Nickname: Brien

Review: I have two Toyotas and one Ford in my driveway and have owned GM products. The Toyotas are 8 and 16 years old with 210,000 miles and 92,000 miles on them. The Ford is 8 years old with 27,000 miles. The Ford and GM's I've had have the same problems that the Toyotas have. The difference is that the Toyota will need a paint job after 14 years instead of 6, or a transmission after 180,000 miles instead of 80,000, or a head gasket after 130,000 instead of 75,000. The headliner on the Ford is falling apart just like nearly every American car I have owned and yet the 16 year old Toyota headliner is still in good shape. How many years of dependable service is the real question not short term recalls.

Date reviewed: Aug 16, 2006 7:23 PM

Nickname: Ajit

Review: "What goes up will come down".The Toyota crash is around the corner.The recalls have begun and with increasing frequency and larger numbers.And GM is the wounded lion on the rebound. The circle of automotive life.

Date reviewed: Jul 24, 2006 5:28 PM

Nickname: Vijay

Review: Talk about Toyota's quality. Since mid-2005 most auto analysts have been repeating the same prediction that Toyota will overtake GM in terms of production numbers by 2010 and no one seems to look at business fundamentals between GM and Toyota. Toyota's quality talk is more of a myth than a reality. Toyota had the maximum number of vehicle recalls amongst all world wide auto makers since 2004. On top of this issue comes the latest revelation about hiding serious mechanical problems with Hilux vehicles in Japan, similar to the disclosures by Mitsubishi two years ago. These are very serious issues for an auto maker. Toyota's rapid expansion will come at a huge price and the fall will be a loud crash. GM's quality on the other hand is rapidly improving and will eventually come out a winner. The old pension promises require a rework and hopefully Rick Wagoner can get closure. Analysts should also remember that all foreign auto plants in the U.S. are only 25 years old w/o old promises.

Date reviewed: Jul 21, 2006 4:36 PM

Nickname: KFitz

Review: Strategic alliances between competitive auto OEMs is common practice. Some benefits: idle plants, revenue streams, market entry, job fulfillment, and overall economic growth. However, having overcome the economic and socio-cultural forces in the early '80s and '90s, U.S. Auto OEMs are now facing a paradigm shift of consumer demand attributed to rising energy costs leaving them in a non-competitive position once again. A GM merger has me concerned with the impact on its supply base. Suppliers are already struggling for market share trying to sustain margins and balance capacity against demand. Consolidation is inevitable. Companies having a niche product/service with supporting global logistics and capacity might have the leverage to survive. At first glance a merger may be GM's solution besides some UAW relief. However, a venture of this scale will influence supporting stakeholders as the direction of these automotive giants unfolds.

Date reviewed: Jul 20, 2006 4:49 PM

Nickname: tdeans

Review: The problem is not that Ford and GM are still slow to respond or have boring and non-competitive products. The problem is that for years these companies were scared of the UAW and what would happen should a major strike cripple capacity. Toyota and Honda never had to deal with these issues. I do not blame the UAW, but I find it hard to blame Management either. Both sides created a situation that worked until competition caught up. Now the UAW is loathe to give up hard won benefits and management can't or has been unwilling to force issues in fear of a strike. What for decades was a win-win for both sides has become a lose-lose. True, foreign companies employ a large amount of americans in the auto manufacturing industry, but NONE but Daimler negotiate with the UAW or have to worry about the same legacy costs. Hindsight is 20/20, but let us consider the even more rapid descent protracted labor strife in the 80's and early 90's would have brought the U.S. auto industry.

Date reviewed: Jul 19, 2006 4:11 PM

Nickname: milo3

Review: It was Mitsubishi that made the Japanese Zero's that played the crucial role in Pearl Harbor, not Toyota. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html Toyota is the exemplar of rationality over politics. GM is doomed. Milo3

Date reviewed: Jul 17, 2006 9:12 PM

Nickname: N

Review: Big Al, What an incredibly ignorant and racist comment you've made. Should America forever have nothing to do with anything Japanese because of Pearl Harbor? Japan is one of the U.S. key allies today, both in business and politics. And the U.S. economy has a lot to thank Japan for. I am in shock that someone could even make such an uninformed comment.

Date reviewed: Jul 17, 2006 8:45 PM

Nickname: L. Hiraoka

Review: I wrote "Global Alliances in the Motor Vehicle Industry" in 2001 and rising gas prices were bludgeoning Detroit's SUV sales with no strategy like the one Carlos Ghosn was using to turn Nissan around. Five years later, even he will not be able to turn GM around. No one at Toyota is stupid or bold enough to touch this disaster, the interesting BW article notwithstanding. Ghosn is thus the only one left with the experience and guts to make a difference.

Date reviewed: Jul 17, 2006 8:26 PM

Nickname: Stan the Energy Man

Review: GM and its management have neither the intelligence nor guts to do what it takes to turn GM around. A deal with Ghosn and or Toyota would be a great step to preserve what's left of the American auto industry. My view is that there will be Toyota-GM combo and a Ford-Honda deal. This would make two competitive global powerhouse auto companies each with a unique portfolio of brands.

Date reviewed: Jul 17, 2006 8:21 PM

Nickname: Joe

Review: When did Toyota bomb Pearl Harbor?

Date reviewed: Jul 17, 2006 8:11 PM