PDA

View Full Version : GM and Chrysler Screwing Us All Again...


revefsreleets
02-24-2009, 11:27 AM
Enough is enough. Demand for cars will recover. We will still need to make about the same amount of cars (in fact, when we pull out of this, there will be a surge in demand). These two compnaies need to get off the dole, merge, and then file bankruptcy. The other solvent automakers can hire up the workers they lay off.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/40204782.html

High cost of rescuing Detroit
By Steve Chapman
Chicago Tribune

Published on Tuesday, Feb 24, 2009
CHICAGO: In the New Testament story, a man has two sons. One of them demands his inheritance, runs off and squanders it all having a wild time, and ends up penniless.
At that point, he slinks home in disgrace, assuming he will have to beg forgiveness. But his father is so thrilled to have him back that he kills a fatted calf and throws a party to celebrate the prodigal son's return.
Not a bad deal, huh? Unless you're the other son, who worked hard for his father and avoided loose women but never got the big fiesta. He felt cheated, and it's hard to blame him.
People employed by automakers other than General Motors and Chrysler would be justified in feeling the same way. Last fall, facing bankruptcy, those companies sought and received some $17 billion in federal loans intended to keep them in business. Now they are back asking for more — $16.6 billion for GM and $5 billion for Chrysler.
That doesn't count the $7.7 billion GM wants to improve fuel economy or the $5 billion its financial arm got from the Treasury Department. Nor does it exclude the possibility that they will demand more help in the future.
And what about the automakers that have not run themselves into the ground? They get nothing. Actually, they get worse than nothing: They get the privilege of competing not just against GM and Chrysler but against the federal government, which has unlimited resources and is now in full partnership with the two.
It's not just Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen and all the other companies that sell (and often build) cars here that are seeing their wisdom and restraint punished. It's also the American people — most of whom voted with their pocketbooks not to support GM and Chrysler but now see their money forcibly diverted to those automakers anyway.
For years, Detroit has been relentlessly driving customers away. In 1985, the Big Three accounted for 80 percent of all the cars sold in this country. Today, their share of the market is just 43 percent.
Their high costs and inferior reputation for quality have hindered them in competition for some 30 years. So in good times and bad, they lag behind more efficient rivals.
The financial losses they've compiled recently convey an unmistakable message from consumers: We are no longer willing to buy your vehicles at a price that pays you to make them — if we are willing to buy them at all. The Big Three had a fat inheritance, and they managed to blow it.
Their overseas competitors, by contrast, had to start from zero selling cars in the United States, find customers, prove the worthiness of their vehicles and dealers — even, in many cases, build factories here and train American workers to meet their standards.
Some companies, foreign and domestic, couldn't hack it. You don't see dealers selling Ramblers, Fiats or Renaults anymore. But many did exactly what our capitalist system requires them to do, only to be rudely informed that the requirements have changed. Instead of being rewarded for their achievements, they now watch as the government rewards failure.
Helping these two automakers means harming the rest. The market for new cars has shrunk and it's not going to regain its old size anytime soon. By rescuing GM and Chrysler, the government is taking future sales away from competitors. If one automaker gets the fatted calf, another one will have to do without.
In a normal market economy, things would proceed differently. The weak firms would file for bankruptcy and be forced to take drastic measures to cut their costs. They would shrink even more than they proposed last week and might even shut down.
These developments would be a bad thing for their shareholders and employees but a good thing for consumers. Competing carmakers would have the chance to hire their workers, purchase their factories, take over their dealerships and attract their customers. The economy would also benefit, because resources Chrysler and GM were wasting would be used more productively.

Instead, the government has impeded this process — managing a neat combination of bad economics and blatant unfairness. In 21st-century America, it's good to be the prodigal son.
Chapman is a Chicago Tribune columnist. He blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve—chapman.

stlrtruck
02-24-2009, 11:40 AM
Here's the thing, in the New Testament Parable referenced above - the one thing the son that stayed home never realized is that it was all his too. All he had to do was ask.

So the question remains to be seen, will the government allow the other auto makers to receive some sort of stimulus for being smart with their resources? Chances are they won't have anything in common with the son that stayed to work on his father's farm. Although the son only had to ask, I guess that the other auto makers could ask all they want but they'd probably be treated more like a rented mule then an obedient child!

Obam's pet projects are going to destroy the very fabrics of our society and this country. His inability to full measure the dire needs of the people of this country is only over looked by his inability to create a successful stimulus package - which would have included more than $13 a week for the working class!

You, Obama, talked about being a leader but your actions so far make you look like an ass! Is that why you're a democrat?

Stlrs4Life
02-24-2009, 03:46 PM
Enough is enough. Demand for cars will recover. We will still need to make about the same amount of cars (in fact, when we pull out of this, there will be a surge in demand). These two compnaies need to get off the dole, merge, and then file bankruptcy. The other solvent automakers can hire up the workers they lay off.
.


You actually believe that? They wouldn't even think about hiring these workers.


LOL, you republicans make me laugh, you actually think it's just grand that we give millions to foreign lands to rebuild there country, and are pissed that they want to spend some money to help out an American Company. (I mean loan money)


I'll bet not one of you guys would be saying any of that if ya had ties to them in some form.

And yas all probably jizzed all over yourselves when W gave, Gave, not loaned money to banks in the foirst bail out.




"The financial losses they've compiled recently convey an unmistakable message from consumers: We are no longer willing to buy your vehicles at a price that pays you to make them — if we are willing to buy them at all. The Big Three had a fat inheritance, and they managed to blow it.
Their overseas competitors, by contrast, had to start from zero selling cars in the United States, find customers, prove the worthiness of their vehicles and dealers — even, in many cases, build factories here and train American workers to meet their standards.
Some companies, foreign and domestic, couldn't hack it. You don't see dealers selling Ramblers, Fiats or Renaults anymore. But many did exactly what our capitalist system requires them to do, only to be rudely informed that the requirements have changed."


BS, the vehicles are easily priced the same as there counterparts. And this is the 2000s, not 1970 anymore.

SCSTILLER
02-24-2009, 04:24 PM
LOL, you republicans make me laugh, you actually think it's just grand that we give millions to foreign lands to rebuild there country, and are pissed that they want to spend some money to help out an American Company. (I mean loan money)


I am going to go out on a limb here and, if I am wrong I apologize, assume that you mean the money we dumped into Iraq to rebuild their country. Just one question, how many Democrats voted for the war in the first place, and then kept voting for the funding for the war and the rebuilding of the country? Just curious, because I can remember quite a few of them from Clinton, Kerry (he voted for it before he voted against it :rofl:), and many, many others (Senate 77-23 and House 296-133). Don't try to pin the whole Iraq war and rebuild on the evil republicans, the democrats are to blame also. I also remember back in '06 I think it was that the Democrats ran their election on "We will pull out of Iraq immediately" and guess what, still there. The only thing they accomplished by getting control of the House and Senate was that they had a lower approval rating than Bush had.

As for GM and Chrysler, make a vehicle that is of some quality. I know I am going to upset alot of American car fans here, sorry. But the quality in the new cars isn't there. Take the F-150 compare to a Toyota Tundra. Toyota built solid on the inside with more room, more total horsepower, and better gas mileage even. F-150, cheap plastic on the inside, less room, less gas mileage, and they are about the same price. The American car companies should have to do what the airlines did, restructure, restructure, restructure! How are they going to pay back these loans if they keep up the "business as usual".

drizze99
02-24-2009, 04:36 PM
Yea, Toyota's are great cars and trucks! They build vehicles that are the best money can buy! They last forever!!

oooops!! Lookie here......

2008 Lemon Law Complaints

Toyota FJ Cruiser - 28,955

Dodge Nitro - 24,624

Lexus ES - 14,567

Hyundai Entourage - 13,643

Toyota Camry - 13,381

3 of the top 5 cars are Toyota's!! But hey, they're awesome!!!

steelreserve
02-24-2009, 04:41 PM
Enough is enough. Demand for cars will recover. We will still need to make about the same amount of cars (in fact, when we pull out of this, there will be a surge in demand). These two compnaies need to get off the dole, merge, and then file bankruptcy. The other solvent automakers can hire up the workers they lay off.

I don't see what that will solve. If you merge GM and Chrysler, all that would happen is Chrysler's brands would get shut down and all their factories would be closed and all their workers would get laid off. They basically just duplicate the same things that GM makes, and there would be no need for a combined company to keep making them. So that wouldn't work.

I also really doubt there will be as many jobs to go around when all is said and done, or that the jobs will be as high-paying -- nor should they be. Anyone can see that the reason the car companies are in trouble is because of greedy unions that have gotten their way for about 30 years too long, the result being that now you have people getting paid $100,000 a year to do $30,000 worth of work. Sorry, but you can't be competitive when you're paying union labor $54 an hour to sweep the floors. That type of crap has to go away, or else auto manufacturing will.

SCSTILLER
02-24-2009, 04:41 PM
It's called an example Drizze, ever heard of one? Look at all the American cars you see broke down on the side of the highways all the time, don't see many Toyota's, Subi's, Honda's, etc. Mostly Ford's and GM's, but I am sure that is because OUR cars aren't being serviced properly by their owners like they should.

Pssst, didn't see the Tundra on that list!

revefsreleets
02-24-2009, 05:38 PM
Of course I believe it. Why else would I post it?

GM and Chrysler are BLEEDING money. Why?

Their sales are down. Their costs are too high. ANY other industry would be forced to go bankrupt. Why should the auto industry get special treatment?

Why wouldn't Honda or Toyota hire ex-GM workers? If I run a pizza shop, and a pizza shop across the street closes, I'm going to A) Plan on expanding by taking their business (ex-customers) and B) Hire the people who already know how to make pizza (i.e. the people who lost their jobs from across the street).

The only reason I wouldn't was that they made shitty pizza or were paid too much (which would explain why they went out of business).

It's not necessarily the workers at GM and Chrysler's fault that their companies are poorly managed. But the unions certainly didn't help by keeping outdated compensation models in place. Your union leaders effed you over just as badly as management did.

Stlrs4Life
02-24-2009, 09:49 PM
I am going to go out on a limb here and, if I am wrong I apologize, assume that you mean the money we dumped into Iraq to rebuild their country. Just one question, how many Democrats voted for the war in the first place, and then kept voting for the funding for the war and the rebuilding of the country? Just curious, because I can remember quite a few of them from Clinton, Kerry (he voted for it before he voted against it :rofl:), and many, many others (Senate 77-23 and House 296-133). Don't try to pin the whole Iraq war and rebuild on the evil republicans, the democrats are to blame also. I also remember back in '06 I think it was that the Democrats ran their election on "We will pull out of Iraq immediately" and guess what, still there. The only thing they accomplished by getting control of the House and Senate was that they had a lower approval rating than Bush had.

As for GM and Chrysler, make a vehicle that is of some quality. I know I am going to upset alot of American car fans here, sorry. But the quality in the new cars isn't there. Take the F-150 compare to a Toyota Tundra. Toyota built solid on the inside with more room, more total horsepower, and better gas mileage even. F-150, cheap plastic on the inside, less room, less gas mileage, and they are about the same price. The American car companies should have to do what the airlines did, restructure, restructure, restructure! How are they going to pay back these loans if they keep up the "business as usual".



Case in point, BS. I work in the industry, and the supplier I work for supplies the Auto industry with various parts from seats to instrument panels to all makes, the Big 3, Toyota, and Honda. They all do it. Ford, Chevy, Toyota etc. do not make there own parts. They simply assemble them seperate. It just so happens the company I work for makes the seats for the Chevy Cobalt. And as far as the Tundra having more room? Put down the crack pipe. I own a 2007 GMC Sierra Crew Cab, that has way more leg room than it's counter part in Tundra. The Tundra might have a little bit more Horsepower than the F-150 and Silverado, but does not have the Torque that they have. Gas mileage? Chevy Silverado 5.3 is getting 22-24 MPG. The Tundra? Measely 19. Same price. All comparable.

Stlrs4Life
02-24-2009, 09:52 PM
I don't see what that will solve. If you merge GM and Chrysler, all that would happen is Chrysler's brands would get shut down and all their factories would be closed and all their workers would get laid off. They basically just duplicate the same things that GM makes, and there would be no need for a combined company to keep making them. So that wouldn't work.

I also really doubt there will be as many jobs to go around when all is said and done, or that the jobs will be as high-paying -- nor should they be. Anyone can see that the reason the car companies are in trouble is because of greedy unions that have gotten their way for about 30 years too long, the result being that now you have people getting paid $100,000 a year to do $30,000 worth of work. Sorry, but you can't be competitive when you're paying union labor $54 an hour to sweep the floors. That type of crap has to go away, or else auto manufacturing will.


LOL, they don't get paid $54/hr? Plasnt I work next to, top pay is $28. And for your information, Honda in Marietta Ohio, pays 22-25/hr. They don't have the legacy costs that GM has in retirement.

Stlrs4Life
02-24-2009, 09:55 PM
It's called an example Drizze, ever heard of one? Look at all the American cars you see broke down on the side of the highways all the time, don't see many Toyota's, Subi's, Honda's, etc. Mostly Ford's and GM's, but I am sure that is because OUR cars aren't being serviced properly by their owners like they should.

Pssst, didn't see the Tundra on that list!



I see more rusted out run down Corollas and Camrys than anything. And Toyota and Honda are both hurting sales also.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-25-2009, 02:20 AM
My 1991 Honda Accord has 200,000 miles on it, and my fathers has close to 300,000 miles...both still going.

How many American cars have that? Besides old pickup trucks, very few. And those trucks were built when these companies actually produced decent products.

I will never buy an American car again. Any we have in our family are completely unreliable.

SCSTILLER
02-25-2009, 06:40 AM
I see more rusted out run down Corollas and Camrys than anything. And Toyota and Honda are both hurting sales also.

Everyone is hurting in sales right now, it is a slow economy! Glad you see more Corolla's and Camry's than anything, come my way and I will show you the reverse of what you see. But we could sit here and argue this all day long, you see this, I see that.

But, like Black and Gold said, foreign cars are more reliable. My dad's Subaru has over 300,000 miles on it and it runs like a champ still. Only thing he had to replace was the oil pump and the alternator, and his wife's Subi has over 120,000 miles on it with nothing more than an oil change. And trust me, they weren't "easy" miles on either of those two. I have ridden in a ton of cars from the different manufacturers, and my original argument was that the foreign cars seem better built. That is it, that is just my simple, not in the "business" opinion and I stick by it!

KeiselPower99
02-25-2009, 08:39 AM
I believe I have a solution to the current problems. 1.GM and Chrysler cut certain brands out. Saturn and Hummer should go. Chevy GMC and Dodge should be the top 3 saved. Ford is making money and why?? Cause they only make Fords. Also if they are given more government money they should produce more cars and sell them to the American auto buyer at a discount. That would help production and create a few jobs.

fansince'76
02-25-2009, 08:46 AM
My 1991 Honda Accord has 200,000 miles on it, and my fathers has close to 300,000 miles...both still going.

How many American cars have that? Besides old pickup trucks, very few. And those trucks were built when these companies actually produced decent products.

I will never buy an American car again. Any we have in our family are completely unreliable.

I had an Eagle Talon that I drove for 15 years and had over 200,000 miles on and never had a problem with when I bought my Ford Mustang 5 years ago now, and I still haven't had a lick of trouble with that either. When it comes to cars, I refuse to buy foreign, personally.

HometownGal
02-25-2009, 08:53 AM
I will never buy an American car again. Any we have in our family are completely unreliable.

I'm with you - I'll never buy American again either. I have 2 Subarus - one just turned 12 and has 73,000 miles and the other is 7 years old and has 83,000 miles. Both have cost me very little in maintenance overall (other than the routine tire rotation and oil changes) and run great! :thumbsup:

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-25-2009, 09:00 AM
I had an Eagle Talon that I drove for 15 years and had over 200,000 miles on and never had a problem with when I bought my Ford Mustang 5 years ago now, and I still haven't had a lick of trouble with that either. When it comes to cars, I refuse to buy foreign, personally.

When your Mustang is 18 years old with 200,000 miles on it and still going strong, get back to me. How many 91 Mustangs do you see still going around? Even here in redneck ville I honestly don't see ANY!

fansince'76
02-25-2009, 09:12 AM
When your Mustang is 18 years old with 200,000 miles on it and still going strong, get back to me. How many 91 Mustangs do you see still going around? Even here in redneck ville I honestly don't see ANY!

Well, to tell you the truth, I don't see many '91 cars driving around, period. All I was saying is in the last 20 years I have owned a grand total of 2 cars (both American) and have never had any trouble with either of them. I had to get the clutch replaced on the Talon at around 150,000 miles, but that's pretty normal for a car with a manual tranny.

XxKnightxX
02-25-2009, 09:24 AM
97 Accord 275000 miles- outran everyone on the road and still managed to sell it for 1500. Minimum maintenance.

Current Car I won 1996 Nissan Maxima. got it with 144k miles and driven to pittsburgh two times already and I live in jersey so cars get beat to death.
Maintenance done. Drive Belt (eh), Lower Control arm, and recently a wheel alignment.
Cost 500 bucks overall for 7k miles, nuff said.

Had a Ford Taurus and a Cutlass ciera, it went from part to part every damn month.

KeiselPower99
02-25-2009, 09:36 AM
I bought a 98 Toyota Tacoma had 125,000 when I bought it and when I got rid of it last year it had 201,000 miles on it. Only thing went wrong with it was the brake caliber on the passenger front locked up once.

revefsreleets
02-25-2009, 09:38 AM
You guys are missing the point. GM and Chrysler are dying because:

-They are mismanaged
The Unions are outdated and unneccessary
-The cars cost too much to build
-They have too many models
-People don't want what they have to offer

Ford adapted better than they did, and they are hanging on. They streamlined, improved their quality, and offer what people want.

Hammer67
02-25-2009, 10:21 AM
You actually believe that? They wouldn't even think about hiring these workers.

LOL, you republicans make me laugh, you actually think it's just grand that we give millions to foreign lands to rebuild there country, and are pissed that they want to spend some money to help out an American Company. (I mean loan money)

I'll bet not one of you guys would be saying any of that if ya had ties to them in some form.

And yas all probably jizzed all over yourselves when W gave, Gave, not loaned money to banks in the foirst bail out.

BS, the vehicles are easily priced the same as there counterparts. And this is the 2000s, not 1970 anymore.

As a Michigan resident with family in the industry, I have to strongly disagree with you here. It isn't about Repub/Democrat...it's about simple economics. You fail to include the fact that the Big 3 have mismanaged their operations for the past 25 years...I worked at Ford, I know. THey were blind, arrogant and suckling off the success of the 80's. They paid their line workers WAY too much. The UAW also shoulders some of this blame. The average line worker at the Big 3 have benefits better then almost any industry I have ever heard of with healthcare and pensions for life. Add to that the horrible organization of the parts aquisition and distribution across the board, and you have quality defects.

GM spends thousands more per car for employee benefits then Toyota/Honda/Hyundai etc. The free market needs to dictate this stuff. Not the government. Why should one company suffer and another get a handout because they are failing?

Perposterous.

Hammer67
02-25-2009, 10:26 AM
And, this isn't to say the Big 3 arent' finally making headway. Ford has been improving it's reliability. Also, perception of quality is much worse at this point. But, that doesn't excuse their prior business practices of resting on their laurels.

On a side note, I bought an 2006 Mustang GT when I worked at Ford, I had it in the shop for differnt minor things 19 times the first year (fuel pump died, stereo blew up, clicking in the tranny, leaks, breaks, etc.)

But, my wife's Grand Prix is a tank and had 150,000 miles on it before it died.

If you take emotions out of this and use common sense, anyone can see the Big 3 just need a better product and need to improve their compensation packages with the UAW to something that isn't archaic.

They have killed themselves.

stlrtruck
02-25-2009, 10:45 AM
They have killed themselves.

That right there says it all. The problem is now, they want a hand out for the undermining that took place because of the union and greedy executives. Now the beast has come home to roost and no one knows how to get rid of it.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out down the road. How many more stimulus packages are we going to see where the greedy are rewarded?

Mountain_Troll
02-25-2009, 10:51 AM
Speaking of Detroit, do we play the NFC north this year? I would love to travel to MoTown and watch a game.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-25-2009, 12:15 PM
Well, to tell you the truth, I don't see many '91 cars driving around, period. All I was saying is in the last 20 years I have owned a grand total of 2 cars (both American) and have never had any trouble with either of them. I had to get the clutch replaced on the Talon at around 150,000 miles, but that's pretty normal for a car with a manual tranny.

What engine did your Eagle Talon have? If it was the Tsi with the 4g63 engine, it was build by Mitsubishi and thus Japanese :flap:

revefsreleets
02-25-2009, 05:06 PM
Again, the original post was about the government rewarding failure...

KeiselPower99
02-25-2009, 05:42 PM
I applied for the Toyota motor plant here in West Virginia and they make 14 an hour. Compare that to the 30 some the union workers make. There is the problem.

Stlrs4Life
02-26-2009, 06:48 PM
Everyone is hurting in sales right now, it is a slow economy! Glad you see more Corolla's and Camry's than anything, come my way and I will show you the reverse of what you see. But we could sit here and argue this all day long, you see this, I see that.

But, like Black and Gold said, foreign cars are more reliable. My dad's Subaru has over 300,000 miles on it and it runs like a champ still. Only thing he had to replace was the oil pump and the alternator, and his wife's Subi has over 120,000 miles on it with nothing more than an oil change. And trust me, they weren't "easy" miles on either of those two. I have ridden in a ton of cars from the different manufacturers, and my original argument was that the foreign cars seem better built. That is it, that is just my simple, not in the "business" opinion and I stick by it!


I just recently gave my brother my 1999 Chevy S-10 and put 195,000 on it with out any problems. My wifes old 95 Cavalier had well over 200,000 on it before we sold it, and never had a problem with it. It is all perception.

Stlrs4Life
02-26-2009, 06:49 PM
That right there says it all. The problem is now, they want a hand out for the undermining that took place because of the union and greedy executives. Now the beast has come home to roost and no one knows how to get rid of it.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out down the road. How many more stimulus packages are we going to see where the greedy are rewarded?



It's a loan, the banks got the hand out.

Preacher
02-26-2009, 07:10 PM
Well, when talking about quality and durability... let's put a little research into this...


Asian brands are tops in reliability, but Ford is coming close, magazine says.



NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Japanese and Korean automakers produce the most reliable cars, according to a new survey of car owners by Consumer Reports. At least one Detroit carmaker, Ford, is moving up the ranks quickly, but it has yet to crack the top tier according to the magazine.
Toyota's (TM (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=TM&source=story_quote_link)) low-priced Scion brand had the highest average reliability overall. Even its least-reliable model, the sporty tC coupe, still had "much better than average" reliability.
The Scion xD small wagon has the best predicted reliability of any car in the survey. It had 80% fewer problems than the average car in the survey.
No U.S.-based car brand finished in the top ten. The closest were Ford's (F (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=F&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/160.html?source=story_f500_link)) three domestic brands - Ford, Lincoln and Mercury - which all had average reliability. Lincoln ranked 11th, just behind Kia.
Ford's trucks and truck-based SUVs, such as the Ford F-250 pick-up and Mercury Mountaineer, dragged down the company's overall performance ratings.
"Excluding those, Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers," the magazine said in an announcement.
Also tops
The Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan sedans finished just behind the Toyota Prius as "Most Reliable Family Sedan," said David Champion, head of auto testing for Consumer Reports.
Ford was not surprised by these results, said Bennie Fowler, Ford's global vice-president for quality, since the company's own research has been showing improvement.
"We knew that would eventually be validated by third-party reports," he said.
Fowler also defended the quality of Ford's large trucks and SUVs, calling them "on par with any truck-based vehicles in the world."
Honda's luxury Acura brand ranked second, followed by Honda's mainstream Honda brand. Toyota and its luxury brand Lexus ranked fourth and fifth in survey.
Korean automakers Hyundai and Kia also did well, ranking eighth and 10th in the survey, respectively. Kia moved up 12 places in the rankings from last year. (Hyundai and Kia are owned by the same parent company, and share some common engineering.)
For General Motors (GM (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=GM&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/175.html?source=story_f500_link)), the best ranking overall brand was Buick, which was 18th with average overall reliability. A quarter of GM's products still rank below average in reliability, though, according to the magazine.
All three of Chrysler's brands - Jeep, Dodge and Chrysler - had worse than average overall reliability, according to the magazine. Two-thirds of Chrysler products are below-average in reliability, the magazine said.
The Chrysler Sebring Convertible has the worst reliability of any model in the survey. Sebring owners, on average, had 283% more problems with their car than the average vehicle in the survey.
"At time, we are not satisfied with our performance," said Chrysler spokeswoman Beverly Thacker, who added that the company is working aggressively to improve customer satisfaction, she said.
Toyota bounced back from last year, when Consumer Reports announced it would no longer recommend V6 versions of the popular Camry sedan or four-wheel-drive V8 versions of its Tundra pick-up because of poor reliability. This year, all 42 Toyota, Lexus and Scion models in the survey scored "better than average" for reliability.
"When [a quality problem] like that comes to light, we jump on it," said Toyota spokesman Curt McAllister.
Consumer Reports surveys its subscribers about vehicles from all three of the most recent model years, unless the vehicle has changed significantly.
If the vehicle has changed in that time, only vehicles built since the change are included.
Consumer Reports' rankings are based on survey responses from subscribers to the magazine and its Web site. Responses included information on almost 1.4 million vehicles, the magazine said. http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif (http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/22/autos/cr_best_reliability/index.htm#TOP)


http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/22/autos/cr_best_reliability/index.htm

Quite interesting, and validates my own preconceived notions, I will only by Asian, but if I DO buy American, ONLY Ford.

revefsreleets
02-27-2009, 05:12 PM
It may be a loan. But this is like loaning a poor unemployed guy 12 kids and $85,000 in bad debt (that he racked up AFTER he lost his job) $400,000.

No bank would do it, but the government will.

It is REWARDING failure. This is the very definition of tossing good money after bad...