1st Dec 2007, 22:52

Our one test drive in a Toyota Highlander was all it took... to sell us on a DOMESTIC.

4th Dec 2007, 12:36

The only advantage over other car manufactures toyota has is percieved Quality I have attached the JDP CSI from 2006. I work for GM so this is some of the go get em team stuff they put out. Just an FYI.

GM is doing an outstanding job of satisfying its customers if the J.D. Power and Associates 2006 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) Study, released July 20, is any indication. GM replaced Honda this year as the highest ranking manufacturer, with a score of 891, a statistically significant increase of 7 points from 2005. Porsche is next in line with a score of 887. What’s more, two GM divisions ranked among the top 3 and all GM divisions outperformed the industry average in the study. While Lexus came in first with a score of 912, Buick ranked second with a score of 911 – a statistically insignificant difference of just one point. Cadillac was in third place, with a score of 909. Toyota ranked 26th, with a score of 861, which was well below the industry average of 873.

4th Dec 2007, 17:20

12:36 Well, you got one thing at least correct. Lexus, made by Toyota, is still in first place. The rest of it is pointless. If any of it were true, which it isn't, GM and the other domestics wouldn't be losing market share to Toyota and Honda every year. Anything can be manipulated on paper. The fact is that Toyota and Honda are growing because more people are buying them, GM is losing customers to them and doing worse every year. Nice try, but there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. While you may not understand the fact that Toyota quality is genuine, most car buyers do, which is why they've switching to Toyota from domestic brands for years now.

4th Dec 2007, 17:32

There's a big difference between "perceived quality" and "build quality". The fact remains despite years of hearing about how that GM or Ford are supposedly improving, Toyota, Honda, and even much of what Nissan produces are in fact companies that have a reputation and well-earned status of building high quality cars.

If you think about it, when Toyota started selling cars in the US, the cars themselves were pretty terrible and incapable of dealing with many of the challenging landscapes in the US. They grew from their experiences and gradually built better and better quality cars.

Here's the ironic thing, especially for someone like yourself working at GM. The manufacturing process used by the Japanese automakers to great success was actually developed by an American named William Edwards Deming. He helped the US improve manufacturing efficiency and quality control during WW2. This is interesting because the US's capability for manufacturing goods during the war dramatically increased nearly ten-fold as a result of some of Deming's manufacturing ideas. After the war, Deming worked in Japan to help develop tighter, more efficient manufacturing systems that would later lead to increased quality control.

The ironic thing is that his work was completely ignored by the big three even after it was readily apparent that by the early 80's, Japanese cars were in effect vastly superior to domestic output at that time. It was only in the 80's that Ford used his expertise. But at that point, it was too late, and the "perception" you talk about - which again is less about perception and earned and respected reputation, had been set.

So while you and others at GM and Ford, or any of the others on this site can ramble on about how much GM or Ford has improved, I'll see it when I believe it. I have little reason to doubt that my Tacoma, which has given me 12 years and 226,000 trouble-free miles is an extremely well-executed vehicle from a reliable corporation. If you want to sway opinion, then build better vehicles. If you want to make this more of a choice for those in both camps, then develop more compelling products.

But again - Don't come on here and say that Honda and Toyota cars are based entirely on perception because that in of itself is not true.

4th Dec 2007, 23:08

Too bad JD Power and Associates lost my vote. I was tired after they said that cars like the Cavalier were the most appealing cars. It just does not work out like that in the real world. You cannot ask 60,000 senior citizens if their Buick has ever had problems in the first 3 years, and then ask 60,000 Accord owners who vary from teenage to Senior if their car has had no problems and place Buick on top. Of course the Buick is going to come up on top, because it is sitting garaged under an apartment building or is at a resort all day. There are some other problems that come up.

Am I the only one who understands that?

5th Dec 2007, 06:00

22:52 What was it about Toyota that turned you off? The way smoother engine? The panel gaps that are actually consistent? The interior that doesn't look like a 5 year old at GM put it together? I hate all of that stuff.

If I were searching for a badly engineered, cheaply built vehicle that will last half as long as my Toyota, I'd buy a domestic too.

5th Dec 2007, 14:52

600...cheaply built is right, but many want nicer quality domestics and not Cavalier or little Toyotas as our only option to buy. Many of us have higher incomes and like nicer cars to drive, perform and enjoy not basic barren transportation.

5th Dec 2007, 17:08

No, you're the only one who thinks that. What you're describing is more like what my mother-in-law does with her Honda Accord. She swears by Honda as the most trouble-free car ever. Sure it is like new, because she only drives it at 45 miles per hour and less than 5,000 miles per year!

5th Dec 2007, 17:13

Good for you. I guess you'll understand why I feel the same way about my 1997 Mercury Sable with 180,000 miles on it, my 1985 Dodge Ram with 261,000 miles on it, and my 1994 Cadillac with 180,000 miles on it. If you say that Toyota is the best because your Tacoma has 226k, the same logic says that Dodge is the best because my Ram has 261,000 miles.

5th Dec 2007, 19:37

Look at the reviews on 2003 thru 2006 Camrys and 2003-2006 Tauruses, then come back with a (sensible and true) explanation as to why such a "bad" car as Ford is rated nearly THREE TIMES as favorably as the "quality" Camry. And please, no more silliness about "faked reviews" and "dishonest comments" if it doesn't agree with your prejudices.

Also, please explain why import fans eagerly spout J.D. Power and Associates and Consumer Reports reviews when they are FAVORABLE to imports, but cry "PREJUDICED" when the Ford Fusion blows away ALL the competition, foreign or domestic.

5th Dec 2007, 22:24

Pretty fit and finish may appeal to import owners with cupholders and a micrometer measuring body gaps. Personally, what I hate as a domestic owner is bland styling, which is potato shaped and unidentifiable. What I prefer is innovative designs, engineered suspensions and new technology reflected under the hood that makes for an outstanding driving experience. I will sacrifice a few cupholders and superficial concerns, but not at the expense of comfort, styling and drivability. Staying trapped in a vehicle that has no driving appeal is not my idea of fun, trapped in a 60 month car payment with the only enjoyment is at the pump filling up these vehicles. I cannot wait to get up in the morning to drive mine, and even after work, and it will never be a basic appliance like an import vehicle.