Quarter Sales Numbers

Hey Alex - I have some news for you. This is a CHRYSLER newsgroup. We really
don't care about GM!

 

You have to be kidding. It's not great, but it's better than a
Chevy. Shoot, Ford is better than Chevy. Only Hyundai was cheaper
than GM's econoboxes.

Changed for 2004. New exterior, new lights. Same underneath,
but now looks like a small A4.

Since it's FWD, no big deal either way.

It has the stiffest body of any car in its class, so I think
they figured it out pretty well. Honestly, go test-drive one
and see how well it moves and handles. Test the SE-R Spec V
also - huge improvement - like a hopped up Civic without any work.

 

No. 10. The best Honda and Toyota were making a decade ago - they
aren't SOTA to be sure now, but back then, they were fine and reliable
vehicles. Many are still on the road.

Of you could get Jimmy and take your chances.

$9K for a Rio? It whomps on the Metro in every test. More power,
better warranty, less cost. TONS less cost.

GM makes fine cars at the upper end like the LeSabre, but their
low-end is apallingly poor and flimsy. They really don't try
any harder to build a decent small car than they did with the EV-1.

So - I see - you have to resort to lawyers and lemon laws to
get anything from GM. Nice.

 

But you see, that really isn't true and a little examination will show why.

The true cost to an individual of an auto is not just the car itself, it's
also the
infrastructure to support that car.

In the US, we all feel it's everyone's God-given right to own a car no
matter
how much a beater it is. So we use an enormous amount of foreign oil
to keep them all fueled, thus we have to finance a large military to keep
order
in the Mideast. (to say nothing of subsidys we are paying those countries)
We
also have to pay for a huge infrastructure in roads, and the maintainence on
them. We also have increased medical and legal costs due to increased
number of vehicle accidents and we also all pay a decrease in quality of
life
due to smog, time wasted on the highway due to congestion, etc. etc. This
is all due to the sheer numbers of vehicles owned in the country.

However, in Japan since the government has made car ownership more
expensive, fewer people drive, thus the societal costs that aren't blatently
obvious are much less. As a result the Japanese government is putting
their money into other things than supporting a big private car vehicle
ownership thing. Additionally, because they don't assume that everyone
has the right to own a vehicle no matter how poor, they can (and are) a
lot tougher on vehicle inspections (ie: emissions) which helps as well
to improve quality of life.

This would not be a problem if every car owner was responsible and
didn't operate vehicles that had problems (thus increasing pollution)
and didn't drive unless necessary and when they did drive they combined
trips, (thus decreasing congestion) and lived near their work place (thus
reducing commuter time) and didn't operate vehicles when they were
impared by drunkenness, inexperience, age, or stupidity, and when they
did operate vehicles, obeyed the traffic laws.

Unfortunately, because we regard them as commodities, this by default
allows that bottom-of-the-barrel 1% of vehicle owners that are morons,
to spoil the experience for everyone else.

Ted

 

Arianna........is that really you????

 

Please tell us which college taught you that stuff? I want to
make sure none of my grand children go to that school. Do you
actually believe our armed forces exist simply to protect the oil
supply? We protect the world oil supply to keep the worlds
economy from collapsing, which would effect ours more than the
lose of foreign oil would effect our economy. The only reason we
import oil is because it is less expensive to produce than
domestic oil. One of the primary reason domestic oil is more
expensive is BECAUSE we DO care about the environment. We have
passed environmental laws that resulted in making domestic oil
much more expensive. Oil stocks are used for many things beside
fuel, only a small percentage of each barrel of oil goes off as
gasoline. It is our environmental laws the prevent us from using
more coal, that is much less expensive than oil, as a replacement
for oil stocks. We have all the oil we need within our boarders
and in our offshore oil reserves. If all of a sudden we consumed
1/3 less crude, we would actually INCREASE the percentage of oil
that we import, not decrease the percentage, because of the lower
price. Without even trying I'll bet, if you did just a little
research, you could find several dozen countries none of which
have oil, that are free today because of the US and our military.



mike hunt

 

Don't the stockholders have to approve such deals as well...

Matt

 

All of the reliability data I've seen still puts the Koreans well behind
the Americans ... but the gap is narrowing quickly. I have no doubt
they will catch up as the Koreans are anal about beating the Japanese in
every way possible. They've pretty much done so in electronics and
autos will happen in due time.


Matt

 

Beats me! There is no perfect set of statistics. None show everything
one would like to know.


Matt

 

True, but any car that has a 100K warranty on the engine is going to
be good for 1.5x that in almost all cases - or else the maker would
get reamed on warrany repairs.

My GM when it was new? 3 years, 36K miles. That comes out to about
4 times the warranty. On the Kias, even if they are made half as well
as the new GM motors, they should be good for twice their warranty,
or about 200K miles.

CV joints, alternators, clutches, - that's all acceptable to fail.
The engine at 120-140K on three cars? Not good.

 

It all depends on the standard deviation of the mileage at engine
failure. If the SD is small enough, then a mean of 110K would be
sufficient. I have no idea what the stats look like for engine failure
for any automaker and I doubt they make that information readily
available. It would be great to know, however!

Your Buick engines have come pretty close though to even 1.5 x 100K.

On what data do you make this assertion?

I agree that I expect at least 150K on today's engines if well
maintained, but I don't know if that is a reasonable expectation. I
certainly didn't expect my 84 Accord to have an engine failure at 72,000
miles, but I have a letter from the Honda zone office that says that
this is within "Honda's manufacturing tolerances", or at least was at
the time the letter was written in the late 80s. I didn't find that
reasonable so I've never bought another Honda or anything with a Honda
engine since then.


Matt

 

Nothing like being shoved into a train when heading to a 500 sq.ft. appartment!

Oh, boy...

 

Ford is beeter than Chevy??? When was the last time you've been in
one? I did consider an Altima 2 years ago and got put off by so many
things...

Ah, yes, the japanese recipe...

Say what???

One has to like changing lanes with the trottle alone...

 

Just take a lok under any Koeran car and notice the huge steel
reinforcements to make it comply with American crash tests. The
Japanese did it much better then...

You mean the Chevy Metr, AKA Suzuki Switft? I thought you were
talking about cars...

I don't consider sub-compacts worthy my concern. One has to want a
new car badly to shell off such amount of money on a POS of a car when
for that amount one can get an off-lease 3 year-old car with just
36000mls...

But if you insist: no, I don't think that there's any worthy domestic
sub-compact. And no worthy Korean sub-compact either. In this
category, there are more sensible options from the Japanese
manufacturers.

REad my lips: in order to get Kia or Hyundai's 10-year warranty you
have to waive your right to sue, including any lemon law in your
state. You basicaly agree to resort to the arbitration company they
employ only, or risk voiding that "wonderful" warranty...

 

Unfortunately, Ford's Focus beats the stuffing out of GM's little cars.

Yeah. I hated the Altima as well. OTOH, the Sentra was nice.
Evidently, Nissan makes great off-road and small cars, but can't
get the big car formula right.

Hey - it works. Very attractive compared to the 2003 models.

 

I can completely understand. Honda made good vehicles when it was
thier only line, but now their Hondas are second-rate due to the
Acuras getting all the goodies. Toyota does the same thing, as
does Mitsubishi.

Though to be honest, Mitsubishi and Toyota are better about this
than Honda - at least they HAVE luxury and high-end vehicles in
their budget lineups.

 

No. We have 5% of the world's oil supply and use 25%.

 

Hyundai is quite reliable now -- check the CR data. Kia lags, and who knows
how the Daewoo-built, Suzuki-badged cars will do?

 

As an ex-owner of a '98 Cavalier, you've got to be joking. The Altima is a
far superior car in every conceivable way, interior included.

Also, Altimas use a fully independent rear suspension. The rear beam axle
is long gone.

I can also assure you that the torque steer is only a big deal to auto
reviewers and people who don't actually own the cars. Most of us learn to
deal with it about 2 hours after taking delivery, if not during the test
drive itself. Since I actually know how to drive, I don't find it to be a
big deal.

Rear door machining? Now, you're nitpicking. What do YOU drive, so I can
put it on my list of Maxima-killing sports sedans?

 

So you're telling me you own NO Japanese electronics? Nothing from Germany?

I'm glad they didn't, else we'd all be driving K-cars and Pintos.

THIS, we agree on. I did own a VW Jetta at one time, and it about ate me
alive. I'm in complete disagreement with people who buy Japanese autos
because of perceived high quality. I do think that most new US vehicles are
just as high quality as Japanese makes. I bought my Maxima because no US
automaker has an equivalent, except maybe the CTS, and pricewise that is out
of my league. If it had been a "Chevrolet Maxima", I would have gladly
bought it just the same.