Scotty, why can Toyota, Lexus, and Honda build decent cars and still make a profit when other companies can't? Obviously the other companies COULD do it if Toyota can so does that mean the others are intentionally ripping off the customers by building cheap cars?
I've had 12 Honda cars and bikes and been satisfied but I am switching to Toyota next time as I don't like what Honda is doing (turbo, CVT) with all their vehicles.
It comes down to corporate cultures, IMHO. Scotty has discussed this, in various responses. We have corporate cultures that look for short-term, quarter-by-quarter gains, to enhance stock prices, increase executive compensation while milking resources and outrunning mistakes. Once that kind of ethos becomes dominant in an organization (IMHO, this includes GM, Ford, Chrysler, Mitsubishi and Hyundai, among others), it's hard to dislodge from the culture. Hence, the repetitive, year-in-and-year-out, decade-in-and-decade-out problems in vehicles from these organizations. There's a good book on how internal corporate cultures produce and reproduce these values, titled Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers, by Robert Jackall. Easy and recommended reading.
Some of it is also history. The Japanese took the TQM (Total Quality Management) ethos of Deming very seriously (Deming spent time in Japan, after WWII, expounding on his production philosophy) and organizations such as Toyota took it seriously and internalized it into their culture. It's well-known that Toyota does long range testing and planning, and has, for a long time. And, they have well-implemented, particularly in Japan and Canada, the principles of TQM and CQI (Continuous Quality Improvement).
In short, these better manufacturers have a viable "long-game."
GM tried to change, in the early 90s, with the Saturn brand. But like the myth of Saturn (or Chronos, for the Romans), GM "ate its child," just as Saturn ate his children, to keep his declining life going. Saturn did not change GM. GM changed Saturn.
That's my two cents on your question.
Great historical view of teh difference between American and Japanese manufacturing philosophies. Thanks for this.
Here is an oldie but goodie in terms of a management style.
A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (General Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese team won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat.
A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese team had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. So American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. To prevent another loss to the Japanese, the Americans' rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.
They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the "Rowing Team Quality First Program," with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India!
Entertaining story.
The other companies can do it they just feel that they can make a bigger profit by not doing so.
I don't really think any company wants the bad reputation that attitude creates. But for whatever reason, The US manufacturers (and the French and the Swedes and the Germans) do not do quality as well as the Japanese.
FCA doesn't seem to care about a bad reputation.
Planned obsolescence. They purposely make their vehicles like crap so they break and the customers either pay to get them fixed or they buy new cars. Then again, nobody I know of really keeps their cars for longer than 8-10 years nowadays anyway even if it’s a Honda or Toyota.
Except for people like me and Scotty.
Geriscan hit the nail. Scotty talks a little about it in this video (albeit Toyota):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p5QUHh__lvk
The book The Machine that Changed the World does a great job of explaining this from a historical perspective. Read it (and you will stop buying American cars and start buying Toyotas yourself).
Thanks for the kind words. I have a 2008 Camry and the wife has a 2013 Honda Fit. So, point already taken. As for these cultures, a TQM/CQI culture can be destroyed by a merger or takeover. Case-in-point: Datsun/Nissan. They built very good cars, on the whole, until the takeover by Renault, and the installation of Carlos Ghosn, around the turn of the century. The Renault culture, bureaucratic and French, displaced the TQM/CQI culture at Nissan. And we all know what POS Nissan has produced, particularly over the last fifteen years. So, cultures can be created, but positive cultures can also be destroyed. That's the lesson of Nissan, in the 21st Century.
If I knew the answer, I would be the CEO of a major car manufacturer.
All about spending as little as possible and maximizing profits. American companies will do ANYTHING to make a profit for shareholders. Even if it means making doors from cardboard.
Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura are run by engineers.
The American Brands are run by accountants.
Engineers like to get things right.
Accountants just focus on the money.
GM & Toyota ended the NUMMI joint venture in 2010.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a5514/4350856/
In the last decade GM quality has regressed to a mediocre (barely adequate) level.
Is GM a slow learner ?
Lots of good points here. One more is legacy union contracts. GM negotiated rigid contracts with the unions when times were good and couldn’t easily get out in the lean times. That explains a lot about the history of Saturn.
Toyota and Honda are both company's that make reliable solid built cars.
They have engineers that know what there doing. They also care about quality. It comes down to their reputation for being reliable quality cars.
Other brands don't care if your wheels fall off as long as they make a profit.
