10 ms·

This is one reason why I don't buy American. I actually really like Ford's vehicles (the infotainment system might be the best available) but they consistently

This is one reason why I don't buy American. I actually really like Ford's vehicles (the infotainment system might be the best available) but they consistently get bad reliability scores along with other American brands (Chrysler, Dodge, etc). Why don't American manufacturers work to improve their reliability? People really are buying Toyota/Honda/Mazda for that reason. And while Kia might be unreliable as all heck, they come with the best included warranty available[0]. American vehicles actually cost more too in many cases, so you're paying for the "privilege" of getting a less reliable vehicle. [0] http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=buy&story=manWarranty&subject=warranty http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=buy&story=ma...

busterarm 10y ago
Ford has improved their reliability considerably, post-bailout. Ford is really the only example I can see of the bailout doing anything good. Pre-bailout, Ford was pretty abysmal. I would actually say they were less reliable than GM. They took the influx of cash and overhauled their entire manufacturing AND design processes to turn out some great cars. The only thing in their lineup looking bleak to me is the Escape (ugh, just no). The problem is that they're still pretty cheap on their interiors and panels tend to come loose and break a lot. American consumers tend to value interior over most other car features unfortunately. Modern Fords, save for the Escape, are pretty reliable and Honda has shown themselves to be much less so in recent years. Mazda is still too small volume to matter. tl;dr: Ford is great now, Toyota is still on top, Honda is majorly slipping and GM still blows goats.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Ford wasn't bailed out.
  - busterarm 10y ago
    Yes it was. Ford got $5.9 billion in TALF money. Nissan got some too. Just because it wasn't TARP doesn't mean that it wasn't a bailout. They also got a $9 billion line of credit from the government. Clever PR misdirection on their part. They were also lucky in their timing - they had already mortgaged about $18 billion in assets in 2006. Neither one of those events on their own would have been enough to save the company. Both turned them into a major competitor again.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      I suspect Ford would have had much better results over the last five or six years if their two biggest competitors had gone out of business.
      - busterarm 10y ago
        Oh I agree. We should have at least let GM burn in a fiery ball of death. Chrystler I'm a little less positive on as I generally approve of the Fiat deal and what the company has done since...some of it anyway.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        They have significant supply chain overlap. Ford lobbied for a bailout of the industry.
        busterarm 10y ago
        The entire car industry has supply chain overlap, to be honest.
        jessaustin 10y ago
        The Ford lobbyists are a principle-agent problem on many levels, but of course all of corporate America is. When a supplier loses two customers while all its other customers order more parts than before, there might be some costs associated with adjusting to the new circumstances, but it won't go out of business.
    - jfoutz 10y ago
      Ford took a loan. Ford got an interest rate that a normal citizen couldn't get, clearly there was special treatment. But it's not like we handed them 9 billion dollars. It seemed like banks were freaking out in 2009, and really wouldn't give a loan at any interest rate. Assuming a sane banking structure, where it was possible to get a loan, 1% on 5.6 billion is around 50 million a year. "bailout" is a fairly fuzzy term. If the banking system was working, there would have been no need for DOE loans. There was also the benefit of improved milage, thereby reducing carbon emissions. This seems like the sort of thing the DOE does anyway, and wouldn't raise eyebrows in a sane banking environment. I think by your meaning of "bailout" student loans are also a bailout. On the other hand, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. They sold secured assets to new GM and new Chrysler and, i believe, gave investors quite a haircut.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  I'll say this, there is a delay between a manufacturer improving and it actually showing up in reliability metrics. So perhaps Ford have improved, but their stats are being ruined by cars made in the early 2000s. But that being said, the only useful data for reliability is after the first three years since very few vehicles have issues when they're "brand new." It is more in the long tail that they become expensive to keep on the road. Next time I buy a vehicle I'll re-examine the reliability data and see if the picture has shifted.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Surprised no one mentioned Ford hiring Alan Mulally from Boeing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mulally https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mulally
- coryrc 10y ago
  I'm from Michigan. I've heard this so many times over the years, but you won't fool me again. edit: Specifically cars only. Trucks are different.
  - busterarm 10y ago
    I've heard this line a lot, but what alternative do you have? GM is utter shit and Japanese cars traditionally rust to pieces there. Not everyone can afford a Mercedes.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      4-5 year old MB's are pretty reasonably priced (I tend to buy a little farther out on the price curve than that). Mercedes also had a horrible rust problem with their mid-late 90s cars. They switched to an environmentally friendly paint process that was terrible for paint adhesion and rust prevention. I have a perfectly good '98 E300D that's going to go the junkyard because of rust issues. Explain to me how that's saving the environment again?
      - outworlder 10y ago
        By rusting away, the car will turn into iron oxide, which is "natural" and thus helps the environment. They should have made the paint an energy source for microorganisms, then they could claim to have a biodegradable car.
    - coryrc 10y ago
      My relatives have no problems with Toyota cars since ~2009, unlike previous Big 3 vehicles with a continual trickle of issues, even in brand-new vehicles. Plus they're just nicer on the inside and hold up longer.
    - knz 10y ago
      > Japanese cars rust? I've been in a climate known for being hard on vehicles (Minnesota) for ten years and the only rust buckets I ever see on the roads are older American vehicles (Dodge SUV's and minivans in particular). I've owned Nissan and Honda vehicles in that time and never had issues with rust.
- mdip 10y ago
  I've heard a lot of complaining about Honda lately which bugs me. I actually purchased a Honda motorcycle[0] because of tens of industry reviews lauding the quality and reliability and avoided a Harley at least in part because of the "It's a Harley. Sometimes they stall."[1] (that, and I'm a twig of a man so I'd look ridiculous on a Harley). [0] Specifically, I purchased a model they'd brought over from Europe (good sized engine, sport/touring, 100+ miles to the gallon but "you don't buy a bike to save on gas") and the reviews for the European model were universally good. [1] This was an actual quote from the guy at the Harley dealership after he succeeded in starting a floor model only to have it crap out after 5 seconds of idling. He thought I'd be impressed with how loud the damn thing was. Little did he know I wasn't looking to be that guy, I just always wanted a motorcycle and the bike I purchased is exceptionally quiet.
  - busterarm 10y ago
    We're not talking about motorcycles though. Their bikes are fantastic.
    - soylentcola 10y ago
      Yep. My 2009 Shadow isn't gonna win any awards in either handling or speed or even "coolest sounding exhaust rumble" but the damn thing is near bulletproof. Shaft drive is a little heavier but removes the need for chain/belt maintenance. It's been knocked over by teenage vandals and still started right back up with no issues. It was my first "proper" bike (after screwing around town on 50cc scooters) and it probably won't be my last but it's been a workhorse, no doubt.
  - refurb 10y ago
    A lot of it depends on the model and "generation". For example, the 2002-2007 (7th gen??) Honda Accords had bum transmissions that pretty much crapped the bed when hooked up to the V6. The I4 versions were really solid. It's less about general dependability and more about a few slip ups that Honda made that are making people question the brand as a whole.
    - 10y ago
- messick 10y ago
  Ford took no money from TARP, so not sure what you mean by pre/post bailout.
  - pjlegato 10y ago
    There was a seperate auto industry bailout program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9310_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9310...
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      Ford didn't take money from that program either.
      - coredog64 10y ago
        The bailout provisions required some pretty strict limitations on dividends. As I understand it, quite a few members of the Ford family derive a significant portion of their income from FoMoCo stock dividends. It doesn't hurt that Ford was able to borrow large amounts of money before the meltdown, so they had the capital to weather the storm.
- partiallypro 10y ago
  Ford had been improving well before the auto crisis, but they were never in danger of going under. It was Chrysler and GM. Ford never took the bailout, honestly, I think that helped their sales a lot. Hard to shake the "Government Motors" or the "Fiat" image. Toyota is still the best. People are always shocked when they hear how many miles I have on my 2006 Tacoma. I also like Subaru, surprised they ranked as that expensive to maintain.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    The only problem I have with Toyotas (and I'm in a new Camry rental after a Rav4 got totalled) is that the suspension, handling, and styling seemed to be designed by people who hate driving.
    - RotsiserMho 10y ago
      I drive an FRS (Toyota 86) for this reason. It's an absolute joy to drive.
      - ethbro 10y ago
        You mean the Toyota that they had Subaru build for them? only semi-jokingly
        RotsiserMho 10y ago
        Heh
    - partiallypro 10y ago
      I have an 06 Tacoma and I prefer its handling to every other vehicle I've driven, including the F-150, Tundra, Outback (though the Outback is the most similar), Mercedes-Benz crossover (don't know the exact model.) I've also driven a Viper and a Corvette, but I'm not including those in my comparison for obvious reasons. I think it's just preference. Then again, trucks have different suspension than cars. My mom used to have a Camry, and I never liked driving it. It might just be a truck thing.
- bane 10y ago
  Ford never took bailout money AFAIK. They revitalized on their own which is very commendable. If they were just a little bit more reliable I'd probably buy one. My parents buy Fords almost exclusively and they range from about as reliable as my Honda to abysmal and expensive so YMMV.
  - yompers888 10y ago
    I bought a 2014 Focus, which I think has developed quite a reputation for expensive and frequent repairs. Fortunately, the primary (overwhelmingly so) candidate is the transmission.
    - dragontamer 10y ago
      This played into my decision when I got a 2014 Focus as well. I got a manual transmission. Its much harder to screw up a manual. The Dual-clutch thing is somewhat innovative, but the Focus's engine is high-rev / turbo-charged (getting the most power at 4000+ RPM). At the low-end, the engine is jerky and everything. Its much smoother when I rev the engine higher (maybe 3000+ or even 4000+) before shifting up. I'm not really sure how the "automatic" DCT of the Focus is supposed to manage the engine without things getting shaky. I definitely recommend the 2014 as a manual car. Very simple driving behavior fix to just rev the engine a little higher.
      - soylentcola 10y ago
        We've got a 2012 Focus as our sole car (my other car is a motorcycle if I'm looking to go all "bumper sticker" with my phrases). I believe this was the first year that they switched the US Focus to be the same as the European version which was a different, superior vehicle in past years. It's also a manual and it's the base model so the interior trim is boring black plastic. Stereo and all that are very basic and there's absolutely nothing exciting about the car. That said, It was under $15k new in the late summer of 2011, hasn't had any major issues or maintenance other than scheduled visits, oil changes, and the like. Granted we've only had it for 5 years but the thing is paid for and for $15k, it's been a fine commuter car and for the few longer trips we take every year. Previous car was a used (forget the year) Jetta with fancy heated leather seats, 6 speed, sweet stereo, moon roof, and all that fun stuff. The damn thing was in the shop at least two or more times per year during the few years we had it before we threw in the towel and traded it in on the Focus. Sure, I sorta liked the perks and that 6 speed, 6cyl was a hell of a lot more fun to drive but it wasn't thousands-more-per-year more fun to drive. The car was also not new when we got it so it's not a fair comparison to a car purchased new. If anything, I think I learned that buying a new (or newer) car that's simpler with a lower base cost can still be less spendy than going used when you add in maintenance costs.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  I'm not American, so I don't have an intricate knowledge about your car market, but isn't GM doing relatively well since the bailout? At least their Volt/Bolt models seem to be pretty innovative, at the moment it would be my choice (i.e. the Opel Ampera derivative) if I were to look for a new car.
  - Gibbon1 10y ago
    Fairly well. I could be wrong but I believe during the big 2008 downturn people stopped buying cars, yet of course GM needed to keep paying off their capital expenses. So they had a classic cash flow problem. Now sales are normative like you'd expect. Might be a silver lining in that the crisis likely motivated management to make improvements[1]. Although I'm under the impression that their fiance division GMAC took big loses. The standard wikepidia link seems to say GM divested before the big crisis hit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial [1] Japanese auto companies tend to compete on quality and TCO. GM seemed stuck forever competing on sales price/brand loyalty.
protomyth 10y ago
> Kia might be unreliable as all heck Have had two Kia Rio's (2008 and 2013), the 2008 model was definitely maintenance intensive vehicle and frankly poorly built vehicle[1], but the 2013 seems to be a much better car. I'm at 130,000 miles and it seems to be doing fine and nothing big has happened and it deals well with ND winters when I cannot plug in the block heater[2]. 1) the timing belt did fail a bit earlier than the maintenance checks suggest (yes, its game over right there), but the 2013 has a chain. Spark plugs were also an issue on the 2008 along with brakes. 2) no outlets at apartment, so goes the whole electric thing
mdip 10y ago
American Cars I live in Michigan and my father owns a business that supplies to the automotive industry, so he's always bought from the Big Three[0]. Though I was really young, in the 80s, buying a Toyota or another foreign vehicle and parking in my part of Michigan had a high probability of coming back to your car and finding a nice, long, keying had taken place. It's rare now, but it's hard to forget and when GM/Chrysler were in crisis a few years ago, there was an uptick in that behavior. Infotainment Provided you have one from 2013 or later. Otherwise you get a really nice looking screen that won't fscking pair with your Android (or disconnects) 30% of the time. Reliability/Ford They do care about reliability (and the Ford Fusion was in that list). I've owned only American cars and with the exception of a Chrysler that was effectively a lemon, I've not had any that experienced expensive repairs over 8 different vehicles (anecdote, yes). The issue is that reliability has a cost and the Big Three have a unique cost not shared by the foreign manufacturers -- the UAW[1]. I think the number I read was $1,500[2] would be saved if the vehicles were built in a non-union plant. That has to come from somewhere. I think in more recent model years, though, the quality has improved due to competition from foreign brands breaking even the most die-hard "Buy American" people. The number of foreign non-luxury vehicles on the road in SE Michigan is way higher than I've seen it in my lifetime. It's still a minority, here, but if Michiganians are increasingly buying foreign, that's a wake-up call for the big 3. You're dead on, though. At current count of family and friends, I have talked to eight people who switched to Honda or Toyota from Ford or GM. All of them cited a car with multiple quality issues as the reason they switched. The more interesting part for me was that all of them were on leases where their time of ownership put them within the warranty period for all repairs -- they didn't have to pay for any of them! But where we live, being without a car leaves you forced to rent (in one case for almost a month). Public transportation is limited to a really lousy bus service that might or might not arrive within an hour of the posted scheduled time (if at all) and require several transfers to get to your destination, making a 30 minute drive take ... an average Thursday by bus. A fundamental change has to take place at the autos -- one with a focus purely on quality of the product. The US market vehicles, when I last purchased, offered few with warranties over 40,000 miles. They have a reputation for producing sub-par vehicles. To fix it, they'd need to do something extreme. Build a car with a hyper-focus on reliability and toss a 150,000 mile 10 year comprehensive warranty on it[3] (if it's built well, it'll cost them no more than it does today). If they take it to that extreme, they'll be believed by the industry press and the buyer. [0] When people say "Buying American" they're usually referring to these guys, which is another way of saying UAW built cars. There's no car that I'm aware of that is built 100% in America with American parts and some vehicles from foreign brands have a larger percentage built in the United States (by non-union plants usually located in the South) than the equivalent in their categories from the big three. [1] No, I'm not a union fan, but I also do not work in the automotive industry so, in general, I don't care. [2] I don't have the exact number and I couldn't find it from a quick Google search. The counter to this is always "the foreign cars have import costs!" which is true, but so do the American brands (see point [0]) and in a lot of cases, the foreign brands offset that cost by assembling in American plants ... in the South ... that are non-union (and the workers actively resist attempts at unionizing them for whatever reason). [3] When I purchased my Fusion, I got one with, literally, all the options. I was taken to what I refer to as the "Hard Sell Room" and explained the options for an (unbelievably expensive) Extended Warranty. The worst salesman ever said "You have this, that and the other feature. This one costs $500 to repair, this one costs $700 to repair" and went on before I cut him off with "So what you're telling me is that your cars are unreliable and I need to buy a separate insurance policy because if any of these shiny features fail, I'm going to own a rock with wheels". I, seriously, almost walked out of the dealership. I'm at 100,000 miles with no service required beyond routine maintenance.
peterbotond 10y ago
i had a ford focus 2002, ran to 150,000 miles and it got totaled. The only things were replaced: timing belt, tires, brakes, fuel filter, plugs, O2 sensor, alternator, one of the solenoid (maybe 3rd or 4th gear). Besides the solenoid and the alternator all items are maintenance. Does this count as good reliability?
- sokoloff 10y ago
  At 100K miles, there's a pretty good argument that the alternator is maintenance as well. (If it died very early, maybe not, but it's a rotating part with brushes; it's eventually going to need maintenance on any car.)
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Absolutely agree. In addition to that we should include things like: radiator, radiator and heater hoses, air conditioning compressor, timing belt, break rotors (disks) and, automatic transmission, suspension bushes and shock absorbers, wheel bearings, exhaust pipes, mufflers, catalytic converters. I only buy secondhand cars, and these are all things I've replaced, either myself or by mechanics. All these things will eventually wear out on a car, but replacing most of these parts is relatively straight forward, and I believe in expensive in comparison to the huge financial outlay require to purchase a new vehicle - in which we ought to include the depreciation as well as the running costs and maintenance.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Maintenance items do not (or should not IMO) count as reliability items since they are similar expected expenses on all cars. Timing belt would be the only one I would look at because there can be significant differences in the mileage intervals. VW famously has (or had) a fairly short interval, like 30K miles, and very low tolerance for going over that. Other vehicles can go 100K miles before any engine maintenance beyond fluid changes.
  - outworlder 10y ago
    I hope they are no longer using timing belts. We should expect at least chains. Last longer and tend to warn you before they break.
ams6110 10y ago
Anecdotes are not data but I have a 2002 Ford Focus that I'm hugely happy with. Approaching 200,000 miles and zero significant issues. Also previously had an F150 that was great also until it was totaled in an accident. I would buy Ford without hesitation.
- lemonberry 10y ago
  I had a 2000 Ford Focus that I drove for 209,000 miles in 12 years. Great car. Mine was a standard and red. I had a few recalls early on but overall it was a great car.
Spooky23 10y ago
With the American cars, you have to focus on the flagship, high volume cars. They stuff the junk in to fill out the line (i.e. The Chevy/Daewoo thing) My Ford vs Honda experience has been pretty similar. Great or Awful. I had a 2005 Odyessy and 2003 Pilot. Basically the same car, but the Odyssey was crap - literally had a door fall off. Likewise, I had a Fusion and a 500/Taurus. The 500 had lots of stupid, expensive problems with trim, electronics, etc. The Fusion was flawless.
esaym 10y ago
Each has its bad models to stay away from. I find no problem with Ford. My 2000 v6 mustang is still fine at 200k miles. I have a relative that has 1989 Ford Ranger that has 450K miles on it. Same engine, never rebuilt. Though he did have to replace the transmission in 1996 and again just last year. I think the thing that lead to Asian cars getting a good name was their switch to using all synthetic fluids in the late 1990's. You could buy a Nissan or Toyota and drive it for 8 year straight with no other maintenance other than oil changes and be just fine. Do the same thing with an American car of that era and you will go through several stages. If you did nothing but change the oil, at the 5 year mark the car would be mostly destroyed. The conventional anti-freeze would have completely broken down at the 3 year mark and now your entire cooling system would be solid rust. Your brakes will also be on the way out, as the normal DOT3 brake fluid absorbs water and after 5 years it will have become corrosive and it will be eating holes in your brake lines and brake pistons. The non synthetic power steering fluid will also be at the end of life and it will be destroying the seals in your steering rack. And if its an automatic transmission, there is about 2 gallons of non synthetic transmission fluid in it that went bad 2 years ago and now the accelerated seal and metal wear is going to start clogging up the tiny fluid circuits so now one day your car will stay stuck in neutral... Oh and the engine will be running very rough more than likely too by now as the non-platinum sparks plugs are definitely wore out beyond use. But if you change those fluids every 3 years or so, you are good for a few decades :)
- TwoBit 10y ago
  If synthetic fluids are the solution, why not replace with synthetic fluids?
  - esaym 10y ago
    You certainly can (in most cases). But the examples I spoke of are what I would consider extreme neglect (even though every one pretty much treats their vehicle that way). Is your life that busy that you can't even find time once every three years to change the fluids yourself (or pay a shop to do it)?
  - abakker 10y ago
whatusername 10y ago
In Australia Kia have their basic warranty at 7/unlimited. Which is pretty impressive.
tyingq 10y ago
In the past, there were some Ford vehicles that were well known for their ability to keep going for 300,000+ miles. Like the early 90's Ford Trucks with the straight 6, the Ranger, and the Crown Vic with the 4.6L V8. All discontinued, or the reliable engine replaced with something not as reliable.
jimbobimbo 10y ago
I'm on my second new American car brand. No problems whatsoever and I drive it hard.

busterarm 10y ago

Ford has improved their reliability considerably, post-bailout. Ford is really the only example I can see of the bailout doing anything good. Pre-bailout, Ford was pretty abysmal. I would actually say they were less reliable than GM. They took the influx of cash and overhauled their entire manufacturing AND design processes to turn out some great cars. The only thing in their lineup looking bleak to me is the Escape (ugh, just no). The problem is that they're still pretty cheap on their interiors and panels tend to come loose and break a lot. American consumers tend to value interior over most other car features unfortunately. Modern Fords, save for the Escape, are pretty reliable and Honda has shown themselves to be much less so in recent years. Mazda is still too small volume to matter. tl;dr: Ford is great now, Toyota is still on top, Honda is majorly slipping and GM still blows goats.

maxerickson 10y ago
Ford wasn't bailed out.
- busterarm 10y ago
  Yes it was. Ford got $5.9 billion in TALF money. Nissan got some too. Just because it wasn't TARP doesn't mean that it wasn't a bailout. They also got a $9 billion line of credit from the government. Clever PR misdirection on their part. They were also lucky in their timing - they had already mortgaged about $18 billion in assets in 2006. Neither one of those events on their own would have been enough to save the company. Both turned them into a major competitor again.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    I suspect Ford would have had much better results over the last five or six years if their two biggest competitors had gone out of business.
    - busterarm 10y ago
      Oh I agree. We should have at least let GM burn in a fiery ball of death. Chrystler I'm a little less positive on as I generally approve of the Fiat deal and what the company has done since...some of it anyway.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      They have significant supply chain overlap. Ford lobbied for a bailout of the industry.
      - busterarm 10y ago
        The entire car industry has supply chain overlap, to be honest.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        The Ford lobbyists are a principle-agent problem on many levels, but of course all of corporate America is. When a supplier loses two customers while all its other customers order more parts than before, there might be some costs associated with adjusting to the new circumstances, but it won't go out of business.
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    Ford took a loan. Ford got an interest rate that a normal citizen couldn't get, clearly there was special treatment. But it's not like we handed them 9 billion dollars. It seemed like banks were freaking out in 2009, and really wouldn't give a loan at any interest rate. Assuming a sane banking structure, where it was possible to get a loan, 1% on 5.6 billion is around 50 million a year. "bailout" is a fairly fuzzy term. If the banking system was working, there would have been no need for DOE loans. There was also the benefit of improved milage, thereby reducing carbon emissions. This seems like the sort of thing the DOE does anyway, and wouldn't raise eyebrows in a sane banking environment. I think by your meaning of "bailout" student loans are also a bailout. On the other hand, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. They sold secured assets to new GM and new Chrysler and, i believe, gave investors quite a haircut.
UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
I'll say this, there is a delay between a manufacturer improving and it actually showing up in reliability metrics. So perhaps Ford have improved, but their stats are being ruined by cars made in the early 2000s. But that being said, the only useful data for reliability is after the first three years since very few vehicles have issues when they're "brand new." It is more in the long tail that they become expensive to keep on the road. Next time I buy a vehicle I'll re-examine the reliability data and see if the picture has shifted.
- ethbro 10y ago
  Surprised no one mentioned Ford hiring Alan Mulally from Boeing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mulally https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mulally
coryrc 10y ago
I'm from Michigan. I've heard this so many times over the years, but you won't fool me again. edit: Specifically cars only. Trucks are different.
- busterarm 10y ago
  I've heard this line a lot, but what alternative do you have? GM is utter shit and Japanese cars traditionally rust to pieces there. Not everyone can afford a Mercedes.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    4-5 year old MB's are pretty reasonably priced (I tend to buy a little farther out on the price curve than that). Mercedes also had a horrible rust problem with their mid-late 90s cars. They switched to an environmentally friendly paint process that was terrible for paint adhesion and rust prevention. I have a perfectly good '98 E300D that's going to go the junkyard because of rust issues. Explain to me how that's saving the environment again?
    - outworlder 10y ago
      By rusting away, the car will turn into iron oxide, which is "natural" and thus helps the environment. They should have made the paint an energy source for microorganisms, then they could claim to have a biodegradable car.
  - coryrc 10y ago
    My relatives have no problems with Toyota cars since ~2009, unlike previous Big 3 vehicles with a continual trickle of issues, even in brand-new vehicles. Plus they're just nicer on the inside and hold up longer.
  - knz 10y ago
    > Japanese cars rust? I've been in a climate known for being hard on vehicles (Minnesota) for ten years and the only rust buckets I ever see on the roads are older American vehicles (Dodge SUV's and minivans in particular). I've owned Nissan and Honda vehicles in that time and never had issues with rust.
mdip 10y ago
I've heard a lot of complaining about Honda lately which bugs me. I actually purchased a Honda motorcycle[0] because of tens of industry reviews lauding the quality and reliability and avoided a Harley at least in part because of the "It's a Harley. Sometimes they stall."[1] (that, and I'm a twig of a man so I'd look ridiculous on a Harley). [0] Specifically, I purchased a model they'd brought over from Europe (good sized engine, sport/touring, 100+ miles to the gallon but "you don't buy a bike to save on gas") and the reviews for the European model were universally good. [1] This was an actual quote from the guy at the Harley dealership after he succeeded in starting a floor model only to have it crap out after 5 seconds of idling. He thought I'd be impressed with how loud the damn thing was. Little did he know I wasn't looking to be that guy, I just always wanted a motorcycle and the bike I purchased is exceptionally quiet.
- busterarm 10y ago
  We're not talking about motorcycles though. Their bikes are fantastic.
  - soylentcola 10y ago
    Yep. My 2009 Shadow isn't gonna win any awards in either handling or speed or even "coolest sounding exhaust rumble" but the damn thing is near bulletproof. Shaft drive is a little heavier but removes the need for chain/belt maintenance. It's been knocked over by teenage vandals and still started right back up with no issues. It was my first "proper" bike (after screwing around town on 50cc scooters) and it probably won't be my last but it's been a workhorse, no doubt.
- refurb 10y ago
  A lot of it depends on the model and "generation". For example, the 2002-2007 (7th gen??) Honda Accords had bum transmissions that pretty much crapped the bed when hooked up to the V6. The I4 versions were really solid. It's less about general dependability and more about a few slip ups that Honda made that are making people question the brand as a whole.
  - 10y ago
messick 10y ago
Ford took no money from TARP, so not sure what you mean by pre/post bailout.
- pjlegato 10y ago
  There was a seperate auto industry bailout program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9310_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9310...
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    Ford didn't take money from that program either.
    - coredog64 10y ago
      The bailout provisions required some pretty strict limitations on dividends. As I understand it, quite a few members of the Ford family derive a significant portion of their income from FoMoCo stock dividends. It doesn't hurt that Ford was able to borrow large amounts of money before the meltdown, so they had the capital to weather the storm.
partiallypro 10y ago
Ford had been improving well before the auto crisis, but they were never in danger of going under. It was Chrysler and GM. Ford never took the bailout, honestly, I think that helped their sales a lot. Hard to shake the "Government Motors" or the "Fiat" image. Toyota is still the best. People are always shocked when they hear how many miles I have on my 2006 Tacoma. I also like Subaru, surprised they ranked as that expensive to maintain.
- ethbro 10y ago
  The only problem I have with Toyotas (and I'm in a new Camry rental after a Rav4 got totalled) is that the suspension, handling, and styling seemed to be designed by people who hate driving.
  - RotsiserMho 10y ago
    I drive an FRS (Toyota 86) for this reason. It's an absolute joy to drive.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      You mean the Toyota that they had Subaru build for them? only semi-jokingly
      - RotsiserMho 10y ago
        Heh
  - partiallypro 10y ago
    I have an 06 Tacoma and I prefer its handling to every other vehicle I've driven, including the F-150, Tundra, Outback (though the Outback is the most similar), Mercedes-Benz crossover (don't know the exact model.) I've also driven a Viper and a Corvette, but I'm not including those in my comparison for obvious reasons. I think it's just preference. Then again, trucks have different suspension than cars. My mom used to have a Camry, and I never liked driving it. It might just be a truck thing.
bane 10y ago
Ford never took bailout money AFAIK. They revitalized on their own which is very commendable. If they were just a little bit more reliable I'd probably buy one. My parents buy Fords almost exclusively and they range from about as reliable as my Honda to abysmal and expensive so YMMV.
- yompers888 10y ago
  I bought a 2014 Focus, which I think has developed quite a reputation for expensive and frequent repairs. Fortunately, the primary (overwhelmingly so) candidate is the transmission.
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    This played into my decision when I got a 2014 Focus as well. I got a manual transmission. Its much harder to screw up a manual. The Dual-clutch thing is somewhat innovative, but the Focus's engine is high-rev / turbo-charged (getting the most power at 4000+ RPM). At the low-end, the engine is jerky and everything. Its much smoother when I rev the engine higher (maybe 3000+ or even 4000+) before shifting up. I'm not really sure how the "automatic" DCT of the Focus is supposed to manage the engine without things getting shaky. I definitely recommend the 2014 as a manual car. Very simple driving behavior fix to just rev the engine a little higher.
    - soylentcola 10y ago
      We've got a 2012 Focus as our sole car (my other car is a motorcycle if I'm looking to go all "bumper sticker" with my phrases). I believe this was the first year that they switched the US Focus to be the same as the European version which was a different, superior vehicle in past years. It's also a manual and it's the base model so the interior trim is boring black plastic. Stereo and all that are very basic and there's absolutely nothing exciting about the car. That said, It was under $15k new in the late summer of 2011, hasn't had any major issues or maintenance other than scheduled visits, oil changes, and the like. Granted we've only had it for 5 years but the thing is paid for and for $15k, it's been a fine commuter car and for the few longer trips we take every year. Previous car was a used (forget the year) Jetta with fancy heated leather seats, 6 speed, sweet stereo, moon roof, and all that fun stuff. The damn thing was in the shop at least two or more times per year during the few years we had it before we threw in the towel and traded it in on the Focus. Sure, I sorta liked the perks and that 6 speed, 6cyl was a hell of a lot more fun to drive but it wasn't thousands-more-per-year more fun to drive. The car was also not new when we got it so it's not a fair comparison to a car purchased new. If anything, I think I learned that buying a new (or newer) car that's simpler with a lower base cost can still be less spendy than going used when you add in maintenance costs.
m_mueller 10y ago
I'm not American, so I don't have an intricate knowledge about your car market, but isn't GM doing relatively well since the bailout? At least their Volt/Bolt models seem to be pretty innovative, at the moment it would be my choice (i.e. the Opel Ampera derivative) if I were to look for a new car.
- Gibbon1 10y ago
  Fairly well. I could be wrong but I believe during the big 2008 downturn people stopped buying cars, yet of course GM needed to keep paying off their capital expenses. So they had a classic cash flow problem. Now sales are normative like you'd expect. Might be a silver lining in that the crisis likely motivated management to make improvements[1]. Although I'm under the impression that their fiance division GMAC took big loses. The standard wikepidia link seems to say GM divested before the big crisis hit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial [1] Japanese auto companies tend to compete on quality and TCO. GM seemed stuck forever competing on sales price/brand loyalty.

protomyth 10y ago

> Kia might be unreliable as all heck Have had two Kia Rio's (2008 and 2013), the 2008 model was definitely maintenance intensive vehicle and frankly poorly built vehicle[1], but the 2013 seems to be a much better car. I'm at 130,000 miles and it seems to be doing fine and nothing big has happened and it deals well with ND winters when I cannot plug in the block heater[2]. 1) the timing belt did fail a bit earlier than the maintenance checks suggest (yes, its game over right there), but the 2013 has a chain. Spark plugs were also an issue on the 2008 along with brakes. 2) no outlets at apartment, so goes the whole electric thing

mdip 10y ago

American Cars I live in Michigan and my father owns a business that supplies to the automotive industry, so he's always bought from the Big Three[0]. Though I was really young, in the 80s, buying a Toyota or another foreign vehicle and parking in my part of Michigan had a high probability of coming back to your car and finding a nice, long, keying had taken place. It's rare now, but it's hard to forget and when GM/Chrysler were in crisis a few years ago, there was an uptick in that behavior. Infotainment Provided you have one from 2013 or later. Otherwise you get a really nice looking screen that won't fscking pair with your Android (or disconnects) 30% of the time. Reliability/Ford They do care about reliability (and the Ford Fusion was in that list). I've owned only American cars and with the exception of a Chrysler that was effectively a lemon, I've not had any that experienced expensive repairs over 8 different vehicles (anecdote, yes). The issue is that reliability has a cost and the Big Three have a unique cost not shared by the foreign manufacturers -- the UAW[1]. I think the number I read was $1,500[2] would be saved if the vehicles were built in a non-union plant. That has to come from somewhere. I think in more recent model years, though, the quality has improved due to competition from foreign brands breaking even the most die-hard "Buy American" people. The number of foreign non-luxury vehicles on the road in SE Michigan is way higher than I've seen it in my lifetime. It's still a minority, here, but if Michiganians are increasingly buying foreign, that's a wake-up call for the big 3. You're dead on, though. At current count of family and friends, I have talked to eight people who switched to Honda or Toyota from Ford or GM. All of them cited a car with multiple quality issues as the reason they switched. The more interesting part for me was that all of them were on leases where their time of ownership put them within the warranty period for all repairs -- they didn't have to pay for any of them! But where we live, being without a car leaves you forced to rent (in one case for almost a month). Public transportation is limited to a really lousy bus service that might or might not arrive within an hour of the posted scheduled time (if at all) and require several transfers to get to your destination, making a 30 minute drive take ... an average Thursday by bus. A fundamental change has to take place at the autos -- one with a focus purely on quality of the product. The US market vehicles, when I last purchased, offered few with warranties over 40,000 miles. They have a reputation for producing sub-par vehicles. To fix it, they'd need to do something extreme. Build a car with a hyper-focus on reliability and toss a 150,000 mile 10 year comprehensive warranty on it[3] (if it's built well, it'll cost them no more than it does today). If they take it to that extreme, they'll be believed by the industry press and the buyer. [0] When people say "Buying American" they're usually referring to these guys, which is another way of saying UAW built cars. There's no car that I'm aware of that is built 100% in America with American parts and some vehicles from foreign brands have a larger percentage built in the United States (by non-union plants usually located in the South) than the equivalent in their categories from the big three. [1] No, I'm not a union fan, but I also do not work in the automotive industry so, in general, I don't care. [2] I don't have the exact number and I couldn't find it from a quick Google search. The counter to this is always "the foreign cars have import costs!" which is true, but so do the American brands (see point [0]) and in a lot of cases, the foreign brands offset that cost by assembling in American plants ... in the South ... that are non-union (and the workers actively resist attempts at unionizing them for whatever reason). [3] When I purchased my Fusion, I got one with, literally, all the options. I was taken to what I refer to as the "Hard Sell Room" and explained the options for an (unbelievably expensive) Extended Warranty. The worst salesman ever said "You have this, that and the other feature. This one costs $500 to repair, this one costs $700 to repair" and went on before I cut him off with "So what you're telling me is that your cars are unreliable and I need to buy a separate insurance policy because if any of these shiny features fail, I'm going to own a rock with wheels". I, seriously, almost walked out of the dealership. I'm at 100,000 miles with no service required beyond routine maintenance.

peterbotond 10y ago

i had a ford focus 2002, ran to 150,000 miles and it got totaled. The only things were replaced: timing belt, tires, brakes, fuel filter, plugs, O2 sensor, alternator, one of the solenoid (maybe 3rd or 4th gear). Besides the solenoid and the alternator all items are maintenance. Does this count as good reliability?

sokoloff 10y ago
At 100K miles, there's a pretty good argument that the alternator is maintenance as well. (If it died very early, maybe not, but it's a rotating part with brushes; it's eventually going to need maintenance on any car.)
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Absolutely agree. In addition to that we should include things like: radiator, radiator and heater hoses, air conditioning compressor, timing belt, break rotors (disks) and, automatic transmission, suspension bushes and shock absorbers, wheel bearings, exhaust pipes, mufflers, catalytic converters. I only buy secondhand cars, and these are all things I've replaced, either myself or by mechanics. All these things will eventually wear out on a car, but replacing most of these parts is relatively straight forward, and I believe in expensive in comparison to the huge financial outlay require to purchase a new vehicle - in which we ought to include the depreciation as well as the running costs and maintenance.
ams6110 10y ago
Maintenance items do not (or should not IMO) count as reliability items since they are similar expected expenses on all cars. Timing belt would be the only one I would look at because there can be significant differences in the mileage intervals. VW famously has (or had) a fairly short interval, like 30K miles, and very low tolerance for going over that. Other vehicles can go 100K miles before any engine maintenance beyond fluid changes.
- outworlder 10y ago
  I hope they are no longer using timing belts. We should expect at least chains. Last longer and tend to warn you before they break.

ams6110 10y ago

Anecdotes are not data but I have a 2002 Ford Focus that I'm hugely happy with. Approaching 200,000 miles and zero significant issues. Also previously had an F150 that was great also until it was totaled in an accident. I would buy Ford without hesitation.

lemonberry 10y ago
I had a 2000 Ford Focus that I drove for 209,000 miles in 12 years. Great car. Mine was a standard and red. I had a few recalls early on but overall it was a great car.

Spooky23 10y ago

With the American cars, you have to focus on the flagship, high volume cars. They stuff the junk in to fill out the line (i.e. The Chevy/Daewoo thing) My Ford vs Honda experience has been pretty similar. Great or Awful. I had a 2005 Odyessy and 2003 Pilot. Basically the same car, but the Odyssey was crap - literally had a door fall off. Likewise, I had a Fusion and a 500/Taurus. The 500 had lots of stupid, expensive problems with trim, electronics, etc. The Fusion was flawless.

esaym 10y ago

Each has its bad models to stay away from. I find no problem with Ford. My 2000 v6 mustang is still fine at 200k miles. I have a relative that has 1989 Ford Ranger that has 450K miles on it. Same engine, never rebuilt. Though he did have to replace the transmission in 1996 and again just last year. I think the thing that lead to Asian cars getting a good name was their switch to using all synthetic fluids in the late 1990's. You could buy a Nissan or Toyota and drive it for 8 year straight with no other maintenance other than oil changes and be just fine. Do the same thing with an American car of that era and you will go through several stages. If you did nothing but change the oil, at the 5 year mark the car would be mostly destroyed. The conventional anti-freeze would have completely broken down at the 3 year mark and now your entire cooling system would be solid rust. Your brakes will also be on the way out, as the normal DOT3 brake fluid absorbs water and after 5 years it will have become corrosive and it will be eating holes in your brake lines and brake pistons. The non synthetic power steering fluid will also be at the end of life and it will be destroying the seals in your steering rack. And if its an automatic transmission, there is about 2 gallons of non synthetic transmission fluid in it that went bad 2 years ago and now the accelerated seal and metal wear is going to start clogging up the tiny fluid circuits so now one day your car will stay stuck in neutral... Oh and the engine will be running very rough more than likely too by now as the non-platinum sparks plugs are definitely wore out beyond use. But if you change those fluids every 3 years or so, you are good for a few decades :)

TwoBit 10y ago
If synthetic fluids are the solution, why not replace with synthetic fluids?
- esaym 10y ago
  You certainly can (in most cases). But the examples I spoke of are what I would consider extreme neglect (even though every one pretty much treats their vehicle that way). Is your life that busy that you can't even find time once every three years to change the fluids yourself (or pay a shop to do it)?
- abakker 10y ago

whatusername 10y ago

In Australia Kia have their basic warranty at 7/unlimited. Which is pretty impressive.

tyingq 10y ago

In the past, there were some Ford vehicles that were well known for their ability to keep going for 300,000+ miles. Like the early 90's Ford Trucks with the straight 6, the Ranger, and the Crown Vic with the 4.6L V8. All discontinued, or the reliable engine replaced with something not as reliable.

jimbobimbo 10y ago

I'm on my second new American car brand. No problems whatsoever and I drive it hard.