The US automakers and their troubles

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Bush, automakers discuss industry woes

WASHINGTON - President Bush told Detroit-based auto industry leaders on Tuesday that they had "tough choices" to make their companies competitive in a difficult global environment and promised a "continuing dialogue" between government and industry.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney met in the Oval Office for just over an hour. The automakers came to press their concerns about health care and trade issues, while making clear that the troubled industry does not want a federal bailout.

"We found a lot in common," said Bush, who met with the leaders just hours before he leaves on a trip to Asia and an meeting in Vietnam with Asia-Pacific economic partners. The message he will give those partners, Bush said, is "just treat us like we treat you."

Bush's meeting with General Motors Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Alan Mulally and Tom LaSorda, president and chief executive officer of DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group, came after months of scheduling conflicts and delays.

Bush, speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, cited a "mutual desire to reduce our dependance on imported oil..................

more here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_...bush_automakers

Ford Motor Co. reduces reported losses

DETROIT - Accounting errors dating to the beginning of the decade led Ford Motor Co. to restate its earnings on Tuesday, reducing the amount the company has lost since 2001 by $850 million.

The company also reiterated its prediction that its North American operations will return to profitability in 2009, due largely to continued cost cuts and its expectation that it will maintain a U.S. market share of 14 to 15 percent.

Company officials said the profit would be small, but they would not give a dollar figure during a conference call with reporters and industry analysts.

The accounting errors, caused by the way Ford counted interest rate hedging by its financial arm, Ford Motor Credit Co., narrowed the company's net loss for the first nine months of this year to $7 billion from the initial report of $7.25 billion, the company said in a statement. It also reduced the third-quarter net loss to $5.2 billion from previously-reported $5.8 billion. Ford said it would announce revisions for the first and second quarters by Monday.

Ford said the errors stemmed from accounting for interest rate swaps, financial instruments used to hedge money that it borrowed to make car loans against changing interest rates.

In the past, Ford accounted for the swaps by changing pretax income and balancing that with a change in the value of its debt. But a review of national accounting standards showed that the swaps had to be offset on the bottom line, affecting net income, Ford officials said.

For the period between January 2001 and Sept. 30, 2006, the company had reported losses of $7.75 billion.............

more here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_...ord_restatement

I can tell you Ford hasnt lost money because of my family, we have 3 of them ;)

[dbigtex56]

Bush, speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, cited a "mutual desire to reduce our dependance on imported oil..................

This "mutual desire" must be something recent. Last I heard, Bush was encouraging the manufacture and purchase of fuel-inefficient vehicles by offering generous tax credits on vehicles over 6000 lbs GVW. I'm unclear as to how that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

[RedScare]

This "mutual desire" must be something recent. Last I heard, Bush was encouraging the manufacture and purchase of fuel-inefficient vehicles by offering generous tax credits on vehicles over 6000 lbs GVW. I'm unclear as to how that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

Not to mention that both GM and Ford INCREASED the size of their largest SUVs.

Mutual desire, indeed.

[houstonmacbro]

after watching the dvd of 'who killed the electric car' this past weekend, american automobile manufacturers deserve just about every problem they are having right now.

unfortunately, it affects thousands of innocent workers.

[Jeebus]

This "mutual desire" must be something recent. Last I heard, Bush was encouraging the manufacture and purchase of fuel-inefficient vehicles by offering generous tax credits on vehicles over 6000 lbs GVW. I'm unclear as to how that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

One thing Mayor White has done right was the switch to all hybrids. Next time you're in the city, see if you notice a white Toyota Prius Hybrid with a City of Houston logo on the door. They're EVERYWHERE! lol..

[TheNiche]

This "mutual desire" must be something recent. Last I heard, Bush was encouraging the manufacture and purchase of fuel-inefficient vehicles by offering generous tax credits on vehicles over 6000 lbs GVW. I'm unclear as to how that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

Actually, each of them DO have a mutual desire to become less dependent on foreign oil. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. You assumed that becoming less dependent requires that we cut back on energy consumption. But the other way is to build up our own production infrastructure. The more oil we produce domestically, the less susceptible we'd be to short-term supply shocks from high-political-risk regions.

And oil prices, as we had seen over the past few years, often result in changing automotive consumption patterns. When consumption patterns change, car manufacturers have to adapt. Adaptation is expensive.

[RedScare]

Actually, each of them DO have a mutual desire to become less dependent on foreign oil. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. You assumed that becoming less dependent requires that we cut back on energy consumption. But the other way is to build up our own production infrastructure. The more oil we produce domestically, the less susceptible we'd be to short-term supply shocks from high-political-risk regions.

And oil prices, as we had seen over the past few years, often result in changing automotive consumption patterns. When consumption patterns change, car manufacturers have to adapt. Adaptation is expensive.

Boy, Niche, what a great idea! Let's just use our own oil. We consume 7.7 Billion barrels of oil a year, and our reserves are 22 Billion barrels. We won't have a worry in the world until 2010!

Someone get Bush on the phone! We just found our next Director of the Department of Energy!

[TheNiche]

Boy, Niche, what a great idea! Let's just use our own oil. We consume 7.7 Billion barrels of oil a year, and our reserves are 22 Billion barrels. We won't have a worry in the world until 2010!

Someone get Bush on the phone! We just found our next Director of the Department of Energy!

Mine source is the U.S. Geological Survey. As of 2005, they estimate 82.47 billion barrels of oil under U.S. soil. The proven reserves of oil are 3.7 times higher than had been proven in 1995.

Oh, and by the way, becoming less dependent upon foreign-produced oil is a different goal than becoming self-sufficient in oil production.

[RedScare]

Mine source is the U.S. Geological Survey. As of 2005, they estimate 82.47 billion barrels of oil under U.S. soil. The proven reserves of oil are 3.7 times higher than had been proven in 1995.

Oh, and by the way, becoming less dependent upon foreign-produced oil is a different goal than becoming self-sufficient in oil production.

Proven reserves are still around 22 Billion barrels. And, I find it curious that a person so mistrustful of politicians and government would put so much faith in a number that magically grew 3.7 times it's previous estimate from 1995, and reaffirmed in 2000, especially considering the administration and circumstances under which it grew. The USGS figure you cite includes oil that has not been discovered yet...hardly a definition for "proven". In any event, they better find it fast. Your "new and improved" number would last us until 2017, assuming we can get all of it out of the ground. And, assuming we don't all go out and buy "mutually desirous" US built SUVs.

[TheNiche]

Proven reserves are still around 22 Billion barrels. And, I find it curious that a person so mistrustful of politicians and government would put so much faith in a number that magically grew 3.7 times it's previous estimate from 1995, and reaffirmed in 2000, especially considering the administration and circumstances under which it grew. The USGS figure you cite includes oil that has not been discovered yet...hardly a definition for "proven". In any event, they better find it fast. Your "new and improved" number would last us until 2017, assuming we can get all of it out of the ground. And, assuming we don't all go out and buy "mutually desirous" US built SUVs.

This notion that oil will become exhausted has only been in existence for about the past 200 years, and each successive generation seems to claim that we'll just run out in about 20 years. But technology advances each time, and does so at a geometric rate, improving upon itself so that we're not only able to find more oil, but extract it at a lower cost. Would you have us believe for some reason that technological advancement will just mysteriously skip a generation? This one?

Even IF the march of technology grinds to a halt...and that would basically require a dismantling of the patent office among other disincentives...there will ALWAYS be oil. We will never run out. All that will happen is that the price will rise as production decreases. The finite supply of oil will be (and is currently being) rationed to the highest bidders. Speculators will ALWAYS be among those bidding; they will make money by holding some in inventory, waiting for the price to continue rising. With each passing increment of time, the inventory of oil decreases but is never exhausted because the quantity demanded falls as the price rises.

Fortunately, as can be evidenced from England's energy crisis during the industrial revolution, when trees became scarce due to deforestation, other energy sources will be sought out. In their case, it was coal, which took a lot of costly adaptation and a new infrastructure. Technology will provide the answer, perhaps at a higher cost than did oil, but R&D will eventually bring even the costs of renewable energy down as efficiencies are discovered...but oh, that's right, you dismantled the patent office, Red. Never mind...

[RedScare]

This notion that oil will become exhausted has only been in existence for about the past 200 years, and each successive generation seems to claim that we'll just run out in about 20 years. But technology advances each time, and does so at a geometric rate, improving upon itself so that we're not only able to find more oil, but extract it at a lower cost. Would you have us believe for some reason that technological advancement will just mysteriously skip a generation? This one?

Even IF the march of technology grinds to a halt...and that would basically require a dismantling of the patent office among other disincentives...there will ALWAYS be oil. We will never run out. All that will happen is that the price will rise as production decreases. The finite supply of oil will be (and is currently being) rationed to the highest bidders. Speculators will ALWAYS be among those bidding; they will make money by holding some in inventory, waiting for the price to continue rising. With each passing increment of time, the inventory of oil decreases but is never exhausted because the quantity demanded falls as the price rises.

Fortunately, as can be evidenced from England's energy crisis during the industrial revolution, when trees became scarce due to deforestation, other energy sources will be sought out. In their case, it was coal, which took a lot of costly adaptation and a new infrastructure. Technology will provide the answer, perhaps at a higher cost than did oil, but R&D will eventually bring even the costs of renewable energy down as efficiencies are discovered...but oh, that's right, you dismantled the patent office, Red. Never mind...

Given the choice of siding with you or Richard Rainwater, I'm going with Mr. Rainwater. He has a slightly better track record than you.

However, none of your bluster had anything to do with this thread, namely, this...

Bush, speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, cited a "mutual desire to reduce our dependance on imported oil..................

[dbigtex56]

This notion that oil will become exhausted has only been in existence for about the past 200 years

Quite a feat, considering that the first commercial oil well was drilled in 1859.

People don't worry much about running out of something they never had.

[TheNiche]

Given the choice of siding with you or Richard Rainwater, I'm going with Mr. Rainwater. He has a slightly better track record than you.

Rainwater isn't anything special except that he's a big risk-taker. I leverage plenty, but not like he does.

There are plenty out there with his abilities and mindset, but most are either too constrained by corporate policy or extreme mid-course failure. For every batch of unconstrained risk-takers, there are always outliers. Rainwater is among them.

Quite a feat, considering that the first commercial oil well was drilled in 1859.

People don't worry much about running out of something they never had.

The first oil wells were drilled in the 4th century in China.

And I said "about", recognizing the likelihood of imprecision.

[nmainguy]

If niche has finished hijacking yet another topic in yet another attempt to show us how smart he thinks he is, I'm going to take the risk and try to return to the subject at hand.

Japan and China will continue to pour resources into real alternative fuel research while Cheney, Bush and the Big 3 sit around and talk about their "mutual desire to reduce our dependance on imported oil." If that desire existed, they would be working together investing the resources it will take to develope a feasable hydrogen technology, for example. If we wait for those guys and guys like niche, we'll be drinking sand in the long run.

So, I don't care anymore what they think or say. I know a reliable and feasable source of energy is nessessary to insure a stable future. I also know they are taking no concrete steps in that direction. All they seem to be doing is putting lipstick on the current pig. It's time for them to get out of the way and allow commited, serious people to tackle and solve the problem.

All their skewed numbers regarding imaginary oil reserves is just so much B.S. Detroit needs the resources to build a vehicle that operates with something other than the combustiable engine and at the same time they need to design something people want to buy.

[TheNiche]

If niche has finished hijacking yet another topic in yet another attempt to show us how smart he thinks he is, I'm going to take the risk and try to return to the subject at hand.

Japan and China will continue to pour resources into real alternative fuel research while Cheney, Bush and the Big 3 sit around and talk about their "mutual desire to reduce our dependance on imported oil." If that desire existed, they would be working together investing the resources it will take to develope a feasable hydrogen technology, for example. If we wait for those guys and guys like niche, we'll be drinking sand in the long run.

So, I don't care anymore what they think or say. I know a reliable and feasable source of energy is nessessary to insure a stable future. I also know they are taking no concrete steps in that direction. All they seem to be doing is putting lipstick on the current pig. It's time for them to get out of the way and allow commited, serious people to tackle and solve the problem.

All their skewed numbers regarding imaginary oil reserves is just so much B.S. Detroit needs the resources to build a vehicle that operates with something other than the combustiable engine and at the same time they need to design something people want to buy.

Jeez man, you hit me over the head for hijacking a thread, and then spend time explaining to people why you think I'm full of it? Then you go on to admit that you don't care what experts think or say and claim that its all B.S. without attempting explanation. You'll have to forgive me if I think that many of your observations lack credibility.

[nmainguy]

Jeez man, you hit me over the head for hijacking a thread, and then spend time explaining to people why you think I'm full of it? Then you go on to admit that you don't care what experts think or say and claim that its all B.S. without attempting explanation. You'll have to forgive me if I think that many of your observations lack credibility.

You're confused. I spent practicly no time explaining why I think you're full of it. You do that quite well on your own.

I don't care what Bush, Cheney, the Big 3 and YOU think. I do care what experts think but none of you have proven to be experts in alternative fuels.

In addition, I don't care what you think of my credibility.

And yes, I will continue to point out when you have hijacked a thread and will then attempt to drag it back on topic-as I did in my previous post.

[TheNiche]

You're confused. I spent practicly no time explaining why I think you're full of it. You do that quite well on your own.

I don't care what Bush, Cheney, the Big 3 and YOU think. I do care what experts think but none of you have proven to be experts in alternative fuels.

In addition, I don't care what you think of my credibility.

And yes, I will continue to point out when you have hijacked a thread and will then attempt to drag it back on topic-as I did in my previous post.

...somebody's reading my posts again...

[gto250us]

Getting back to the main point. US auto makers shot themselves in the foot by caving in to the unions and continuing to build crappy cars that folks do not want.

Foreign auto makers bagan to build good cars in the 60's and 70's and they only improved during that time. While US auto makers continued to design and build subquality automobiles. At the same time they promised union workers the world in the form of wages and bennies. You do not pay doctors wages to high school educated folks to bolt bumpers onto Pontiacs. It is just plain stupid.

The result of all this is what you see today. I hope GM and Ford go out of buisness. The ironic thing is that both Ford and GM have build and sold better cars overseas than what they do here. They also invested heavily in other foreign automakers, rather than take a lesson from them.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Getting back to the main point. US auto makers shot themselves in the foot by caving in to the unions and continuing to build crappy cars that folks do not want.

I dont think unions are the problem. The problem was building not so good automobiles. Unions also dont decide what materials will be used or what type of automobiles will be designed and built. Im not a big union fan but i understand the need for them. Afterall unions dont control the companies, the executives do. Take a look at some of thier over inflated wages and perks and stock options. That should be examined more closely

[gto250us]

I dont think unions are the problem. The problem was building not so good automobiles. Unions also dont decide what materials will be used or what type of automobiles will be designed and built. Im not a big union fan but i understand the need for them. Afterall unions dont control the companies, the executives do. Take a look at some of thier over inflated wages and perks and stock options. That should be examined more closely

The Union's is just one part of the problem. The companies caved into the union demands by putting the costs into the future. Agreeing to pay workers healthcare after they retire? For ever? Come on that is just bad business. And I'll say it again, you don't pay high-school educated folks college grad wages to put bumpers on Chevys. The union problems get compounded when the company builds crappy cars. Bottom line, it's GM and Ford's fault that they are in this mess.

Hell, if Toyota can make cars that folks want and make money doing it, why can't Ford and GM?

[RedScare]

The Union's is just one part of the problem. The companies caved into the union demands by putting the costs into the future. Agreeing to pay workers healthcare after they retire? For ever? Come on that is just bad business. And I'll say it again, you don't pay high-school educated folks college grad wages to put bumpers on Chevys. The union problems get compounded when the company builds crappy cars. Bottom line, it's GM and Ford's fault that they are in this mess.

Hell, if Toyota can make cars that folks want and make money doing it, why can't Ford and GM?

You're forgetting the historical perspective. In the 50s and 60s, and even into the 70s, the Big 3 were so flush with cash that they practically gave it away. There was no reason for them to believe that it would ever end. There was little negotiation with the unions, because the automakers believed that they could easily pay for the benefits they were providing.

It was only later on, as Japan started making inroads into market share, and many of the workers began retiring or getting laid off, that the Big 3 started to realize that giving away the farm was not the wisest move. Even then, the 90s economic expansion, coinciding with the introduction of profit laden SUVs allowed Detroit to think they could ride it out. Only when health care costs skyrocketed, combined with the 2001 recession, did Detroit really start to feel it. The rising cost of gas was a 2x4 to the head.

Of course, the Big 3 never admits that they did anything wrong, but they did...and continue to do so. Hard to blame a union for asking for something that they know management will give them. Now, the hard part is putting the genie back in the bottle.

[RedScare]

I knew this day was coming, but I didn't think it would get here this fast.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4742301.html

Reading the article on GM's historic drop to 2nd place in world automobile production, I could not help but think of the past, when the Big 3 were lauded for their shrewd business practices, such as "planned obsolescence". Less publicized, but no less a moneymaker, was their habit of refusing to re-engineer parts that failed prematurely, or to design vehicles that were less susceptible to theft. While all of these measures funnelled large amounts of cash into the Big 3's coffers, they did so at the expense of the buying public. When foreign manufacturers introduced the novel concept of quality vehicles, the Big 3 snickered at the ridiculous notion that a vehicle should actually run longer than the loan that bought it.

As Toyota, Honda, Nissan and the European automakers cut into market share, the Big 3, rather than get to work designing and building quality vehicles that Americans would be proud to own and drive, resorted to shaming potential buyers as "unpatriotic" for not buying their product, ignoring the fact that the product itself was inferior. When sales dropped, the Big 3 attacked the workers, claiming unions and health care costs made it unable to compete, never acknowledging that the job of designing cars and controlling costs is the job of management, not the assembly workers.

The spike in gas prices caught the Big 3 flat footed. They claimed they did not see it coming, though the Japanese manufacturers somehow did. Once gas prices soared, GM still did not react, claiming in 2004 that prices would come back down and the SUV would once again emerge as the top seller. As we enter the 4th year of high prices, the large SUV market is gutted. As GM placed most of its eggs in that basket, predictably sales and profits were pummelled. Only now are the Big 3 trying to produce cars that the average cash strapped consumer wants. It remains to be seen whether they will recover.

[MidtownCoog]

I'll never drive a Japanese car.

I don't care if they last forever, they are so boring!

I pity the fools who tools around town in a Camary or Accord.

[TheNiche]

I knew this day was coming, but I didn't think it would get here this fast.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4742301.html

Reading the article on GM's historic drop to 2nd place in world automobile production, I could not help but think of the past, when the Big 3 were lauded for their shrewd business practices, such as "planned obsolescence". Less publicized, but no less a moneymaker, was their habit of refusing to re-engineer parts that failed prematurely, or to design vehicles that were less susceptible to theft. While all of these measures funnelled large amounts of cash into the Big 3's coffers, they did so at the expense of the buying public. When foreign manufacturers introduced the novel concept of quality vehicles, the Big 3 snickered at the ridiculous notion that a vehicle should actually run longer than the loan that bought it.

As Toyota, Honda, Nissan and the European automakers cut into market share, the Big 3, rather than get to work designing and building quality vehicles that Americans would be proud to own and drive, resorted to shaming potential buyers as "unpatriotic" for not buying their product, ignoring the fact that the product itself was inferior. When sales dropped, the Big 3 attacked the workers, claiming unions and health care costs made it unable to compete, never acknowledging that the job of designing cars and controlling costs is the job of management, not the assembly workers.

The spike in gas prices caught the Big 3 flat footed. They claimed they did not see it coming, though the Japanese manufacturers somehow did. Once gas prices soared, GM still did not react, claiming in 2004 that prices would come back down and the SUV would once again emerge as the top seller. As we enter the 4th year of high prices, the large SUV market is gutted. As GM placed most of its eggs in that basket, predictably sales and profits were pummelled. Only now are the Big 3 trying to produce cars that the average cash strapped consumer wants. It remains to be seen whether they will recover.

I agree that the big 3 have had an oligopolistic history to overcome and that their future still looks bleak, but some counterpoints to consider are as follows:

Point 1

This is not a landmark date. Everyone saw it coming and it was part of a larger trend. Your restatement of opinions today is no more or less meaningful than in prior rants. It is like celebrating the millenium. A number changed.

Kurt Vonnegut must be rolling around in his grave.

Point 2

Do you find it at all odd that these three companies have poured billions of dollars into reversing the prevailing trends and have solicited advise from every conceivable realm, but have not been able to buck the trend? Chrysler even got bought by a foreign carmaker, but they couldn't turn them around or even integrate them very easily into a larger supply chain...and now they're being sold again. And of course, there was the Kekorian gambit, but that failed. Ford also bought Mazda to try and integrate better quality controls into their corporation...and IMO they made Mazda a good Japanese/American mutt brand. But each of these companies still shares in a problem that their foreign counterparts have successfully avoided: big labor and healthcare.

Point 3

Japanese companies have been just as aggressive about SUVs and trucks. Honda has attempted to break into the market by introducing its Ridgeline, and Toyota is putting a lot of investment into rebranding their Tundra pickups to be more competitive. It isn't that these vehicles are unprofitable.

Point 4

Oil prices are in a state of contango, but the overwhelming bulk of long-run historical data points to backwardization. Hiccups like these are unpredictable in scope, and this happened to be a big one. Hell, if this had been expected, don't you think more companies would've been hedging on the price of oil, like Southwest Airlines?

Point 5

I'd challenge the notion that consumers are more cash-strapped than they had been, especially at the price point where trucks and SUVs tend to be consumed. The point admittedly does not negate the truth that consumers will economize on energy consumption, or that on the whole, higher gasoline prices have had an adverse demand for heavier vehicles, but it is not as great an impact as your comments may have implied.

EDIT: Point 6

As evidenced in part by MidtownCoog's remarks, their patriotic branding campaigns have been very successful in convincing some consumers to purchase products of questionable superiority. On the flip side of that, I exchanged my older Accord for a newer Mazda 6 (a brand owned by Ford) because it had the history and presumably quality of a Japanese import but performance and styling that was in this consumer's mind superior to a new Accord. So the Big 3 haven't entirely failed in revising their products, either.

[woolie]

I just can't understand the infatuation with $$$$ cars, though. People don't blink about spending $50k on an SUV that gets horrible mileage and is unreliable. What a way to throw your money in the trash can.

We have a Hyundai Sonata and love it. It was $13k. It's been solid as a rock, not a single problem in almost 3 years now. It's been more than enough car for both of us; it's our only car, and we share it with no problems. It's not hard to think of better things to spend your money on than a flashy car.

Hopefully our Hyundai will last long enough for our next car to be a plug-in electric.

[dbigtex56]

Whether it's safety standards, pollution control, fuel economy or taking responsibility for defective products ("Lemon Laws") it seems the only thing that motivates the American automobile industry to improve is government regulation.

[TheNiche]

I just can't understand the infatuation with $$$$ cars, though. People don't blink about spending $50k on an SUV that gets horrible mileage and is unreliable. What a way to throw your money in the trash can.

We have a Hyundai Sonata and love it. It was $13k. It's been solid as a rock, not a single problem in almost 3 years now. It's been more than enough car for both of us; it's our only car, and we share it with no problems. It's not hard to think of better things to spend your money on than a flashy car.

Hopefully our Hyundai will last long enough for our next car to be a plug-in electric.

Most people probably drive more than you do. I live inside the loop, but have a daily 42-mile routine, mostly on I-10 and the West Loop (assuming I don't have to take care of business in the East End, go to off-site business functions, etc.). That means that I live in a place that is pretty central to the city but spend at least an hour per day in my car, but usually closer to an hour and a half. That's 9.4% of my waking life, or 18.8% of my non-working waking life. That being said, I'm willing to spend an extra $8k and a little extra gas money to move up from a Hyundai Sonata to a Mazda 6 with six cylinders, all the safety features, and good sound.

...but if I move out of the central city and nearer to where I work, I'll probably downsize. No sense in paying all that much more for all that much more car if I'm not going to use it as often.

[MidtownCoog]

I am not that patriotic. My last car (wagon) was German and my current ride is German/American. The Japanese cars are too vanilla for me, and their "sporty" designs are targeted for youth.

And where do you people get the notion that SUVs are unreliable?

My wife has a 2003 Expedition and it has never been in the shop other than for scheduled maintenance.

[TJones]

I am not that patriotic. My last car (wagon) was German and my current ride is German/American. The Japanese cars are too vanilla for me, and their "sporty" designs are targeted for youth.

And where do you people get the notion that SUVs are unreliable?

My wife has a 2003 Expedition and it has never been in the shop other than for scheduled maintenance.

I'll second that. 2 Expeditions both went over 80k and NEVER in the shop for more that an oilchange and a recall item, that wasn't broke on either of them. Mustang GT over 75k on it, my daily driver now, and NEVER in the shop except for new tires and brake pads. I am fixing to replace the fuel filter, plugs, plug wires, cap and rotor. Because THAT is how you keep them running without going into the shop for something major. '72 Cutlass, was my daily driver, quit puttin the miles on it @ 69k original miles, but the oil has always been changed, and I reworked the engine with new parts just to make sure that there won't be any problems.

I see 150k Suburbans and Expeditions being traded in ALL the time. I just sent one off to auction that had 277k and ran like a champ.

It all depends on the driver, will they take care of their car or not ? Although there is definately the occasional "lemon" that comes off. What happens is that people see the commercials for "like a rock" and take them literally. Quit trying to load a ton in a half ton truck people. Believe me Japanese cars breakdown just as much as American cars, but Japanese car owners take them to the shop as soon as something is wrong or hear something "weird", whereas American car owners, for the most part, will let the "weird" noise keep going and going and going, until it affects something else, then delicate flower and moan about how their car is a POS, because instead of putting on a new brake pad when they started squeaking, they now have to replace the whole rotor and pads because they didn't take it to the shop when the problem first surfaced.

[TheNiche]

I'll second that. 2 Expeditions both went over 80k and NEVER in the shop for more that an oilchange and a recall item, that wasn't broke on either of them.

Its funny, but when I viewed your post, the big HAIF ad was for Ford Expeditions. Big brother is watching...