Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cronkbogey
Auto manufacturers should avoid using terms like "avoiding overquality". GM and Ford lost over 30% of the US auto market in recent decades because their attention to quality slipped and reliable imports proved a better alternative. Reliable cars continue to bring in profits to dealerships for many years. Many people can cite examples of a parent they know that encourags their child to buy the same safe and reliable make from a dealership that they have. And dealerships have made increased profits from used cars in recent years. A reliable pre-owned Honda Civic that is several years old still sells at a price that brings in profits. Customers who want that "new car feel" trade in their old and reliable model for a new one, and those that cannot afford the new model purchase the pre-owned one. Companies like Mercedes, Honda, and Toyota have practiced this varient of Dr. Ochy's "Z Theory" philosophy successfully for many years. Satisfied customers are loyal customers who want to tell their friends what a great car they have. That's why the dependable Model T or venerable Volkswagen Beatle had such a long run. Selling a high quality, long-lasting vehicle does bring increased revenue.
|
As I said before, I agree with you cronkbogey. I remember when I was a kid, the year 1980. GM came with models like the Citation, Omega, and others that simply were a disaster. Here in Puerto Rico the same dealers were complaining on national tv about the poor quality of those vehicles. It was the year 1980 when GM started with front-wheel drive vehicles.
I was thinking about why the executive from Nissan used that term "avoiding overquality" when that term sounds so bad if you look at it from a customer's perspective, on an interview that will be available on a magazine and online.
A simple answer might be it was use by mistake, or it might simply means that the customer's perspective doesn't matter when you buy one of the cheapest models from Nissan like the Sentra. Is the economic situation and economics what matters more for Nissan.
Anyway, I think that if Nissan does that of "avoiding overquality", making the Sentra a vehicle lasting a maximum of 10 years, then Nissan is making a mistake in the long run with a model like the Sentra which is not in good standing in terms of sales since 1995. It might even represent the end of the model name for a near future.
Is quality what brings back customers and buyers, not "avoiding overquality".
Toyota-Lexus and Honda-Acura will consolidate their lead over the other vehicles companies.
Nissan, listen to your customers; quality, not avoiding overquality, is the answer. If not, you will loose more and more followers and maybe when you try to correct the problem, it might be too late......remember GM in the 80's..what a mess and you can say it continues.
Once, I met a GM salesman who told me that "Cars are for three years. Change it when the warranty is over." And I was looking at a 2003 Chevrolet Venture, which is not too good in quality of the engine and transmission.
Maybe that is what car makers like GM want, but for people who buy, not lease, quality is an essential factor. And, leasing has limitations.
To the purpose of this response, I also think Nissan could do things that saves them money and improve the quality, and at the same time they might increase their profits.
I read many responses here that talk about how good was the SR20DE engine of the Sentra, which was a 2.0 engine. I think must people would agree that engine was better than the GA16DE 1.6 lts, but it was substitute with a new, big bore 2.5 four . I am not saying that engine is not better, but is a fact that the 2.5 lts can't compete with the WRX, STi, or the Lancer Evolution.
Maybe, the SR20DE could have been left with some modifications, instead of making a new replacement only like the big bore 2.5 lts. Maybe there was room for three different engine options for the Sentra.
If you look at the experience, many new models with new engines have a tendency to come with a few bugs, but in 5 years or less the manufacturer decides to upgrade the engine, so that engine is left behind instead of possibly perfecting it.
Nissan is using the 3.5 lts V6 engine in different models, with a few modifications for different models, but it is the same engine. The Nissan Pathfinder, Murano, Quest, 350 Z, Infiniti G 35, Maxima, and the Altima have the 3.5 lts engine called the VQ as an option or as a standard in many cases and that is what I am taliking about. This gives Nissan flexibility to use the same engine, and they have more time to perfect it and at the same time they save money because is the same engine adjusted for different uses.
That 3.5 lts V6 is an engine with lots of miles and years of development in different applications, and Nissan is still using it since several years ago, even in the newer models, but the Sentra doesn't had the same fate. Why Nissan decided to eliminate the 2.0 lts engine, when it proved to be good enough instead of perfecting it more? Others can say that the 2.5 lts engine is the evolution of the 2.0, but at the same time is a different engine, with a different block and cubic capacities, so Nissan had to produce a new one and invest more. Nothing bad with it, is just that I believe a good engine should not be eliminated, but it should be perfected so more quality is available.
Performance enthusiasts will also benefit for higher quality.
I think is tough to make these decisions because Nissan wants to appeal also to the prospective younger buyer, but look at Toyota with the Corolla.
The sales of the Toyota Corolla are strong and they don't have a Corolla to compete with the Sentra Spec-V in terms of performance. Maybe they would come with some kind of Super Corolla soon to compete, from Toyota Racing Development.
Maybe Nissan could save money in other aspects, avoiding those face-lifts they do to their models, and investing in quality. I personally don't like when a company make changes to a model design that looks o.k. Look at Porsche with the 911, and Subaru with the WRX. You can't change too much a winning combination in terms of design.
Obviously, is not easy to lift a company that was close to bankrupcy like Nissan is doing, but I think many people will agree that Nissan does not have room to make too much mistakes with the new 2005 Sentra. It has to be good, in every aspect, because it has the Corolla, the Civic, Lancer, the Mazda 3, the Focus, and others as competitors, and they are trying to hit a home run at every turn...
Thanks.