Import owners are to blame for the recession

"me" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:27:25 -0600, Gordon McGrew
> > wrote:
>
>>"In particular, issues with difficult-to-use audio and entertainment
>>controls and voice command recognition failure are among the top ten
>>problems most frequently reported by customers. Since hands-free
>>communication for drivers will become a mandate in more and more areas
>>throughout the U.S., this will need to be an area of continued focus
>>for automakers."
>>
>><http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?id=2008063>
>
>
> Hey, those are important issues to "real" car buyers. (LOL)
>
>>The "Long Term Dependability Survey" is equally subjective.
>>
>>"The study also finds that five of the top 10 problems reported
>>industry-wide in the 2008 Vehicle Dependability Study were also among
>>the top 10 most frequently reported problems in the 2005 Initial
>>Quality Study, suggesting that the problems are identified by owners
>>during the initial ownership period, but have not been rectified by
>>automakers during the three-year ownership period.
>>
>>The problems include:
>>
>> 1. Excessive wind noise
>> 2. Noisy brakes
>> 3. Vehicle pulling to the left or right
>> 4. Issues with the instrument panel/dashboard
>> 5. Excessive window fogging"
>>
>><http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008115>
>
> Are you suggesting that these are not key indicators of reliability?
> Certainly you aren't inferring that three years is not long enough
> time to determine reliability!
>
> They should rename the company "J(ust) D(arn) Worthless".
>
>

I was happy with my 95 S-10 initially, but within the first year I was
having issues with it. One hose kept coming off one of the emissions
controls, I think the mechanic got smart enough that he finally put a
jubilee clip on it after 4 trips to fix it. Rust on certain parts before
the first year was up. Initial satisfaction just means the manufacturers
are good at covering over their mistakes. Long term satisfaction is the
goal. And GM doesn't get it.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

"me" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:28:44 -0500, "Derek Gee"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"me" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> JD Powers is very short term. Owner Satisfaction is very subjective.
>>> Most people I know keep their cars longer than three years and judge
>>> on other criteria.
>>
>>But Consumer Reports isn't, and even THEY agree that Ford's quality is now
>>competitive.
>
> FYI - Consumer Reports is unscientific and their surveys are, from a
> statistical viewpoint, worthless. That said, I'd agree that they do
> have some value as generalized surveys.
>
> Also, I'd agree that Ford quality has increased dramatically in some
> areas. In fact, Ford was the only one of the Big-3 to adopt "total
> quality management" some time ago - albeit still 30 years too late.

Ford brought Dr. Deming himself to Dearborn to teach quality in 1981! The
quality was improving quite steadily until the mid-1990's when Jac "The
Knife" Nasser was brought in from Europe to cut costs. That's when quality
started to go down again, because even though Nasser had brought in Six
Sigma techiques, much of the engineering staff was sacked and there was no
people or money to do the jobs right. When Nasser was thrown out in '99,
quality was again seriously emphasized, and now you can actually put Ford at
the top with Toyota and Honda, whereas in 1980, you could not.

Derek

"Derek Gee" > wrote in message
g.com...
>
> "me" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:28:44 -0500, "Derek Gee"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"me" > wrote in message
...
>>>> JD Powers is very short term. Owner Satisfaction is very subjective.
>>>> Most people I know keep their cars longer than three years and judge
>>>> on other criteria.
>>>
>>>But Consumer Reports isn't, and even THEY agree that Ford's quality is
>>>now
>>>competitive.
>>
>> FYI - Consumer Reports is unscientific and their surveys are, from a
>> statistical viewpoint, worthless. That said, I'd agree that they do
>> have some value as generalized surveys.
>>
>> Also, I'd agree that Ford quality has increased dramatically in some
>> areas. In fact, Ford was the only one of the Big-3 to adopt "total
>> quality management" some time ago - albeit still 30 years too late.
>
> Ford brought Dr. Deming himself to Dearborn to teach quality in 1981! The
> quality was improving quite steadily until the mid-1990's when Jac "The
> Knife" Nasser was brought in from Europe to cut costs. That's when
> quality started to go down again, because even though Nasser had brought
> in Six Sigma techiques, much of the engineering staff was sacked and there
> was no people or money to do the jobs right. When Nasser was thrown out
> in '99, quality was again seriously emphasized, and now you can actually
> put Ford at the top with Toyota and Honda, whereas in 1980, you could not.
>
> Derek
>
>

And that's just the trouble with the Detroit 3. Quality depends on who's on
top. It's not an ongoing culture of quality. Toyota may be moving away
from it, but Detroit never had it. (Actually I thought his wife was on
top?)

Sir Charles the Curmdgeon

On 20 Dec, 08:31, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon" > wrote:
> "Derek Gee" > wrote in message
>
> g.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "me" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:28:44 -0500, "Derek Gee"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>>"me" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> JD Powers is very short term. Owner Satisfaction is very subjective.
> >>>> Most people I know keep their cars longer than three years and judge
> >>>> on other criteria.
>
> >>>But Consumer Reports isn't, and even THEY agree that Ford's quality is
> >>>now
> >>>competitive.
>
> >> FYI - Consumer Reports is unscientific and their surveys are, from a
> >> statistical viewpoint, worthless. That said, I'd agree that they do
> >> have some value as generalized surveys.
>
> >> Also, I'd agree that Ford quality has increased dramatically in some
> >> areas. In fact, Ford was the only one of the Big-3 to adopt "total
> >> quality management" some time ago - albeit still 30 years too late.
>
> > Ford brought Dr. Deming himself to Dearborn to teach quality in 1981! *The
> > quality was improving quite steadily until the mid-1990's when Jac "The
> > Knife" Nasser was brought in from Europe to cut costs. *That's when
> > quality started to go down again, because even though Nasser had brought
> > in Six Sigma techiques, much of the engineering staff was sacked and there
> > was no people or money to do the jobs right. *When Nasser was thrown out
> > in '99, quality was again seriously emphasized, and now you can actually
> > put Ford at the top with Toyota and Honda, whereas in 1980, you could not.
>
> > Derek
>
> And that's just the trouble with the Detroit 3. *Quality depends on who's on
> top. *It's not an ongoing culture of quality. *Toyota may be moving away
> from it, but Detroit never had it. *(Actually I thought his wife was on
> top?)

You mean he can only **** up?

On Dec 19, 5:45*pm, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon" > wrote:
> "me" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:27:25 -0600, Gordon McGrew
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"In particular, issues with difficult-to-use audio and entertainment
> >>controls and voice command recognition failure are among the top ten
> >>problems most frequently reported by customers. Since hands-free
> >>communication for drivers will become a mandate in more and more areas
> >>throughout the U.S., this will need to be an area of continued focus
> >>for automakers."
>
> >><http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?id=2...>
>
> > Hey, those are important issues to "real" car buyers. (LOL)
>
> >>The "Long Term Dependability Survey" is equally subjective.
>
> >>"The study also finds that five of the top 10 problems reported
> >>industry-wide in the 2008 Vehicle Dependability Study were also among
> >>the top 10 most frequently reported problems in the 2005 Initial
> >>Quality Study, suggesting that the problems are identified by owners
> >>during the initial ownership period, but have not been rectified by
> >>automakers during the three-year ownership period.
>
> >>The problems include:
>
> >> * 1. Excessive wind noise
> >> * 2. Noisy brakes
> >> * 3. Vehicle pulling to the left or right
> >> * 4. Issues with the instrument panel/dashboard
> >> * 5. Excessive window fogging"
>
> >><http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2...>
>
> > Are you suggesting that these are not key indicators of reliability?
> > Certainly you aren't inferring that three years is not long enough
> > time to determine reliability!
>
> > They should rename the company "J(ust) D(arn) Worthless".
>
> I was happy with my 95 S-10 initially, but within the first year I was
> having issues with it. * One hose kept coming off one of the emissions
> controls, I think the mechanic got smart enough that he finally put a
> jubilee clip on it after 4 trips to fix it. *Rust on certain parts before
> the first year was up. *Initial satisfaction just means the manufacturers
> are good at covering over their mistakes. *Long term satisfaction is the
> goal. *And GM doesn't get it.

My father had an S-10 work truck that had about 100,000 mi with many,
many short trips. And a Toyota SR-5 that didn't last as long. Plus a
1970 C-10 that lasted over 20 years with also over 100,000 mi on with
many, many short trips.

Chevy does build good trucks, as do Ford and Dodge.

They do achieve long-term satisfaction.

Jeff

> Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

That may be your opinion but where in the world do you ever get that idea?


"Derek Gee" > wrote in message
g.com...
>
> "me" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:28:44 -0500, "Derek Gee"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"me" > wrote in message
...
>>>> JD Powers is very short term. Owner Satisfaction is very subjective.
>>>> Most people I know keep their cars longer than three years and judge
>>>> on other criteria.
>>>
>>>But Consumer Reports isn't, and even THEY agree that Ford's quality is
>>>now
>>>competitive.
>>
>> FYI - Consumer Reports is unscientific and their surveys are, from a
>> statistical viewpoint, worthless. That said, I'd agree that they do
>> have some value as generalized surveys.
>>
>> Also, I'd agree that Ford quality has increased dramatically in some
>> areas. In fact, Ford was the only one of the Big-3 to adopt "total
>> quality management" some time ago - albeit still 30 years too late.
>
> Ford brought Dr. Deming himself to Dearborn to teach quality in 1981! The
> quality was improving quite steadily until the mid-1990's when Jac "The
> Knife" Nasser was brought in from Europe to cut costs. That's when
> quality started to go down again, because even though Nasser had brought
> in Six Sigma techiques, much of the engineering staff was sacked and there
> was no people or money to do the jobs right. When Nasser was thrown out
> in '99, quality was again seriously emphasized, and now you can actually
> put Ford at the top with Toyota and Honda, whereas in 1980, you could not.
>
> Derek
>
>

On 7 Dec, 18:43, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> I believe that is what most buyers believe they are doing, don't you? *If
> you suggest one buy the best, most economical, most intelligent buy, you

You are right.

That is what customers do they buy cars that have the best track
record and best quality and they do not want to be taken in the behind
by GM forever

On 22 Dec, 15:03, me > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:27:48 -0500, "Derek Gee"
>
> > wrote:
> >> Also, I'd agree that Ford quality has increased dramatically in some
> >> areas. In fact, Ford was the only one of the Big-3 to adopt "total
> >> quality management" some time ago - albeit still 30 years too late.
>
> >Ford brought Dr. Deming himself to Dearborn to teach quality in 1981! *
>
> The Japanese started just after WWII ended. Ford was one of the
> companies that spurned his ideas back then and for decades. They were
> 30 years behind the Japanese, joining a program that only pays off
> long term. (But way ahead of GM, who still doesn't get it).
>

This is exactly why they are dead today.
Took amazingly long time but it is good fun to see them fall now
because of their stupid arrogance

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:18:14 -0500, me > wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:26:07 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
><mikehunt2@lycos/com> a convicted TOP POSTER wrote:
>
>>
>>"Hachiroku ????" > wrote in message
>>news
>>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:33:35 -0500, me wrote:
>>>
>>> And if you listen carefully to the ads, it says "Initial quality." That
>>> means, the quality experience of the owner when he first takes delivery of
>>> the car.
>>>
>[ top post corrected; you really need to work on that]
>
>>What makes you believe those with a lower build quality rating when new will
>>IMPROVE with age? LOL
>>
>
>There's a big difference in the quality problems at delivery and the
>reliability problems over the life of the vehicle.
>
>I don't know about you, but I've never seen major problems on any
>vehicle before 16-17K miles. Most motor or transmission design issues
>show up at 50K+ miles, as do most suspension issues, accessory issues,
>electrical issues, etc. Before that, all you generally see are
>premature failure of wear items. All of that is long past the JD
>Powers survey time frame.

I guess it depends on what you mean by major. I ran into an issue when
I picked up a new Honda Accord in 1990 (November, so it was a new
model.) I couldn't get the gas to go in except at a very low rate no
matter what I did so I took it back to the dealer after a few weeks
because it was taking at least 10 minutes to do a fill up.

They had the car for about a month as they had to send the gas tank
and the associated hoses back to Japan and get a new one for me. What
had happened is that there is a hose that goes from the gas cap to the
gas tank to carry the gas, along with an outer flexible housing to
protect the gas hose. The problem is that somehow the inner hose has
collapsed so that gas was barely able to enter the gas tank. The
dealer said that they had never seen such a thing before which is why
the factory wanted to see it.

The problem didn't stop me from using the car but having to go without
my new car for a few weeks was very annoying.

"me" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:27:48 -0500, "Derek Gee"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Also, I'd agree that Ford quality has increased dramatically in some
>>> areas. In fact, Ford was the only one of the Big-3 to adopt "total
>>> quality management" some time ago - albeit still 30 years too late.
>>
>>Ford brought Dr. Deming himself to Dearborn to teach quality in 1981!
>
> The Japanese started just after WWII ended. Ford was one of the
> companies that spurned his ideas back then and for decades. They were
> 30 years behind the Japanese, joining a program that only pays off
> long term. (But way ahead of GM, who still doesn't get it).
>
>>The
>>quality was improving quite steadily until the mid-1990's when Jac "The
>>Knife" Nasser was brought in from Europe to cut costs. That's when
>>quality
>>started to go down again, because even though Nasser had brought in Six
>>Sigma techiques, much of the engineering staff was sacked and there was no
>>people or money to do the jobs right. When Nasser was thrown out in '99,
>>quality was again seriously emphasized, and now you can actually put Ford
>>at
>>the top with Toyota and Honda, whereas in 1980, you could not.
>
> I think you are may be the key point. TQM pays off long term through
> customer loyalty developed through quality products. Because of
> quality issues like the one you mentioned, Ford still has some ways to
> go before they develop that quality based loyalty (regardless of what
> they produce today). It's not like you hear people saying "GM and
> Chrysler are producing junk, but Fords are top shelf!". Until you
> mature into that position, you lose against the Japanese as they
> already sit in that spot in people's minds.

There was a time when Jap was synonymous with crap. My dad almost didn't
buy our first Toyota. We were so poor that we had to buy used, and in the
market we were in, it came down to a choice between a used Carina and a
Dodge 225 slant 6 that had been in a wreck. But he grew up in the era where
Jap was synonoumous with crap. So Mom and him checked the Carina out pretty
thouroughly and they were very impressed with the quality. Americans have
got used to the Detroit 3 thinking short-sightedly. They're still wary that
even though the initial quailty looks better than it used to, that it's not
going to last.

And what's worse, walking into most American dealerships, most buyers feel
like they ought to be wearing a full body condom anyway. Dealers are going
to steer them to packages they don't really want. I had a dealer try to
steer me from the 4 cylinder manual up to the V6 on the S-10 I bouight. I
could just barely afford the 10 grand for the 4. The way he was 'stacking'
options, it would have cost me 20 grand..

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon