to see long-term results. These are the first Buicks I have liked in a long time, and Cadillac is steadily improving. Chrysler, however, lags in everything, particularly quality. They have a few good designs, like the new Grand Cherokee, Durango and Challenger, but their reliability is still dismal.

People can say it's not true anymore, but both our cars were built in Japan and their reliability after 6+ years of ownership is outstanding. I go out of my way to buy American, but I'm not ready yet with cars.

[AlabamaLibrul]

11. I can't afford a Kia, much less a brand new union built Caddy.

If you have a car budget that doesn't entail something from this decade, I'd highly recommend a foreign car.

I've had (me, personally) wayyyyyy too many problems with Fords of that era. The Lincoln I had before this Nissan was a true piece of shit, overheated all the time, half the electrical crap in it didn't work. It was a nightmare.

[Throd]

12. Whoever believes that never owned a Peugeot 504

[Stevenmarc]

103. ROFL, yes I had the top of the dashboard fall off in my hands on the showroom floor.

[Honeycombe8]

17. Ford Fiesta is made in Mexico. Toyota Tundra? Made in the USA.

This is not your father's auto manufacturing company, anymore, Virginia. They're all global.

[FLAprogressive]

18. Ford makes a higher percentage of its cars in the U.S. than Toyota does, but thanks for playing.

[Exilednight]

28. That depends on how define "makes". It's more like assembled, but the parts are

mostly outsourced on American autos.

[FLAprogressive]

32. and where do you get that statistic?

[Exilednight]

45. CNN

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-12/us/american.cars_1_foreign-brands-dutch-mandel-american-car?_s=PM:US

Fewer than half of the parts on some Big Three vehicles are made in the U.S.

Looking at a Ford Fusion? It is assembled in Mexico. The Chrysler 300C is assembled in Canada, but its transmission is from Indiana; the brand's V-8 engine is made in Mexico. Engines in the Chevrolet Equinox sport utility vehicle are from China.

On the other hand, Toyota's Camry is comprised 80 percent of parts made in the United States, and 56 percent of Toyota's vehicles sold in the U.S. also are made here, according to Toyota spokeswoman Sona Iliffe-Moon.

[FLAprogressive]

47. Oh look, 3 models from 2008. Give me a break, that does not give out the ENTIRE story.

[Exilednight]

60. Show me something that counters the argument. I imagine it's only gotten worse

after having to bail out two of the companies.

I haven't heard any stories of these jobs coming back to America, but I have heard of more plants being shut down or becoming idle for long periods of time while workers are forced to be furloughed for weeks at a time because parts they once made were outsourced.

[FLAprogressive]

63. It's about the same all around, give or take, for all automakers...so Toyota is not "more American"

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/how-american-is-that-car1.htm

[Exilednight]

67. I never said it was more American. I said it depends on how define "makes". Some

US cars do have more parts made in the US than overseas makers, but some overseas makers have more parts made in the US.

I would be interested in seeing a definitive study done that states how many parts, overall used, were made in the US by each company.

[Honeycombe8]

39. As I said, OP says "American" Ford Fiesta is #1. It's made in another country.

I rest my case.

Consult the only objective authority for auto rankings: Consumer Reports. About $30 a year subscription online. They accept no advertising, funds, or gifts from auto mfrs (unlike US News and other for-profit companies). They report reliability ratings based on objective data, as well as other objective facts. Their hands-on reviews are subjective, though.

Their reviews are based on (this is remarkable)...they BUY a car, then own it and drive it for six months. THAT'S when they review it.

Ford is the only US mfr that's rated well in Consumer Reports, and that's because Ford started taking strong actions to increase reliability and gas mileage a few years ago. GM has improved a lot, but it's still low compared to the Asian vehicles.

Of course, if you get a new car every few years, you may not care about reliability (I say as I'm looking at my 13 1/2 year old Subaru...which still runs like a top and looks great...never had to get a water pump, fuel pump, all that other stuff that I had to do when I owned Chevy's, Oldsmobiles, Fords, etc.)

[FLAprogressive]

guess it's only "objective" when they rate Asian made cars high!

[bluerum]

19. I have a 2005 Chevy Cobalt. A little econo box. If it makes to 100 k miles I will be

pleasantly shocked.

Before I bought the Cobalt I owned a 97 Honda Accord. Bought it new and drove it for 12 years and put on 220,000 miles.

The standard technology, features and engineering in that Honda put the Chevy to shame.

[FLAprogressive]

21. the Cobalt is not a current model.

[bluerum]

24. Neither is the 97 Accord.

[FLAprogressive]

26. So comparing the two isn't really fair.

[bluerum]

34. Your right. A car that was nine years old when the Cobalt was built should have

been showning its age. It wasn't. The Cobalt was inferior the day it rolled off the line.

[FLAprogressive]

36. Is that an indicator of what Chevrolet is making NOW? No, it isn't, so it's yet another dishonest

argument.

[AlabamaLibrul]

50. It's only been six years

It's kind of hard to convince consumers to buy a brand new $20k+ car from them when they just delivered a piece of hot garbage during Bush's second term.

Just me .02.

[DainBramaged]

85. You have no idea what you are talking about

[AlabamaLibrul]

101. I know exactly what I'm talking about

and that's if I get a new car, and it's a POS, I'm not going to be looking at that brand for my next new car.

[darkstar3]

56. You mean like the site you linked to above?

We don't need to go back 20 years to see which car maker is good NOW, this is true. But the track record of any maker over the last 5-10 years should be taken into account, dontchathink?

Nobody magically gets better overnight. 2005 is a model year that is still heavily in use on the American highway, regardless of brand, and that makes it a fair comparison for "modern".

[DainBramaged]

83. I own one

It's shit if you treat it that way. And if you hate it so much get rid of it. Jesus stop being angry at America.

[bluerum]

164. Not angry. Just stating fact.

[Atman]

22. On recent trips I've rented a Chevy Cruze and a Chevy Equinox. Both were amazing.

I was shocked at how nice both these cars were. Last time I bought a new car was '07 and nothing like them was available, so I bought a Hyundai Sante Fe. I love it, but I will be looking at American cars again come trade in time.

[FLAprogressive]

25. +1....sadly, most people in this thread are, predictably, basing their beliefs on the past

[in_cog_ni_to]

53. Come on. Be realistic. How many people can buy new cars all the time?

NOT MANY. I have my 2006 Prius that has NEVER had a repair done on it...5 years old and not ONE repair. My husband drives a Chrysler 300M piece of crap car with a gas guzzling Hemi engine. It's had electrical problems since the day he bought it. The horn beeps for no reason all by itself, the wipers turn on, the doors won't lock/won't unlock, the lights won't turn off and it's been nothing but a problem for YEARS. Now, tell me WHY we should buy a car knowing damn full well it will cost us a LOT of money to repair over the years when we could buy a Toyota or Honda and KNOW FOR A FACT that they will rarely need repair and we'll be able to drive them for 250,000 miles? It's a simple choice to make! Unless people want to pay my car repair bills, we will continue to buy the most reliable cars.

[Atman]

61. Chryslers products suck ass. I don't even consider them American cars.

They're not American...they're from another planet; the planet Crap.

[in_cog_ni_to]

65. LOL! Totally agree!

Worst car EVER...next to our Lemon Jeep.

[Dokkie]

228. so true

my friend had a Plymouth and I cannot tell you how often the car broke down. Also its felt hollow and empty like its was made with foam when sitting in it. Chrystler is a bad car company

[Exilednight]

23. NPR did a piece about this a while back. The problem is losing the

stigma from the late 70s and 80s when foreign cars were built better.

[FLAprogressive]

30. Which, as you can tell from this board, where people who claim to be pro-union want to support union

busting companies because of an old stigma

[AlabamaLibrul]

104. That "old" stigma is the formerly brand new car many people are still driving/dealing with

Those who can't afford to get a 2011 Chevy just because they're apparently more reliable than a 2011 Honda.

[SidDithers]

110. The Hyundai Motor Workers is the largest union in South Korea...nt

Sid

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dokkie]

235. its not about union built or not

I couldn't care less if a car is made by my father, sold by my mother and serviced by my brother, when it comes to cars, quality and reliability is king and brand, union or country loyalty takes a backseat. Btw its not the unions making the crappy cars, it is the companies designing low quality vehicles

[Honeycombe8]

27. That site consistently ranks US owned co's cars high...I suspect they're paid.

I've been looking at cars this year, so I've looked at a LOT of rankings, including a lot by US News. I noticed early on....a "What the....???" moment, when I looked at some of the rankings.

ONE THING US NEWS DOESN'T CONSIDER IS.....reliability. The MAIN thing lacking in US co.-owned vehicles (except for Ford, now).

Consumer Reports is the only objective car rating and car information authority. They accept no advertising, funds, or gifts from auto manufacturers. The reliability ratings are spec-based and are objective. TOP MANUFACTURERS FOR RELIABILITY AND VALUE, generally speaking, are:

Honda (incl. Acura)
Subaru
Toyota (incl. Lexus)

(in that order)

Volvo is in the top 10 I think (German?). Hyundai is #6 (Japanese).

Ford is the only US manufacturer ranking in the top 10.

The worst mfr for reliability? Chrysler. And has been for years, I think.

[FLAprogressive]

31. How can you judge a car for reliability when it's only been out for a year or two?

[darkstar3]

40. Simple statistics using the same model from the previous 3, 5, or 10 years.

Car makers give a newer version of a car the same model name for a reason, you know. They may include new features, but the basic design is the same platform.

[Honeycombe8]

68. You can't. The MFR has reliability ratings, overall, and many cars have been

out for years (Honda CRV, Ford Focus I guess, Subaru Forester which is what I have, Toyota RAV, Jeep Cherokee, etc. I think the Honda Fit has been out long enough to have reliability ratings.)

You really oughtta join Consumer Reports if you're interested in that sort of thing. The reliability ratings for cars is awesome. It's factual, based on specs, and tells you for EVERY YEAR A CAR IS ON THE MARKET how that car rated reliability-wise for all sorts of categories, and overall. For example, electrical, fuel system, transmission, etc., etc., a car is rated for each category for every year. The overall rating for that car for that year is a calculation of the category ratings.

So if I bought a 2010 Ford Explorer, for example, I could look at the reliability ratings for 2010 Ford Explorer and see how reliable, generally speaking, I could expect it to be (of course, used cars are crapshoots because of all sorts of variables), and I could see where in particular the vehicle would most likely give me trouble. That's based on owner's reports of THEIR 2010 Ford Explorers.

[Union Scribe]

90. Don't you know? Everyone who disagrees with you is a paid shill.

And everything that does agree with you is, obviously, fair and balanced.

[Honeycombe8]

119. It's a for-profit site. It's common sense. Consumer Reports doesn't accept $ from cos.

Not directly, in funding, or by way of advertising.

I actually agreed with some of the US News Rankings, but some were so off the wall in SEVERAL categories that it then occurred to me....of course, they're accepting $$ from some cos.

They ranked Chevy Equinox as the #1 SUV? Really? Seriously???? It's been plagued with problems for some time, and no other ranking service places that vehicle even at the top, much less #1. Woe be the person who buys the clunker...they'll be sorry in no time. It has good qualities, but is not a quality vehicle.

So US News, being a for-profit company and website, does accept $$$ from cos., which would undoubtedly tilt their rankings. Just like when ins. cos. contribute signficantly to campaigns, we all know the politician will think twice before passing legislation damaging to that co.

Use Consumer Reports. It's the only one I know of (there may be others) that is not for-profit, and is open and above-board about how it conducts its reviews, compiles its stats, and clearly states that it does not accept advertising or other $$$ from cos. It has been doing these reviews since the 1950's, I think.

[RebelOne]

29. I have owned two Ford Taurus models in the past few years

and love them. Even though they get lousy gas mileage, they are dependable cars.

[FLAprogressive]

37. +1 Thank you for supporting union workers!

[Dappleganger]

46. The first car we purchased after getting married was a Taurus SHO

that thing was a monster on wheels. ;)

[Benzene25]

180. SHO's are great

The engines on the older ones were Yamaha's though.

[Initech]

76. I'd love to get a Taurus SHO. I've heard the car is an absolute beast.

In a good way but the cost is too rich for my blood.

[Dokkie]

245. agreed completely

I have a 1996 taurus that i have driven for 6 years now and to my surprise it is yet to require any major fix. Just the regular oil change and fluid flushes. My only problem is the horrendous gas mileage

[girl gone mad]

38. I like Japanese cars and Japanese telescopes.

[Balbus]

42. Of course this poll was conducted by Americans to be read by other Americans.

[FLAprogressive]

43. So what, you want a list conducted by France?

[AlabamaLibrul]

52. At least you'd know it'd be unbiased

as long as they didn't make Peugeot #1

:spank:

[Balbus]

59. Union workers telling me American cars are best is like..

the American government telling me the Americans are winning the war on terror.

[FLAprogressive]

64. Wow, I cannot believe I read this post on DU.

[in_cog_ni_to]

66. I think ALL/MOST DUers support Unions and their right to Unionize. n/t

[FLAprogressive]

69. Sometimes I doubt that.

[in_cog_ni_to]

71. Why? I support Unions. My father was a member of the United Steel Workers his entire life.

I come from a Union family. My brother works for Caterpillar and is President of his Union. I support Unions.

[FLAprogressive]

73. not you but DU as a whole

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. Well, during Wisconsin's Union battle, DUers were pretty darn supportive, as a whole. n/t

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

80. Do you buy American cars where the profit comes back to America?

No, case closed.

[Honeycombe8]

126. I buy American....when the American product is competitive on all counts.

Regarding cars, unfortunately, the American mfrs let the public down. They decided to make certain kinds of cars w/o regard to gas mileage and other things. In other words, they didn't care enough about me and consumers like me to build cars for us.

I didn't want a bigass gas guzzler that I'd need to invest several thousand dollars in in 5 years to repair it and keep it running (yes, I've owned those American cars before).

I looked. I really did. They simply didn't make what I was looking for, when I bought my Subaru Forester. I had to go far out to a suburb to get it, even! I looked at Jeep (unreliable...waste of $$...not for urban city utility)....GM....Ford. Nada. Nothing.)

I've been looking this year. The only American mfr to make the grade is Ford. Ford has two...only two...vehicles that I'd consider: Ford Fiesta and the Ford hatchback Focus (ironically...they're made in Mexico).

It's nothing personal. I'd love a VW I saw...but again, the reliability isn't there.

So don't ask, "Why doesn't anyone buy my product?" Ask instead, "Why am I not making what people are buying?"

And although I support unions, they have in certain instances gone too far in their demands. They almost killed the goose that paid them.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Honeycombe8]

122. I buy imports. I am not evil....or red. Just practical. I look @ American first....

and then when, as usual, discover that American mfrs don't make what I'm looking for, I buy the most reliable, cost-efficient vehicle I can find from whoever makes it and has a dealership somewhere near me.

It's almost never an American-headquartered mfr (although they're all global, now, in a sense).

[DainBramaged]

130. Excuses, cheaper by the dozen

The UAW thanks you

[DainBramaged]

142. But alerting is OK when I disagree with you?

I'll take the red X for $100 alex

[Honeycombe8]

157. I did not do an alert on you, if that's what you mean. What did you do to cause an alert? nt

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sailor65]

54. Your OP is a lie

Fiesta? Focus? Want to venture a guess exactly how many UAW workers are building cars in Cuautitlan and Hermosillo?

An "American" car company might technically be "Making" them, but not American workers. There is a reason Ford wants you to get so excited about Wayne Assembly....so you won't pay attention to the plants where build is being systemtically moved.

[FLAprogressive]

57. I did not say the Fiesta was built by the UAW, hence the reason why it was not bolded. Focus is

and it is rated high.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/honda_fit_2011

You are buying the lies from the Republicans and their allies in the media, who want companies which hire union workers to fail.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

77. So you're defending the Japanese, we get it now

Unions were good to you I'm sure.......Hows that mop working out?

[Deep13]

74. How does Consumer Reports rank them?

Not being rhetorical. I allowed my subscription to lapse after I bought my last car in '08.

[upi402]

86. Taurus has the grenading tranny and kicked loyal customers in the teeth

They have some time to go and lots of advertising to get the truth out about the Focus and IF they stand behind their problems. They all can crush the Japanese cars if they get a clue and make sure customers have *six sigma* quality.

[darkstar3]

87. Some reading to accompany this...

Say what you want about their commentary (and I do), the one thing WSJ likes to get right is numerical facts.
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2011/04/10/chevy-recalls-cruze-after-a-steering-wheel-falls-off/?mod=google_news_blog
Teaser: Chevy recalls Cruze models (bolded above) after steering wheel falls off at speed.

[FLAprogressive]

93. One problem which affects like, 1% of the Cruzes sold. Even Honda and Toyota has recalls.

[darkstar3]

95. That's all you have?

"Even Honda and Toyota has recalls." But isn't your OP trying to tell us that American cars are better? I certainly wouldn't consider the chance, even the 1% chance, that my steering wheel would fall off while driving, as "better".

Get back to me about which cars are better when you have reliability information.

[MadHound]

88. I guess I'll find out for myself the next time I purchase a vehicle.

Right now though, both of my foreign made thirteen year old vehicles are running well.

I always give consideration to the domestic brands, when you're shopping for a major purchase like a car, you consider all brands. Unfortunately, the Big 3 got a bad reputation over the past forty years, for good reason. But times do change, the pendulum swings, and perhaps this latest near corporate death experience put the proper spirit into them.

If not, well. . .

[Canuckistanian]

91. American cars have really improved

I don't think you can make a distinction based on quality any more.

[flvegan]

92. "Better built" v "want to buy" Hmmm..fail.

Not that I don't appreciate your post. Just the wrong context. If want went hand in hand with better, there wouldn't be a single Italian, British, Swedish, Pacific Rim car built today.

That said, American car companies are making fantastic cars today. Do we want to buy them? Yes. At least some folks do. Problem is, the American car companies need to absolutely dominate every car niche. They've done a fantastic job in many areas, and could I afford them, I'd be all over them. Until that day...I'm loving my Mazda. GM came real, real, REAL close with me on this one, but it came down to money and opportunity.

[me b zola]

94. Foreign cars are not better built, they're better engineered

They are designed to be better. Nothing lacking in the American men & women who build them, just the design of how they are meant to be built.

[darkstar3]

96. It wasn't always that way.

A friend of my sister's in high school drove a nearly 40 year old car with a big-block straight 8 that you couldn't kill with 5 unsupervised minutes and a crowbar. It sat something like nineTEEN people, assuming they were close friends. I keep thinking it was a Chevy, but I can't remember. It might have been a Caddy.

The point is, Americans started gravitating toward the idea of throw-away assets. There came a time in the 70's when people wanted to be able to buy a car for cheap so that they had something new, and then toss it for the next new thing as soon as they could, anywhere from 1-5 years down the line. The idea of keeping a car for hundreds of thousands of miles, or multiple decades, was passe. The American car companies responded appropriately.

People have different needs wrt their cars now. Smart consumers are looking for reliable rides with long-term value and low high-mileage-frustration indices. American car makers are trying to respond, but it'll take time before they're competitive again. We have a whole economy built around the throwaway purchase, and a major shift at any level is going to be painful.

[Chris_Texas]

98. But really, REALLY, most American car companies vehicles are terribly made

Sad but true, and easy to see for yourself. Simply LOOK at them.

Walk up to the vehicle and look at it. Look at the seems. Are the gaps tight and UNIFORM or do the weave like a drunk driver? Look at both foreign cars and domestics and note the difference. Now know this: they didn't only do a garbage job on the body and exterior, that sloppy nonsense extends throughout. There is no way in hell I would throw my money away on an american car if there was a foreign equivalent.

This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the workers assembling the vehicle. Foreign cars made in America are every bit as well made as those constructed in Japan.

Just do yourself a favor and buy the freaking Honda. Buy a Toyota. Nuff said.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Honeycombe8]

121. You forgot to include the reliability statistics to prove her wrong. nt

[Cobalt-60]

100. They're engineered to belly up about 110K miles

I've always driven used cars.
Most of them, with the single exception, were American cars.
At first the old steeds I bought from friends and relatives wore like iron.
They were tireless and reliable. And some looked pretty cool, too.
I would ride them tens of thousands of miles and pass them along operational, only to see them for years in other peoples hands.
Even after the Beetle I couldn't imagine riding anything but American Iron.
In the 80s life expectancies began to drop.
This last year I had two Chevy Luminas disintegrate at 110K-120K miles.
Transmissions, wheel bearings, Cylinder heads, and other premature problems in these relatively young used cars caused me to select my first Toyota.
In thrifty tradition its a 1990 model with a re built engine.
Its old and scruffy but I get 40 mpg at cruise.
Prisoner of poverty that I am, I know I'll never have a new car.
I'll go back to used American cars only once I'm satisfied they're more durable and economical.
I simply cant - and won't - afford more money for inferior products.
If I could buy new, I'd say the same thing.

[Atman]

102. You are SERIOUSLY using Chevy Lumina as your quality benchmark? Seriously?

One of the biggest POS cars ever made. You were a sucker. When did you last drive a NEW American car? A Chevy Cruze or a Ford Taurus? These are NOT in any way comparable to an ancient Lumina. That is the whole point.

[DainBramaged]

134. Alex I'll take the red x for $200

Another complete falsehood and lie, but I'd rather put you on ignore than read such outrageous tripe

[Honeycombe8]

158. Actually, if you keep a car for a long time, it's more economical to buy new.

Google it, and there are calculators to figure it out. I did.

You get more years before big problems start happening, and the warranty is longer. Both of those things save thousands of dollars. You also can keep the same car for longer, avoiding the expense of buying another car (sales taxes, gas driving around to see them, etc.). You also have total control on how the car is driven and maintained the first couple of years, which is critical (I've read) to how reliable the car will be in the future.

I did the calculator and found it was more economical for me to buy new, since I keep cars for 10 years or longer. That was a surprise. It wasn't a LOT cheaper, but in the long run, it was cheaper to buy new. (You also know, when you buy new, what you can probably buy the car for, or close to it; it's always a crap shoot with a used car, since each one is unique...there is no invoice price on them.)

I looked at used cars this year, in addn to new ones.

We all have our experiences with different makes and models. But stats don't lie. I pay a lot of attention to stats, over other people telling me that they owned, or knew someone who owned, this or that car, and it was great or always breaking down, etc. Anecdotal. I do go by own experience, though. If I owned a clunker in the past, I never would buy a newer model of the same clunker.

You mentioned the Beetle. VW is notorious for being unreliable...and the repairs are expensive, too. German cars. It's not "foreign" cars that are so reliable. It's "Asian" cars that are reliable. According to stats, anyway. And sales.

[DainBramaged]

133. Alex, I'll take the Red X for $100

instant ignore. The fucking panels are ALL put on by robots, and if you didn't know that, you've not been in a Domestic showroom in decades.


Goodbye.

[Chris_Texas]

138. Take the challenge... LOOK AT THE CARS!

Is this so tough to do? Just compare them, then get6 back to me and tell me they are the same. Hell, they aren't even the same among the foreign brands. I sold cars for years. I have sold Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and American used cars. The Honda vehicles, in terms of sheer automotive engineering excellence, were far and away the best (and most are actually made here in America). The worst of the "imports" I sold was Nissan: they are beautiful and cheap, but nowhere near the quality of the Honda -- there is nothing more embarassing than having something break while you are trying to sell it, something that NEVER happened with a Honda and was a common occurance with Nissan.

And then there was the "American" machines. I put that in quotes, because while Honda and Toyota are building plants here, these American companies are using their bailout bucks to ship jobs out of the country. Anyway, the cars are junk. All i had to do to win a sale when a constomer was cdebating between the GM and the Honda (for example) was take them on a test drive right down to the GM dealership, park the cars side by side, and let the customer look and compare. i would even encourage the other salemen to do their best, and I NEVER lied. No need to, when everything, all the evidence, showed which vehicle was better.

Didn't always make a sale that way, as sometimes people are more into a look or stereo system than the quality of the vehicle... but then the japanese companies have always cared more about the quality of their product than the image.

[Atman]

146. How many years ago?

Are you deliberately trying to ignore the point? I doubt anyone on this thread will deny that America produced some seriously shitty cars in the past. But you mentioned Nissan...I owned a Sentra, one of the biggest pieces of shit ever. I've also driven several late-model American cars in the last couple of years. Chevy Cruze, Chevy Equinox, Mercury something-or-other (just a Ford clone), Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum...the Fords and Chevy's were golden. As I said in earlier posts, I was stunned by how nice the cars were, and the level of features they had. Beautiful, solid, well made. No big gaps in the seems, tight fit on the inboard components. Just plain awesome cars. Chrysler? Not so much. Cheap pieces of plastic. Total shitboxes. Even the engines sounded like hamster wheels. I don't know how that company survives. But your story is ancient. You sound like my grandpa...and I'm 52.

[LWolf]

106. Note that #2, which you didn't post, is a Honda Civic.

There was a time, and it continued for a long time, when Japanese cars were definitely better, if you wanted economy and reliability.

I began driving in the era of the Ford Pinto and the Chevy Vega. My best friend had a Vega, I had the Pinto. When the Pinto, AFTER an entire engine re-build at only 50K, gave up the ghost, I got a Honda Civic, which so outclassed that Pinto I never looked back.

I should also mention that the car of my heart, the '69 Cougar, while I loved it dearly, was a piece of shit when it came to holding it together. I should know. I owned two of them, just for sentimental purposes.

My last "American" car was a Dodge Shadow, bought around 1990. It was okay; better than the old pintos and vegas, by far, but didn't hold a candle to its contemporary hondas or subarus.

I traded it in on a '94 Toyota truck. I don't have much experience with more modern cars, because that 'yota is still on the road, without ever leaving anyone stranded and no repairs beyond general maintenance, after 250K and almost 2 decades. So, when I was ready for a newer car, I passed it on to my son and bought another.

That's what I want. I want economy, and I want at least 2 decades and/or 300K out of a vehicle without major replacements and repairs. If I'm going to spend what is, to me, a small fortune on a new car, it had better hold up. Otherwise, it's not worth the price tag.

If I could afford 2 vehicles, I'd buy a full-sized truck, not for every day driving, but for hauling horses, hay, and firewood. THAT would definitely be an American made model, since "foreign" makers don't do full-sized trucks as well. I wouldn't fool myself into thinking that an American model would have been produced by American workers, though. American car companies outsource, too.

If I'm ever in the position of being able to afford another new vehicle, I'll definitely check out those manufactured here at home, by UAW workers. I don't expect that to be for another 15 years or so, though.

[Nye Bevan]

107. I had a Pontiac Grand Am that *sucked*

The transmission failed within the first 2 weeks after I bought it (it was a new car). There was a really annoying dashboard rattle that they were never able to fix. I traded it for a Nissan Maxima which I drove for over 10 years with no problems whatsoever.

[DainBramaged]

117. YAY good for you, so sad you got a lemon

what a great story



HAHAHAHAHAh


not

[Nye Bevan]

127. Ha ha! You said something, then appended the word "not" to make it mean the opposite!

Just like on "Wayne's World!" That's hilarious!

:yourock:

[DainBramaged]

135. Mets fans, arrrggghhh

when all is hopeless, cheer for the Mets


Lemons, come in human form too

[Nye Bevan]

140. And that's a DUzy right there, for sure.

You're in the zone today, my friend.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PVnRT]

108. The Chevy Cruze? The one that's being recalled?

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2011/chevrolet/cruze/recalls/index.html

Apparently the steering wheel can pop off.

American cars have made great gains in quality and reliability, but the Cruze shouldn't be fifth, based on that recall.

[Atman]

114. Yeah, buy a Toyota instead. And hope it stops when you want it to.

What's your point? Fucking LEXUSes get recalled. It happens. But I've actually driven a Cruze, It's an exceptional small car.

[PVnRT]

141. Uh, that wasn't the point

Or did you ignore where I said that American car companies have come a long way in quality and reliability?

My point was that the Cruze is not the best example on that list, but I bet you didn't bother to read past the headline before screaming about buying Toyotas and being anti-union, et cetera.

[Atman]

144. Me? Anti Union? That's some good comedy.

Don't tell SEIU, AFL/CIO, or any of my other union accounts that I'm anti-union. They might, uh...not give a shit what you think about me.

:rofl:

[PVnRT]

168. Uh, try reading again

Even though we've already established that you don't. I wasn't calling YOU anti-union, you were accusing that of me, for bizarre and unexplainable reasons.

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. Exactly right. K&R

[apnu]

112. I've bought new Fords my whole life and they've always been reliable.

Provided I do the proper maintenance. But isn't that true for any car?

Having said that I think the whole foriegn/domestic thing is a crock of shit. Toyotas are partially built in the US and Fords are partially built in Mexico. So what's foriegn and what's domestic? Is it now just an engineering debate? Globalization is a bitch man.

[Honeycombe8]

123. You've been lucky. The stats show that until recent years, Fords weren't reliable...

even if you did the maintenance.

Unless you've owned a truly reliable car, you don't really know what it's like. You know, it's not NORMAL for water pumps and fuel pumps to need to be replaced. It's not normal for there to be rattles in a 7 year old car. It's not normal for clutches to go out, then something else, then something else.

You've been very lucky. Although Ford is the only American-headquartered mfr that has a reliability rating in the top 10. All the others....all of them....are at the bottom.

Stats are facts. They're pesky little things that won't go away. Of course, a person can be lucky and get a great car from an unreliable maker, and a person can be unlucky and get a lemon from a normally highly reliable mfr.

I have a Subaru Forester I bought in 1997. Same water pump, fuel pump, etc., etc. I've had the CV joints, or whatever those are called, replaced. Brakes and other wear and tear items. Other than that...reliable as all get out. Engine hums. Almost no rattles in the car. I'm getting ready to do the head gasket and timing belt...that's supposed to be replaced at 100K, but I'm going to do it early because of age of the car.

Stats for Subarus? Consumer Reports reliability rankings for the mfrs (based on stats...not opinion):
Honda (incl. Acura)
Subaru
Toyota (incl. Lexus)
Also near the top: Volvo, Hyundai, Ford

The most UNreliable maker? Chrysler.

Also not very reliable: VW, BMW, Audi.

Some people don't care about reliability. They just buy a new car every 5 years. Could be you don't keep yours as long as I do. When you keep a car over 10 years, you learn the value of reliability.

[apnu]

143. Had a '99 Ford Escourt, 4-door, 5 speed. Worked great.

Never had one problem with it. I loved and depended on that car and it never once failed me. Had to get rid of it when we were planning on having a kid and took advantage of the tax break in 2005 to get a Hybrid. Back then the only option was the Ford Escape (for carting kids around and having a hybrid). The only problem with we have experienced is a defective AC system. I haven't heard that the Escapes are plagued by that so I figured that was just a random defect.

Reliable, to me, means does the engine turn over when I want it to, does it drive where I want it to go with out breaking down, and does it not leak fluids. I'm not a mechanic by any stretch of the imagination so my knowledge of cars is very little. I've lusted after the Prius for a while (regardless of the sudden acceleration weirdness) but we decided it was not practical for carting about a newborn and all the stuff that goes along with that.

I've had used a Buick Century (sucked), 1980 320i BMW (was a bitch to upkeep), a Subaru wagon, and a Chevy Cavalier (also sucked). The Subaru was a tank on the inside. The body was rotting off but nothing killed the engine.

I'm not super loyal to Fords, just that I've had a good track record with them. I have no loyalty to purchasing one maker over another and have a dim view of what's "American" and what's not because I know too much about Globalization to really believe that Ford is "American" and Toyota is "Japanese" I just want a car that moves my crap around and gets good gas mileage. I really don't care what it looks like or who makes it if I'm satisfied and the price is reasonable.

[TK421]

156. I've had three cars...an 88 Nissan Stanza, an 88 Toyota Camry

and a 91 Ford Tempo....take a wild guess which one of those was in the shop just about every month for something wrong?

The Nissan was by far my favorite car ( also my first one ) that was totalled when some idiot made a left turn onto a side street when I had the right of way....as I was picking it up from the mechanic from getting motor mounts replaced ( 186K ) smashed the radiator, antifreeze was gushing out all over the place, but her car got the worst of it :) Trouble-free car, very solid and reliable, would probably still have it now if not for this.

I had to buy something fast ( something I'll never do again ) so I bought a 91 Ford Tempo, which I consider to be the biggest pile of shit ever to be allowed on the road ( I called it the coffin on wheels ) it was all I could find at the time that was comparable in price with the amount I got for my Nissan, so I got it. I am convinced that this thing was put together by a bunch of second-graders with Elmers glue and cheap plastic. The frames around the windows, the buttons on the heater controls , etc were ALL falling off. You could be going five miles an hour and when you made a turn it felt like the car was going to flip over. The engine sounded like my vacuum cleaner, and started making hissing sounds one day when I drove it to work. The engine block cracked ( don't recall why, and by that time I didn't care..just had it towed to my mechanic and told him to scrap it ) I think this POS had about 73K on it.

Then I got the Toyota Camry ( 194K ) which was used and abused by the previous owners. The only thing it needed was a new front axle ( I think that was it ) and it leaked oil. I had that for about two years and it never, ever let me down. This was another great car, and it was good on gas. I had to scrap it because when inspection time came around the repair costs in order to pass inspection far exceeded the blue-book value, and I couldn't afford it at the time...sad to see that one go,too

I get pissed off when people tell me to give Ford another chance...no thanks, how would YOU like to pay for my repairs? You'll be singing a different tune, I guarantee it

and for those of you who had great experiences with your Fords? good for you, you were lucky

This is a great site to visit, if you have time...some of the comments are quite colorful!
http://www.carsurvey.org/

[LWolf]

303. I have to agree.

About the foreign domestic thing anyway, if not the Fords.

The absolutely worst car I ever owned was a Ford Pinto.

My two beloved '69 Cougars were both always falling apart. I loved them anyway.

The LTD was forgettable; I was happy to leave it behind for a little Datsun in the 70s, during the gas shortages.

[Taverner]

128. Case in Point: The Yugo

Consumer Reports said you would be better off buying a used car of any kind, than a new Yugo.

[cbdo2007]

129. Unrec for misleading information and

Your "statistics" are full of misleading information as you left out MOST of the information and just tell us to look it up on our own.

Not to mention that you explain in your OP exactly why American made cars are perceived to be inferior and it isn't a myth/lie at all, "While it's true that American cars lagged throughout the 90s and early 2000s" - That says it all.

In the "90's and early 2000s" foreign cars became more reliable and started getting significantly better gas mileage than their American competitors while the American car companies actually went BACKWARDS in their development and took a major gamble that U.S. car drivers only wanted things bigger and more expensive.

[BobbyBoring]

136. The last NEW car I bought

is a 1997 Explorer. 32K. I shouldn't tempt fate by saying this, but it has 243,000 miles on it and still runs OK. Of course, it's serviced on schedule which makes a world of difference, but that's pretty good for an American car!

[uppityperson]

137. Since all my cars are of the 1990's-2000's age, I still use foreign. Glad american cars are doing

better now. Once they get to be in my price range, I'll take a closer look at them.

[Shagbark Hickory]

145. Even if that is true, it's talking about initial quality, not long term reliability.

When you bring a car home from the dealer and you notice a rattle, you take it back, they fix it. The car's under warranty. When the clock strikes 36,000 miles and an o2 sensor on your car blows out, that $300 and half a day wasted at the dealership isn't covered.

[LanternWaste]

147. The myth/lie that Pepsi is better than Coke...

The myth/lie that Pepsi is better than Coke...

I saw this one in the 80's. It was pretty silly the way people put so much personal investment and emotion into ordinary things. But I suppose Madison Avenue is much more effective than we will ever tell ourselves.





"and plays into the hands of right-to-work, union busting Toyota/Honda/etc...."
Translation (Variation #3321):" Why do hate America so much?

[Roy Ellefson]

148. American all the way

I've owned the following cars (All American);

72 Plymouth Fury
78 Mercury Zephyr (piece of crap died at only 80,000.)
84 Ford Escort (died at 220,000)
90 Dodge Caravan (trade in at 120,000)
90 Ford Tempo (sold it at 145,000)
92 Chevy Lumina Sedan (totaled at 180,000--but a damn fine vehicle)
94 Lumina Van (still on the road at 180,000)
98 Dodge Dakota (drive every day--145,000)
02 Buick Century (daughter has this 202,000)
05 GMC Envoy (love this gas gussler.)

The Zephyr was the only clinker in the bunch. I still have the Envoy, Century, Dakota and Lumina Van. I always think American first.

[Honeycombe8]

159. You sound proud that you buy gas guzzlers.

That's like an obese person being proud he overeats and eats the wrong thing.

Methinks he dost protest too much.

Go ahead....buy a gas sipper. You'll never go back, after you realize how you've been duped all these years. But if it makes you feel better, you can throw dollar bills out of the window as you go down the road in your gas sipper.

[Throd]

162. Hell, compared to me, he is freakin' Al Gore

Cars I have now...

1959 Olds Dynamic 88

1967 Olds 442

1968 Olds 442

1973 Olds Cutlass Supreme

2000 Saturn LS

If you know where I can find a '70 Toronado, please let me know. The Saturn won't bake the front tires.

[LanternWaste]

173. I imagine many of us are quite proud of our excesses

I imagine many of us are quite proud of our excesses. Conspicuous consumption was a very good marketing idea many of us bought into without question and righteously defend.

[Throd]

181. It isn't nearly so complicated.

Olds used to build some really awesome cars.

[octothorpe]

280. That's how I view these sort of debates..

Besides, it seems rather useless to declare cars from a specific place as being better or worse based solely on where they are made. Seems like it would be more useful and practical to compare cars on their individual merits and the needs they must fill.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

150. How can a car be named "best built" in its debut year?

There's materials and quality control, yes... but only time will tell if a car is truly reliable and well built.

[sendero]

160. I think American cars have improved vastly..

... however, there isn't any that are built better than my Honda and even more true they won't last 10 years with damn near no repairs like it will.

This has nothing to do with the assembly or unions, this has to do with design engineering.

[JNelson6563]

165. And the gullible suckers who line up to join the chant!

So many are the purist of liberals, who happen to drive cars made by non-union workers that work for companies who send the profits out of the country.

Ugh.

Julie

[DainBramaged]

170. Been my gripe for decades.

Go to local meetings, revered party members or local big shots, driving foreign iron. And bringing goodies and paper goods from WalMart. And then telling ME and many many others that it doesn't matter, they make jobs here.


And with that, I stopped participating on a local level.


You cannot preach a Progressive agenda without first protecting the land you live in.

[REP]

175. My car is in the top sports car list ... not American

[oldlib]

183. I remember in the Seventies

there was a crusade to "Buy American". We bought a Ford Pinto station wagon with an engine made in Germany!

[hughee99]

206. For almost two decades, this "myth/lie" was unfortunately fact

Can you really blame people for not being able to forget their experiences of the last 20+ years and look at the auto industry without any prejudices?

[JVS]

273. Well it seems that the protocol for dealing with people who got a lemon in the past is...

to tell them "Fuck you, that was long ago, buy another one."

[B Calm]

241. God Bless the US lowly paid hourly worker who drive their foreign made automobile. . .

SARCASAM!

[formernaderite]

278. except for a short stint with a VW bus..

I've been driving American cars... My chevy truck has 250,000 miles on it and is still going strong at ten years YOUNG!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

279. I drive an old Mazda sedan.

80 percent built in Detroit by Ford.

It's on its third tranny (I blame that on oppressive heat and stop n go traffic) and I just got the A/C system completely replaced. The AC is a matter of life or death where I live, in the South. Basically we have six months of shorts 'n' T shirt weather.

Been a good car. I have owned three cars, all Japanese. I buy 'em new and run 'em into the ground.

[Shagbark Hickory]

293. Wow. So many replies. So few recs. A clear sign of a rubbish thread. Few things more devisive than

the ol' domestics v. foreign cars debate on a forum.

We really don't need to have this sort of arguing, IMHO.
People are already pretty crabby with the given current events.