Not really a ramble, Larry. They ARE better, but still suffer from
crappy design (lousy shapes, for instance) --- my buddy's parents
decided to drive (at night) to go to dinner over Thanksgiving because
they simply could not face the ordeal of getting in and out of the rear
seat of a new Pontiac mid-sized car my buddy rented. I doubt an
athlete would want to do that chore more than a couple times a week,
really terribly. We almost had to pick them up, as they are both
getting on in years and, shall we say, somewhat less than sprightly.
The access to the front seats isn't much better.
And if they are boasting of their quality, it must have been shockingly
bad a few years ago -- one of my co-workers bought a new Buick Lacrosse
-- and has been back thee times for warrenty work, including a leaking
GPS system antenna. It was stuck on as an afterthought, and the
gaskets were crap, leak on every single one they've produced so far.
The main problem is the "fish the good ones out of the junk" mentality,
coupled with a flat refusal to integrate design work (or actually do
any, for that matter) -- GM makes 30 or 40 different door handles,
Toyota makes three. GM makes upwards of 60 side rear view left side
mirrors, Toyota makes 2 (car and truck). My old Buick was available
with SIX engines and FOUR transmissions in various combinations,
largest engine was 3.3L and smallest was 2.4. Just plain stupid, but
the US makers will not change until they actually go belly up. They
prefer to dis the people who assemble the cars instead of admitting
that the MANAGEMENT makes all the decisions. Sure, their retirement
costs are higher, but they have fully amortized manufacturing
facilities and Toyota is building new ones, I'd bet it evens out more
than you might think.
Only in America does the management get huge bonuses as the company
tanks. What else is there to say?
Peter
