Jill, they could've made cars that lasted 300k, 400k miles back in the 70's. And Mercedes Benz did just that, made cars that lasted that long(and not just the engines, the interiors, body, etc held up as well). Thing is you can't make a car that lasts that long and expect it to be cost competitive. Those 70's Benzes were hideously expensive, like a late 70's 240D(the classic W123 body) with vinyl seats, windy windows and 80hp was about the cost of a 1977 Sedan Deville and a 1977 Chevette put together. As time marches on, manufacturing techniques improve and costs come down, thus mass market vehicles started to last longer.

As for Toyota trucks and the frame problem, it wasn't that it was a c-channel. Class 8 semi trucks use a c-channel, depending on the design some flex in the frame is a good thing(as in you don't want it to be so rigid that it would crack). The problem is the company that made the frames for Toyota didn't properly rust proof them. Now if this was a supplier problem not painting and galvanizing them correctly, or Toyota engineers just specing the wrong type(or cheaper way of doing it) of paint/corrosion protection is up for debate.

 

Again, Jill, don't want to get too far off topic, but Toyota, for many years, had all kinds of problems adjusting to the American truck market. First, their 80's vintage compact trucks all rusted out into Swiss Cheese along the base of the bed, because they shipped the trucks themselves and beds over separately (to avoid the 25% tariff on imported trucks) and welded the beds on at the West Coast facility, with poor-quality welds. Then, when they introduced the so-called "full-size" T100/150 in 1994, it was actually three-quarter sized, not full, and came with an in-line four or V6, not an American-worthy V8. Then, when they introduced the 1Gen Tundra, it had a Lexus-derived 4.6L V8, but was STILL three-quarter-sized, not full. Then, when the TRUE full-sized (2Gen) Tundra was introduced with the 5.7L I-Force V8, quality suffered.....they used overly-thin flimsy plastic trim parts, tailgates that bent and buckled when you loaded up the bed, and, of course, the controversial C-Channel frames. Although both the Tacoma and Tundra are admittedly much better today, there are reasons why domestic-badged trucks still pretty much corner the market here in the U.S.

 

The smaller seats are from the fact that the vehicle was really designed for the Chinese market. Like the Lacrosse which lost some headroom for the same reason.

From what I understand, this new Envision was designed by American engineers in the United States, at least that is what they were saying over at GMInsidenews

 

Yeah, I pretty much came to that conclusion about the Envision's front seats the moment I looked at them. Not only were they relatively uncomfortable by my standards, but also gave off a odd odor that was quite different from what one normally expects in a new vehicle with leather. A shame, because, except for that, this vehicle seems assembled like a Swiss Watch.

Well, all else equal, smaller, lower, more-thinly-padded seats would tend to increase headroom. But I think I get your point....simply a lower roofline for shorter people.

IN the U.S. doesn't necessarily mean FOR the U.S. That's what I was getting at during our earlier discussion about the global nature of today's auto industry and what is considered American, European, or Asian.

Buick obviously decided to import the Envision here to help satisfy the skyrocketing demand for its SUVs (the same reason they are dumping the American-market Verano to get factory space to build more Encores). Even with the Encore's stubby looks and Mickey-Mouse engine, it sells in relatively big numbers. I'll be surprised if Envision sales in the American market come anywhere near it. In fact, I probably wouldn't have even done a write-up on it if it not for the fact that I've never had a chance to inspect a Chinese-made vehicle before.....this is the first mass-produced vehicle assembled in that country to be sold here in the U.S. That alone IMO makes it interesting.

 

I've driven various Hondas and Toyotas assembled in China and Southeast Asian countries like Thailand and I've never had huge QC issues with them. Overseas factories run by multinational automakers impose high minimum standards so the vehicles being produced in different parts of the world are effectively the same. A BMW or Benz assembled in China has to meet the same standards as the same car built in Germany.

That said, I've had rattles in Japanese-built Lexus models, so country of origin doesn't really matter.

 

Thanks for your input. That seems to be the case more and more now, in this globalized auto-market we have. Some plants, though, have had more problems than others, such as the Nissan/Infiniti plant at Canton, MS.

Buick, for several years now, has had the highest reputation for quality and reliability of any domestic nameplate....backed by both Consumer Reports and J.D. Power. I'd guess they'd think twice before letting just one plant in China ruin that. And this plant at Yantai producing the Envision seems to be up to snuff, though, somehow, the interior has an odd smell from the materials used.

 

There may be some initial teething issues, as is often the case with new lines/plants, but I have to think if China is doing okay assembling passenger airplanes then they can put a car together.

 

Thats "if" BMW or Benz wants a Chinese vehicle to meet the same car standards at Germany.

I do agree that a vehicle in China could be built as good or even better than the same model in the USA. But at the heart of my issue is that a company like GM should be making their vehicles in the United States at all costs. Unless it is absolutely not possible to do it from a profitability POV. Its very sad that a consumer will be able to buy a top range CT6 electic/hybrid model, and it will say "Made in China" on the door jam.

 

Having looked at several Envision samples, I didn't see anything in the static-inspections that looked or felt to me like clear teething or assembly-issues, apart from the fact that the seats were not (IMO) really designed for large Americans or the fact that they emitted a rather odd odor instead of the usual pleasant smell you expect from leather. But that is not necessarily something that the employees or the machines at the plant can control....that's probably the way the seats are designed and the materials they use.

 

Catching up after some vacation, here are some general comments...

There are a number of inter-related factors why manufacturers produce in low-cost countries such as Mexico, China and Vietnam (which will be the next low-cost manufacturer of choice), but the key one is return to shareholders. Unless there is a large, ethically-minded block of shareholders, the typical shareholder just wants to see (large) dividend cheques come in every year, regardless of what the corporation has to do to maintain high shareholder returns. (Senior management and the board of directors that keeps shareholders happy by catering to shareholders' want to maximise returns will be rewarded by being allowed to keep their jobs. Of course, it is possible to cater so much to shareholders that senior managers alienate customers -- or even employees, but no one seems to care about employees.) The way to do that, of course, is to buy or produce at low cost and sell at high prices. But we here in North America have become a throw-away society; we no longer keep our refrigerators and other home appliances for 30+ years, and we no longer fix them once they need to be serviced because it has become much easier and much cheaper to throw away than fix.

If we throw away, we do not want to pay high prices, and we have also been conditioned to think that a low price is better than a high price (regardless of the better quality and longer-term life expectancy of the higher-priced item). So we shop at Walmart rather than Sears, and throw away our iPhones when a newer model comes out.

If manufacturers cannot sell at high prices, they must produce at low cost -- at all costs. Employees, and even agreements with employees or governments that subsidised manufacturers in higher-cost countries (witness the GM plant in Oshawa and aid provided to GM during their bankruptcy crisis) become the victims. Automakers reduce and/or cheapen content and move production to low-cost areas for low-profit vehicles, like the Toyota Corolla and VW Jetta, yet keep prices just as high.

As for the Buick Envision, production starts in (relatively low-cost) China and is exported; if there is high-enough demand, such that it becomes profitable to be built in higher-cost areas, it can easily be assembled here in North America (USA or Canada), on the same assembly line as its platform-mate the Chevy Equinox.

 

^ As to what you said, shareholder greed is the primary driver of income inequality in this country. Used to be from the 1940's to about 1980 or so the uneducated but damn hard working man could get a factory job, support his family and this family would climb their way out of poverty, his children would be college educated, thus the cycle of poverty for generations had been broken.

I feel like shareholder greed(and improved efficiency at factories like robots) has completely shattered this American dream, that even if you aren't educated you can still make a respectable living and your kids will be even better off than you. Now days, the poor continue to be poor working low wage service jobs while we pay slave labor wages to poor folks in China, Indonesia, Vietnam, or in some industries(fishing for example) we just flat out enslave people in the name of shareholder greed. And guess what, none of the people in the bottom rungs of society own stocks to benefit from shareholder greed.

 

Hope you enjoyed your vacation.

I agree with much of what you say here, but, at the same time, it is noteworthy that GM made some of its highest profits (and enjoyed the greatest prosperity it ever had), during the 1950s through the 1970s, when most of its vehicles were produced here, in UAW plants, with high wages and benefits. The higher those wages and benefits went, the more GM seemed to prosper.

Many areas recycle appliances, rather than just dump them in a landfill. There is much inside of them that can be re-used.


Just a technicality, but the Equinox uses the GM Theta platform, while the Envision uses the Delta II XX.

 

oh puleez. then maybe those with low incomes should save a bit and buy some shares even in a mutual fund. acorns to oak trees. but no, most people want instant gratification and spend everything they have and more 'now' and wonder why later they have nothing, blaming 'greedy' people who actually planned ahead some, had some discipline, saved, invested, and are now accused of being greedy. a sign of intelligence and maturity is the ability to delay gratification (materially, physically, etc.). my experience has been that people who are broke have no ability to delay gratification. it's why poor people who win the lottery soon end up poor again.

that 'boom' was due mostly to the u.s. being really the only power that could rebuild the world after WWII. things have changed.

and despite TRILLIONS of income redistribution (including tax refunds and benefits to millions who pay NO federal income tax) it is still those who plan and save that do better than those who don't, and no amount of income redistribution has or will ever change that.

 

Labour costs are but one portion of total production costs; and development (design and engineering) costs were probably much different (lower) in the 1950s to 1970s, when car designs were much simpler than they are today.


That is no doubt true, but that was not my point. The point is that we have become a throw-away society rather than a fix-it society. At one time not so long ago, if an appliance did not work, we would call in a service person, but now, we just go out to buy a new appliance. The recycling industry has become necessary to avoid throwing into landfill sites all the useful materials that would otherwise end up there because we throw so much more stuff away.


The Theta platform (current Chevy Equinox) is being replaced by the D2XX / D2UX (Buick Envision and Opel Antara) platform. Assuming that the next-generation Equinox continues to be produced in Canada or USA, the assembly line could easily accommodate the Envision.


Two comments...

1. It is very difficult to plan ahead and save for the future if one is living on subsistence level wages. It is much easier to invest to make money for the future when one already has money.
2. The want for instant gratification is behind the shareholder problem. Shareholders want quick returns and so they want to see (large) dividend cheques every year; they are less willing to invest in companies that invest and may not see a profit for the long term.

 

Good points. Those who have money have spent decades, and probably centuries telling people who don't have money that they have to work harder to make less money. Ultimately those who acquire money by being in a moneyed-class will corrupt the economic system and yet go back to the very big governments they usurped for corporate welfare handouts when they push the system too hard and its various market bubbles contract.

At this stage in economic history, it's well known that austerity governments have run up debt and spent it and wasted it on ridiculous policies. This is why there is Trumpism or Bernie Sanders millennial kids turning out in record numbers. Ultimately consumers are given false choices created by the corporations: you can have this cheap throw-a-way product right now or you can have this other over-priced product that we may or may not make in the USA (implying quality and ethical values), but really we still off-shored it and we'll make a ton of money off you.