|
This meant that most "bugs" and other reason for a re-call were found out BEFORE the same model was sold overseas. Thus Toyota and other Japanese companies were able to project an image of quality over US car makers whose product were first released in the US and as such any "bugs" and other problems were first found out in America.
The above worked for Japan when it came to cars sold in Japan and then shipped overseas. In cars like the SUVs and luxury cars like the Lexus the above system is NOT reliable for the Japanese domestic market for SUVs and Luxury cars are NOT that large. Thus such cars were set for the US market from day one and thus the "bugs" are first found in America NOT Japan.
Now, as to the rust-mobiles of the 1960s and 1970s. That was the height of US car domination. The prime market were those buyers who would trade in their cars every three years. The cars rarely had rust problems in those three years, such problems kicked in after about three years (And mostly in states were salt was extensively used to keep roads open in Winter).
In the early 1970s Japanese cars were WORSE rust buckets then American Cars. My Father owned a 1970 Datsun Pickup that was completely rusted out within two years (Nissan Steel which sold it first cars under the Datsun name used a dual plate steel system for its body paint, a very thin top quality steel over a thicker low quality steel, it gave the cars a good look when new, but rusted quickly). I found out about the steel as I helped by Father and my sister remove the rust from the Datsun to try to keep it two more years. We had to practically Bondo it together with a new paint job and that was only good enough to keep it on the road till it was paid off.
The rust problem Japanese cars were noted for around 1970 was NOT a problem in Japan for Japanese Automobile regulation are set up in such a way that almost ANY car must be traded in within two years for after two years it is almost impossible for such a car to pass "safety" regulations (The regulations have less to do with Safety but to force people to buy new cars every two years). In the US, where it was common to keep a car three to five years, these early Japanese imports were so bad when it came to rust that they had a bad reputation in the US. To solve that problem the Japanese Auto Companies corrected the problem about five years before the US car makers did (I.e. going to lavished steel and plastic in wheel wells, Fenders and other lower parts of the car).
Most Japanese cars were no longer Rust Buckets by 1975, while most US cars remained so (My Father purchased a 1977 Suburban to replace the 1974 Dodge Pickup that replaced the 1970 Datsun, of the Dodge pickup I will not speak of) My father's Suburban worked out well for him lasting almost eight years (Through the Suburbans transmission would be its weak point, why did GM ever sell Suburbans with automatic transmissions WITHOUT a transmission cooler I never know). When the Suburban was traded in it was heavy rusted at the end of its eight year life, but with minimal work could pass inspection. Its transmission had been replaced twice and the engine was blown (The car had 200,000 miles on it on regular leaded gasoline, being a 3/4 ton it was exempt from having a Catalytic converted and thus could use leaded gasoline) but otherwise still a very good car.
For comparison when I purchased my first car, a 1982 3/4 ton pickup in 1982 it lasted almost ten years. No rust at all within that ten year period. No problem with the engine, no problem with the transmission (I had a three speed manual, no worry about the need to keep the Automatic Transmission cool). Why? The big three had followed the Japanese lead and gone to Galvanized steel and thus ending the rust problem but about five years AFTER the Japanese. Well I like to say it was Japanese forward thinking that lead to the Japanese going first, the real reason is how BAD the Japanese cars were when it came to rust, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. US Cars were doing MUCH better then the Japanese cars around 1970, substantially better (As I pointed out above eight years instead of two years).
Once the big three were no longer making rust buckets (About 1980 as compared to 1975 for the Japanese), the big three still had the problem of how to downsize. Oil prices jumped in the 1970s, but US car making capacity was limited by its engine making capacity and it took almost ten years to go from making V-8s to mostly V-6s. At the same time Transmissions had to be redesigned to handle the V-6s and fours coming into use. Compared to the rest of the car, the engine and transmission cost the most to make AND have the highest capital expenditure when it comes time to set up a factory. The rest of the car can be downsized quite quickly (This became more true as CAD packages become the norm in the 1980s replacing the old wooden mock-ups). Japan, do to its high gasoline taxes already made Four cylinder engines and thus could quickly put fours into production for the American Market while the American car makers had to do a complete make over of its engine and transmission factory system (And doing this when the highest profit products were the bigger V-8s). The big three were never able to work around this. They wanted the profits of the V-8s with the fuel economy of a Four. Then, under Reagan, oil prices dropped. Ford tried three times to bring in small cars in the 1980s and 1990s but failed each time do to the fact gasoline was to cheap.
Now some of the above was just bad management by the Big Three (refusing to move quickly to changes in the market, in an effort to keep up profits, thus instead of building a new factory to make four cylinder engines AND transmissions for that engine, the big three tried to convert existing factories and used a two step problem, smaller engines that could used existing automatic transmissions, then smaller transmissions that could improve the mileage of the new smaller engines. Now this ended up being a four step conversion, Large V-8s replaced by small V-8s (Roughly 1973-1975), then smaller transmissions (1975-1978), then from small V-8s to V-6s (1979-1982), then to even smaller transmissions (1982-1985). By the time the big three were ready to go to fours, the price of oil had started to drop (1985) so any conversion to four cylinder engines just died in the late 1980s (Some fours were made in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s but these were small in numbers to the V-8s and V-s and the transmissions designed for the V-8s and V-6s).
My point is Japanese companies have done better since about 1970 then US car makers NOT so much because of better management (The Japanese rust buckets of about 1970s shows that the Japanese management was as bad as US Management), but do to factors that permitted the Japanese to exploit opportunism that the American Car makers could not. The Japanese had to face rust and started to face the problems of rust do to the fact that Japanese cars were BAD compared to US Cars when it came to rust around 1970. Fuel Economy was a Japanese advantage for High gasoline prices in Japan had forced the Japanese to stay with four cylinder engines long after US car makers were embracing nothing but even larger (and profitable) V-8s. These two factors AND the fact that Japanese cars could be tested by the Japanese public for almost two years (To correct most bugs in the design) gave Japanese Car makers huge advantages over US car makers. Japan "solved" the rust problem about five years before the US car, could bring in fuel efficient cars that it would take the US car makers almost ten years to match, AND test any new model in a protected market (Japan itself) had less to do with better Japanese quality and management then massive support from the Japanese Government (That kept non-Japanese cars out of Japan, forced Japanese car makers to use only four Cy liner engines, with high gasoline taxes etc and I will NOT mention the low interest rates the Japanese Car makers could get from the Japanese Government directly OR via the heavy controlled Japanese banks).
The above advantages worked well for Japan as long as Japanese Car Makers just exported modified versions of cars originally made for the Japanese car Market. Once the Japanese Car makers decided to go against the big three in the Big Threes main profit centers the above advantages started to disappear. Rust had long been defeated by US car makers by the 1990s when the Japanese made they move, and fuel economy was NOT a big issue in the 1990s (And has always been less of an issue in the Luxury car market). While most Americans own cars, most Americans opt for something other then a Luxury Sedan (and this is even more true of the Japanese). Thus all of the advantages the Japanese car makers had did NOT really apply to this part of the Car Market. Worse, this is the part of the Car Market that can be the most picky i.e. want top end because they paid so much for the car. Thus we are seeing the Japanese Car Makers having to deal with a market where they previous marketing advantages are a minor factor at best. US Car Makers are now ready to make four bangers as while as larger engines AND the US Car market is NOT a protected market so it is hard to cover up bugs. Thus it will be a real test of Japanese management if they can address this problem.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
