Article Comments: Perception Is Reality

149 messages, Last post on Feb 12, 2007 at 1:54 PM

You are in the Inside Line Article Comments Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

Article comments for Perception Is Reality - Witness the tale of two companies — Toyota and General Motors. Despite recalls and public relations woes, Toyota's image of bulletproof quality persists, and sales and market share rise. Despite concrete evidence to the contrary, GM's reputation for inferior quality remains, while sales and market share decline. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 7 of 16: 1; ...; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; ...; 16; Prev; Next; Last

#53 of 149 Re: . [tjw1308] (not Hosting here) by Mr_Shiftright HOST Sep 11, 2006 (9:20 am)
Replying to: tjw1308 (Sep 11, 2006 7:50 am) Hey, I'm as ready to admit as the next guy that perceptions DO often distort reality, but in this one case of renting the Monte Carlo, there was no doubt in my mind that this car was not built as well or designed as well as a Camry. One's eyes, ears hands and butt gave some very good data, especially when said subjective data suggested that the Monty wasn't even as sturdy as a $14,000 Japanese car much less a $20,000 one. WAs it a BAD car? No, of course not. Was it competitive at its price point? I don't think so. Not yet. Okay next time I'll rent an Impala!! Replies to this message: terry92270 (Sep 11, 2006 9:57 am) tjw1308 (Sep 11, 2006 10:41 am) Mr_Shiftright (Sep 11, 2006 3:44 pm) anythngbutgm (Sep 11, 2006 5:47 pm)
#54 of 149 Re: . [tjw1308] (not Hosting here) [Mr_Shiftright] by terry92270 Sep 11, 2006 (9:57 am)
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Sep 11, 2006 9:20 am) I was highly impressed last year with my rental Impala....that is a car I would buy. Can't say the same for the rest of the GM fleet, however.
#55 of 149 my take by chikoo Sep 11, 2006 (9:58 am)
there is no smoke without a fire. If the general public percieve Toyota as the benchmark, it is not without a reason. I believe you all know how the introduction of the "japanese" cars in USA was viewed by the general perception of japan = "cheap + duplicates" or knock-offs. GM was the industry benchmark then. the tables have turned. Why? Certainly not due to perception.
#56 of 149 Re: . [tjw1308] (not Hosting here) [Mr_Shiftright] by tjw1308 Sep 11, 2006 (10:41 am)
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Sep 11, 2006 9:20 am) Exactly my point I don't think that anyone is arguing that GM is poo on a stick anymore, it's just that while they've been busy correcting problems, Toyota has been IMPROVING on cars that didn't have very many to begin with. Is the Impala inferior? Probably not by much. But when you combine perception with everything else it certainly is. Try trading in the Impala in 3 years and see how it does vs. a Camry. Explain to the appraiser how far it's come in terms of quality... Then get out your checkbook, cause it's gonna cost you... T Replies to this message: Mr_Shiftright (Sep 11, 2006 3:44 pm) anythngbutgm (Sep 11, 2006 5:47 pm)
#57 of 149 name equity by carlisimo Sep 11, 2006 (1:58 pm)
More thoughts on reputation. The Corolla, Civic, Camry, and Accord have been top-notch cars for so long that they're synonymous with "good" among the general public. (You may assign other words to them, but you're not the general public, and they really have been good at what they're made for.) The Impala has been "good" for a short time (imo, only since its most recent refresh). The Fusion has been "alright" for its short lifetime. So I asked some non-car people about this article. I got responses like: "Well it's good now but the Camry has been good for as long as I remember... maybe if the Impala keeps it up." "It looks nice, but I just trust Toyota more. They've been good to me." "Do you know anyone who owns one [Fusion]? Then how do you know it's good?" "Fusion? Is that the one in cereal boxes?" "They renamed the Taurus? Who are they trying to fool?" "It's made in Mexico? My Corolla was made right here [in Fremont]!" There were also a few comments about people not wanting to buy cars that are common as rental cars. They're seen as corporate vehicles, rather than family vehicles. So there's the perception gap. But unlike pro-domestic bloggers, I think that a perception gap in any industry is a natural and a good thing. You shouldn't be trusted if you can only make a good product for three years out of thirty. Replies to this message: grbeck (Sep 11, 2006 6:56 pm)
#58 of 149 Re: . [tjw1308] (not Hosting here) [Mr_Shiftright] [tjw1308] by Mr_Shiftright HOST Sep 11, 2006 (3:44 pm)
Replying to: tjw1308 (Sep 11, 2006 10:41 am) When I read things like R&T longterm test of say the new Cadillac they bought, I have to shake my head. At first, raves and raves...."great car"...."competes with BMW" And now, 50,000 miles later, the car is falling apart on them. Sure, it's just one car, and Cadillac is doing well, but it does make you wonder....aren't people's expectations even higher than they were ten years ago? I think so. Replies to this message: anythngbutgm (Sep 11, 2006 5:47 pm)
#59 of 149 Re: . [tjw1308] (not Hosting here) [Mr_Shiftright] [tjw1308] [Mr_Shiftright] by anythngbutgm Sep 11, 2006 (5:47 pm)
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Sep 11, 2006 3:44 pm) Didn't you guys have all kinds of problems with your Seville STS back in 2000 or so? I recall it was one of your very first long-term test vehicles? Some overheating electricals and a oil pressure issue... Or was that the POS Intrigue you guys had? One of those was horrid from what I remember.
#60 of 149 Re: name equity [carlisimo] by grbeck Sep 11, 2006 (6:56 pm)
Replying to: carlisimo (Sep 11, 2006 1:58 pm) carlisimo: The Corolla, Civic, Camry, and Accord have been top-notch cars for so long that they're synonymous with "good" among the general public. (You may assign other words to them, but you're not the general public, and they really have been good at what they're made for.) GM has another problem, and it goes deeper than reliability or number of defects per 100 vehicles. With a Corolla or Civic, for example, it is apparent that Toyota and Honda try as hard with these vehicles as they do with a Lexus or Acura. Honda and Toyota face cost pressures in the lower price classes, of course, but they still deliver the best possible vehicle for the money. With GM, it still seems as though lower-priced vehicles in general, and small vehicles in particular, are the red-headed stepchildren in the corporate family. Look at GM's pickups - the Silverado and Sierra are still reasonably competitive, despite their age, and an all-new version will debut next month that will compete with anything in its class. Meanwhile, the smaller Colorado and Canyon were hopelessly outclassed by the imports from the day they debuted, and even lagged the ancient Ford Ranger in an Edmunds.com road test! Among passenger cars, the Cobalt is all-new, and still can't score more than a midpack finish in any comparison test I've seen. Plus, it looks like a warmed-over Cavalier. GM has had 10 years since to come up with a new small car, and this time it really did start with a clean sheet of paper...and the car it produces looks like a facelifted version of the last one. It just seems as though GM isn't trying as hard with smaller vehicles. This has been a problem for decades, and it still hasn't changed. carlisimo: You shouldn't be trusted if you can only make a good product for three years out of thirty. This is true, and it brings to mind my thoughts as I looked over the new Saturn Aura this Sunday. I really liked the styling, and it looked well made - a definite cut above its platform mates, the Malibu and G6. But I kept remembering how good the Oldsmobile Intrigue looked in the summer of 1997, and how much I liked it at that time. Unfortunately, the 3.8 engine used for the first year wasn't competitive with the import offerings, there were serious mechanical defects that GM never resolved, plus GM priced the car too high in relation to the competition (an Olds couldn't sell for Camry prices). When buyers balked, GM let the car die on the vine, and then pulled the plug on the entire Olds division within three years. Sorry, but 1997 isn't that long ago.
#61 of 149 Toyota Corolla Quality by prosource1 Sep 11, 2006 (8:54 pm)
Please talk to a co-worker of mine who bought a Toyota Corolla because of its reputation for solid reliabilty. What he has rec'd is a headache. He has had the car in to the shop for front-end issues. It has not been repaired as of Saturday when I talked to him last and he has had the car for several months. I drove the car and could hear a noise in the front end. I also noticed the car had viturally no sound insulation. The Corolla is very loud its NVH quality is not up to par with Hyundai's and Kia's I have driven recently. Replies to this message: carlisimo (Sep 11, 2006 11:13 pm) Mr_Shiftright (Sep 12, 2006 6:18 am)
#62 of 149 Re: Toyota Corolla Quality [prosource1] by carlisimo Sep 11, 2006 (11:13 pm)
Replying to: prosource1 (Sep 11, 2006 8:54 pm) He got a bad one. Maybe he'll never buy another Toyota; I wouldn't blame him. (I'm surprised to hear about the sound issue though; are you comparing it to the Korean midsized cars, or to the Elantra and Spectra?) So long as other brands lose more customers that way than Toyota does, Toyota isn't in danger.