English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-17 12:12:41 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Other - News & Events

I would have added Chrysler, but Chrysler products are far worse than junk

2007-01-17 12:15:46 · update #1

Buy Toyota!

2007-01-17 15:09:41 · update #2

8 answers

I have a 1994 and a 2003 Ford the 2003 never needed work and I put $1500 into the 1994, Crappy? Junk? NOT...Lot of the things that go wrong with a car isn't because of the maker, like Ford buys lot of their parts for making the car from other companies. If the radio, windshield wiper motor, or a tire blows, who's fault is that? Not Ford, but the company that made the part. Maybe you or your father is making some of these crappy junk parts that Ford buys.....

2007-01-19 04:31:42 · answer #1 · answered by camaro46368 4 · 0 0

The main problem with the American Auto Manufactures are the long-term retirement and medical benefits that are being paid to union workers who retired a long time ago, and only after 20 years of employment. I'm not trying to get into the union/no union debate, but it was a crazy deal for the American car makers to agree to, and I think that the quality of cars certainly is affected, to try to balance the scales between price, quality, and meeting their obligations to the retirees.

2007-01-17 16:29:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

even as it would want to be genuine that US vehicle makers were making advancements in reliability, for the reason that their reliability became abysmal, even a tremendous step ahead isn't adequate to verify that of the eastern makers. i does no longer placed the German makers like VW (or maybe BMW or Mercedes) on the great of the record. They make nice autos, yet no longer the most sturdy ones. Honda (and Acura), Toyota (and Lexus and Scion), and Subaru rank consistantly on the great of the record for reliability. There are going to be exceptions in both guidelines, an American producer can make a particulary sturdy type (or man or woman motor vehicle) that breaks from the kind. Likewise, the eastern might want to each so often make a a lot less sturdy motor vehicle. word that many of the overseas branded autos are quite man made right here in u.s., so this isn't a slam hostile to American workers. The autos you're comparing are 2 years previous or a lot less, wait 10 years and word which could grant extra difficulty. i'm on my 2d 3 hundred and sixty 5 days with a 12 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous Toyota Camry, and apart from replacing the rear struts very last 3 hundred and sixty 5 days (sensible on an 11 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous motor vehicle), i have had 0 problems with it. previously that, I drove a 1993 Honda Accord for 12 years, and back, no severe issues, only habitual upkeep like timing belt differences. i'd likely nonetheless be driving it if it wasn't totaled by flooding. The definition of "totaled" is that it prices extra to fix it than the motor vehicle is properly worth, so the coverage corporation in reality will pay honest marketplace fee for the motor vehicle. Therefor, i'm no longer stunned that it fee lots to fix the CRV even as it became "totaled", for the reason that it truly is precisely what "totaled" ability. in case you mean that it suffered a tremendous type of harm in a crash and fee lots to fix, i does no longer use that as a criteria to guage a motor vehicle's fee. the motor vehicle is suposed to deform and fall down in a collision to guard the occupants, it truly is why unibody depending SUV's (like the CRV) might want to be safer than universal framed SUV's in a crash -- the unibody might want to be designed to deform extra uniformly to take up power and take care of the occupants. yet this does carry about larger restoration prices. properly truthfully worth the tradeoff for my section.

2016-11-25 00:12:50 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Evidently there's a market for them, they sell quite a lot. I've got a crappy car made by Ford that the only thing that I have had to replace are tires and wipers, and it's seven years old.

2007-01-17 13:13:55 · answer #4 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0 0

They are designed by Marketing Firms, & Ad Agencys to look good in TV Commercials.

They have lost touch with the needs of the American/Global driving public, and the harsh realities, dangers of the open road!

2007-01-17 12:56:42 · answer #5 · answered by activistatreformautosdotorg 2 · 0 0

its all about targeting specific customer range. Those with families that need a low priced car with safety and budget in consideration as well as fuel economy. Majority of the market is dominated by such customers and that is where the big buck is. If veryone made Ferraris who would buy them?

It is about demand and supply being met with cost and efficiency.

2007-01-17 12:21:48 · answer #6 · answered by GhandiDahandi 3 · 0 0

They probable making profit, selling parts or peoples labor for fixing cars.

2007-01-17 13:11:10 · answer #7 · answered by S-a 3 · 0 0

I don't know about GM but I love my Ford.

2007-01-17 21:35:05 · answer #8 · answered by Bethy4 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers