XLeezardx

Whata bout GM built quality and reliability, how are they compaed to Honda.

The Hoth

Variable, fixed ...blah blah blah.

Net quaterly loss was over a billion. No matter how you slice it, you'd still end up a net loss per vehicle.

It is the bottom line that really matters. Maybe it is just me.

JonBoy

Okay, so it's baloney.

Okay, so it's not baloney. At least, it's not provable by you or anyone else. So what are you talking about? "Claims" without numbers are usually pretty thin, at best.

[QUOTE][I]In 2001, the study found, the per-vehicle profit wa s
about $9,500. To d ay, thanks mostly to big discounts, the
margin on such vehicles is about $6,300. On midsize
S U Vs, such as the Ford Explorer and Chevrolet Trail-
B l a z e r, margins are down even more steeply, to $4,100
from $7,200.
With the decline in SUV profits, GM and Fo r d

Purple_sky

Well, one is profitable and continues to break its own sales and profit records year after year. Whilst, the other is on the verge of going bankrupt.

mistressmotorsports

Well, the original question was about reliability, styling, quality and sales. I work as an engineering manager for an auto parts maker that sells to both GM and Honda. We make the exact same quality of parts for GM, Honda, and the other car companies that we have as customers. So, in a sense, there is no difference in quality. However, I will say there is a difference in attitude between the two companies. GM, like all our customers expect perfect quality all the time. They get just as upset if we send them a defect, and in many ways they are actually harsher on us when we make bad parts. And we do make bad parts. We ship (just from our plant, which is one of many worldwide) over a million parts per month, so if we make one bad part per million, we still piss off one customer a month. The difference is that while GM yells and screams and threatens, they (often, not always) offer nothing in the way of help, experience, etc. to aid us in permanently correcting the problem. Honda, gets in our shorts as well, but they spend more time with us as a team trying to solve the problem and not just punishing us for making bad parts. This obviously helps both my company and Honda in the long run since the quality of our parts only gets better. Of course we take those lessons learned and apply them to our entire product line, so GM gets the benefit as well, just indirectly.

When we make a bad part for GM, they tend to worry about the impact on their plant first (can they keep running, when will certified good parts show up, etc.) Honda's first question is how the bad part might reach or affect the car buyer. To me this is another big indicator of attitude.

I would say that Honda is better at launch readiness, which means the bugs are worked out well before a new model comes out, where GM tweaks through the entire product life cycle. This is not necessarily bad since it means GM cars get better through their life cycle. We have other customers that also tweak, but not always with quality improvement as their goal.

As for styling, that's pretty subjective. Honda is not exactly cutting edge, whether you are talking about Accords, Acuras, or whatever. They are safe and conservative. No one thinks Hondas are ugly (well that baby box van thing and the Ridgeline are certainly no lookers). GM, on the other hand has some great looking cars and some real freaks. So, I'd call that a tossup.

As for sales, GM still outsells Honda by a ton, both domestically and worldwide. So, while GM's market share isn't the 50% it was in the 70's, they have a ton more competition now, yet they still sell one in four cars sold in the US.

So, does any of this make Honda better? I don't know, and it's just opinion anyway. I own a GM truck (Yukon) , as I still think that it's the best truck in its class, plus a TL and the S2000. But I've also owned three Corvettes and many other GM cars over the years. The GM stuff I owned in the 80s was truly crap, especially compared to the 84 Accord that was my first new car purchase. But, my last two GM trucks have had fewer issues together than my model year 2000 TL, and way less than the numerous issues that the previous owner of my S2000 had, so is Honda quality really better now? My personal experience says no, but my gut still says Honda is either a little better or even with GM on quality.

Please feel free to treat my opinions like they are worth exactly what you just paid for them.

Mike

QUIKAG

Great objective post, Mike!

Purple_sky

In terms of sales, Honda cannot compete with GM, yet. GM is not a single automaker, it is a huge company comprised of many different automakers. When you own a bunch of companies and you don't sell as many as someone who owns just one, you'd know you're knee-deep in poopie. Luckily for GM, it still outsells all other automakers, even at unprofitable rate.

FearlessFife

I have had three Hondas, three made by GM. There is no comparison. GM sucks balls, no one will ever convince me otherwise.

steven975

To me the 10 year reliability record is what convinces me of the overall quality.

Honda's 10 year old cars are above average or more. 10 year old GM cars are no where near that mark. You see the classified ads all the time: "96 Grand Am, $800, needs transmission" all the time. You see fewer ads like that for Accords and the prices are a lot higher, too.

GM has definitely improved. Still, it will take 10 years to truly see how this year's models stack up.

cdelena

A long term investment may be a gamble but there is sure money to be made in volatile issues.

A friend called last week to tip me that GM stock was probably going to be upgraded so a buy was in order. I did not take action but he picked up 10K shares at 18.5 and sold today at 22.5.. a quick 40 grand profit (a hair less with margin and brokerage fees). Not a bad call.