Toyota GR86, 86, FR-S and Subaru BRZ Forum & Owners Community - FT86CLUB - Current well known car brands that you would never buy

- Other Vehicles & General Automotive Discussions (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Current well known car brands that you would never buy (https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121900)

I despised the Scion brand in the past, but then the FRS was released. As a reward to getting into grad school I leased a 2014 FRS 6MT. Even after having multiple HPFP's replaced, whole transmission from Toyota, weather stripping problems, build quality problems... BUT - boy did I have fun in that car. It truly is a poor man's Cayman.

Circumstances have changed now in my life. Next plan is to focus on. "safety". I'm in my late 20's and a grizzled man.

I'll probably end up getting a used Tacoma or something.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

Relevant story, I also had no love for Scion or Toyota before buying this car, if you had told me in 2010 I'd happily buy a new Toyota/Scion I would have laughed in your face.

Given there are only 2 or 3 cars that actually interest me (with the proviso I have just won a lottery) I would have to say that I wouldn't consider 98% of car brands out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mazeroni (Post 2976671)

I have negative perceptions of many brands. Not sure that would prevent me from buying a car from them, but it would be a determining factor. In order:

1. Chrysler. I can name two products they still sell (I'm not cheating by going to their website): The Pacifica and the 300. I honestly have no idea if they have others cars. I know the Dart and 200 are dead. Not sure if the Journey is still around, although it is now old if it is. Also, the 300 is dated, although I agree it kind of looks boss. I love me the 300 SRT-8. So that really only leaves the Pacifica, which I'm certain is a good vehicle, but not enough to carry a brand.

Chrysler is alive and well. Although two models branded as Chryslers is a bit lower than they have historically had it really isn't that unusual for them. There has never been a huge line up of Chrysler badged vehicles. The funny part about the 300 is that it actually competes for market share with it's cousin the Charger. They generally badge the majority of their cars as Dodges now. When you look at Dodge you see they are actually doing very well. Even the poor old Journey is still holding in the middle of the pack and growing in sales. The Durango isn't doing so great but it is competing in a pretty tough category. The Caravans are selling in record numbers, The Challenger is the bottom of the Pony car class but even the bottom of that class means they sell shit loads and if we bring Ram into the mix then they sell about a bazillion cars a year. You also forgot to include the whole Jeep lineup in the Chrysler group and that is another massive part of the US sales mix.

I have very valid reasons for following what Chrysler is doing very, very closely. They are actually doing great!

Yeah, I'm not generally a fan of Chrysler products (even though I have owned a SRT-4 and Neon ACR in the past), but it seems like the Charger/300/Challenger platforms are pretty reliable these days. They have been perfected over the last 10 years I guess?

Quote:

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive (Post 2976980)

I don't know how they are now,but the early Charger(03~04ish) and Magnums are pretty shitty. I have two co-workers that own both cars,respectively,and they both have the exact same problems.I've never really been a Mopar fan,so they are very low on my list of cars I'd think about buying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by funwheeldrive (Post 2976980)

People can slam Fiat all they want but when they took over they poured massive amounts of money into the assembly plants, opened up R&D to a level it had not seen in decades, redid the whole QA structure and overall just simply improved everything in the management systems. Unfortunately it will take a long time for people to get over the damage to the image created by the poor management through the Daimler/LLC era.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Th3rdSun (Post 2977016)

LOL See my post above. Anything between 1998 and 2014 can indeed be pretty shitty. What comes off the lines now are no longer those vehicles.

All I know is that I owned a 2005 SRT-4 for a couple of years and that thing was insanely fun. It was underrated from the factory, and was one of the best 'Bang for your buck' cars of the decade. The only issue it ever had was a bad fuel pump fuse. I modified that car, beat it to hell, and it never gave me any issues. I wouldn't mind picking up another one if I could ever find one in good condition.

And even the most respected brands can turn out duds.

http://jalopnik.com/5826679/how-the-...first-to-worst

Wouldn't touch a Land Rover, Alfa, Maserati, and pretty much any other Chrysler/Fiat product except for a Gen V Viper and even they have engine and paint issues. Most Chevy's I would skip. Ford I'm ambivalent - they seem to be OK. If I had to go German I'd likely get a Mercedes. Any Toyota/Lexus/Honda made in Japan is tops on my list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strat61caster (Post 2977068)

And even the most respected brands can turn out duds.

http://jalopnik.com/5826679/how-the-...first-to-worst

Explanation here:

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/...da-innovation/

Quote:

Honda's popular Civic car was one of the casualties of these changes, according to the engineer in charge of the model's redesign beginning in 2007. With a reputation for outstanding engineering, reliability and affordability, the Civic was one of Honda's top selling cars.

「Right from the get-go, the program was about making cost savings in real terms,」 the chief engineer for the redesign, Mitsuru Horikoshi, told Reuters.

To that end the global automotive business unit, headed at the time by future CEO Ito, and the tech division decided that the redesigned Civic would use many of the same components and systems as the previous model, including the front and rear suspension systems and the front section of the car.

Civic engineer Horikoshi had finished a first design setting down the basic engineering points by February 2008 and a more detailed design by April. When rising gasoline, steel and other prices pushed up manufacturing costs by between $1,200 and $1,400 per vehicle, Horikoshi's team refined their design to improve the car's fuel economy. In early July 2008 they sought management approval for their plan at a meeting in Torrance, California, Honda's U.S. sales headquarters.

Global automotive head Ito said he would review the design overnight, Horikoshi recalled. The next morning, Ito came back and told the team to make the car smaller and cheaper to produce, and complete the redesign by the end of that month.

「With one blow of a cost chopping knife, Ito basically told us to take our design back」 to the first plan. 「It's just unheard of. It was unprecedented,」 Horikoshi said.

To meet Ito's specifications, Horikoshi used cheaper materials and made the car smaller, cutting its length by 45 millimeters and its width by 25 millimeters. He also reduced the wheelbase, the distance between the front and rear axle, by 30 millimeters.

A former leader of Honda's R&D unit said the firm 「lapsed deeper into a bunker mentality, and that translated into our products. It was cut, cut, cut, and it cheapened our cars.」

By the end of 2008, Horikoshi's team was wrapping up the Civic design. Half a year behind schedule, they were still $200 short of the cost target per car.

「I already had my pants down to my ankles – nothing more to shed,」 Horikoshi said.

When the 2012 model year Civic went on sale in 2011, it was met with a barrage of criticism. Influential U.S. magazine Consumer Reports dropped the car from its recommended list for the first time since it began rating vehicles in 1993. It criticized the new Civic for a poor quality interior and uneven ride.

R&D chief Matsumoto said the episode is a lesson that creativity should not be sacrificed on the altar of shareholder value. During previous assignments for Honda in Thailand and India, Matsumoto said he had looked at headquarters from afar and recognized a lack of creativity there.

「We have to be allowed to go wild at times. If you operated a technology center only from an efficiency perspective, you'd kill the place. Which is exactly what happened at Honda. We don't want headquarters people telling engineers what to do,」 he said.

In America, there are many people who would only buy American. At this moment there are only a few American luxury manufacturers: Lincoln, Cadillac, Buick and Chrysler, but that is a large stretch, and to the exception of the norm, Tesla. If you have brand loyalty like a lot of older Americans do then you are probably either thinking I am a Ford person or I am a Chevy person. If you are a Ford person then you have one option. If you are Chevy person then you have the flashy Cadillac or the understated, more conservative Buick. I'm not surprised at all that Buick exists considering all the old farts in America that want to buy a luxury Chevy/GM car.

And I think TCoat's initial statement was way off. He assumed people buy cars they want, and the sales numbers dictate desirability. If that was the case then Bugatti must be the most undesirable brand in the world because of their pitiful sales numbers. 'Oh but a Bugatti like a Porsche or other expensive brands is out of most people's price range.' Well, then we can also say Ducati must really be an undesirable brand because a $15k vehicle is super cheap, and anyone could afford a Ducati Monster, right? The answer is of course no people can't because a motorcycle is not a primary vehicle for the average person, so its sales can't be measured against its affordability. And that segues into the 86. The 86 is a reasonable primary car of a few people, and it is still only a reasonable secondary family car for a few people. That doesn't mean a lot of dad's driving minivans don't wish they had it, and even if the model had poor desirability, that doesn't mean the brand does; i.e., Toyota and Subaru, the whole point of the article.

There are too many brands I will probably never buy. Because of the metric system vs the imperial system, I'll probably never own an American vehicle. I like to work on my cars, and I find the imperial system utterly ridiculous. I currently find the front of the Lexus lineup hideous and the fact that they are all automatic compounds my general distaste for the brand, over the last few years. Even after saying that, I appreciate the strides Toyota/Lexus are making to revive its sports car lineup. Some of the new Lexus sports cars are gorgeous, even with the hideous hour glass grill. While Mercedes has some good looking cars, in the Euro luxury world, I've just never cared for the brand. I'm more of an Audi/BMW guy. On the Japanese side, Mitsubishi's departure from sports cars will only hurt their brand image more. It doesn't matter what sells in the highest volume. If a manufacture doesn't produce interesting, passion and sport, driven vehicles then the brand will lose desirability. Toyota realized that fact, so they are taking measures. They may believe that the man in his twenties buying the 86, might also buy the Camary for his family in his thirties and a Lexus GS model in his forties, so catch them while they are young, and try to gain brand loyalty. Mitsubishi might be sinking, and I wouldn't want to be on that ship.