machinehead61
Titanium
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
- Location
- Rochelle,IL,USA
I'm a firm believer in "you don't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been".
When my dad passed away I cleaned out his house and discovered what a pack rat he was. Among the findings in the basement were old copies of Consumer Reports (CU) going as far back as 1953 which I decided to keep.
The other day, while looking for a 1965 Galaxy 500 review for a friend who owns one, I for the first time, opened and read the CU review of the quality of the 1965 Detroit cars.
I learned something that day.
Detroit quality was terrible - inexcusable. I would like to share some of these key findings from the April 1965 Consumer Reports issue to give some perspective on why Detroit got into trouble. I always heard about poor Detroit quality back then, but here is a very factual source.
"QUALITY CONTROL, WARRANTIES, and a CRISIS IN CONFIDENCE"
The Industry's Sloppiness Is Beginning To Irk Long-Suffering Buyers
"The condition of the 1965 cars CU has bought for test is about the worst, so far as sloppiness in production goes, in the whole 10-year stretch of deterioration that began in 1955, the first year in which U.S. new car sales first approached eight million. (That was also the year in which a heavy emphasis on credit sales raised car output by nearly 2.5 million over the 1954 level and increased consumer indebtedness for autos more than 40%.) Complaint in the trade about the condition of the cars as delivered began to get bitter then and it has continued to be bitter ever since. "Overproduction has resulted in poorly engineered and poorly built cars," wrote one dealer, in a letter submitted to a Congressional hearing in 1961. "We in the retail business," he continued, "have all experienced the exorbitant new car 'get ready' cost and owner dissatisfaction with some of the creations dreamed up by the factories and then thrown together..."
CU also heard from dissatisfied new-car owners throughout these years. In 1963, as production once again approached the eight million target, things seemed to get worse. In that year, for example, CU's auto consultants noted that 32 out of 32 cars bought for testing showed troubles within the first 5000 miles of driving - most of the troubles were minor, some were major, but all were troubles that should have been caught at the factory (see CONSUMER REPORTS, October 1963). In 1964, as the eight million goal was finally hit, new-car troubles continued to plague dealers and consumers. Then came the 1965s. For this model year, on top of their heavy production schedule, auto manufacturers levied two speed-ups: to stock up before last fall's strike, and to catch up after the strike.
It was apparently during the pre-strike speed-up that the troubles with some early Ford and Mercury and Plymouth, Dodge, and Chrysler cars occurred (see CONSUMER REPORTS, January 1965). The involvements were serious - a rear suspension arm attachment that might break loose on the two Ford cars and take them out of control, and a steering gear support on the three Chrysler cars which needed inspection to determine if rewelding was necessary. Cars from later production showed no such faults. And CU's examination of the 1965s actually bought for test revealed no other problems so serious; no problems, for that matter, were found with the basic mechanisms of any of the cars. They were simply incredibly sloppy. The things wrong with them were minor, multiple and annoying (see the list on page 175). And they all foretold unhappy owners who would be seeking satisfaction under those new-car warranties which are so highly touted by car salesmen from coast to coast."
CONSUMER REPORTS
April 1965
p. 173
I'll post that list from page 175. It is an education.
"...Last year, in addition to calculating the average incidence of dissatisfaction, CU studied the warranty experiences of 48,000 respondents who had purchased 1963 and 1964 cars.....Around a fourth of the 1963 and 1964 U.S. cars bought by CU respondents were not in a satisfactory condition when delivered. those who had bought 1964 Chrysler cars, reported less than a fifth of them in unsatisfactory shape on delivery, while more than a quarter of the owners of 1964 General Motors cars reported dissatisfaction. Ford and American Motors came in the middle with the difference between them not statistically significant, and GM's lag behind American Motors was also not significant. For the 1963s, the line-up was Chrysler ahead, with about 16% unsatisfactory as delivered, General Motors and Ford next with about one quarter, and American Motors significantly below the other three. thus, the record of Chrysler cars for both years was better than that achieved by other American makes. But the Chryslers were not up to the Volkswagen, which shamed the whole domestic industry. Ninety per cent of these cars were reported OK on delivery.
CONSUMER REPORTS
April 1965
p. 174
Steve
When my dad passed away I cleaned out his house and discovered what a pack rat he was. Among the findings in the basement were old copies of Consumer Reports (CU) going as far back as 1953 which I decided to keep.
The other day, while looking for a 1965 Galaxy 500 review for a friend who owns one, I for the first time, opened and read the CU review of the quality of the 1965 Detroit cars.
I learned something that day.
Detroit quality was terrible - inexcusable. I would like to share some of these key findings from the April 1965 Consumer Reports issue to give some perspective on why Detroit got into trouble. I always heard about poor Detroit quality back then, but here is a very factual source.
"QUALITY CONTROL, WARRANTIES, and a CRISIS IN CONFIDENCE"
The Industry's Sloppiness Is Beginning To Irk Long-Suffering Buyers
"The condition of the 1965 cars CU has bought for test is about the worst, so far as sloppiness in production goes, in the whole 10-year stretch of deterioration that began in 1955, the first year in which U.S. new car sales first approached eight million. (That was also the year in which a heavy emphasis on credit sales raised car output by nearly 2.5 million over the 1954 level and increased consumer indebtedness for autos more than 40%.) Complaint in the trade about the condition of the cars as delivered began to get bitter then and it has continued to be bitter ever since. "Overproduction has resulted in poorly engineered and poorly built cars," wrote one dealer, in a letter submitted to a Congressional hearing in 1961. "We in the retail business," he continued, "have all experienced the exorbitant new car 'get ready' cost and owner dissatisfaction with some of the creations dreamed up by the factories and then thrown together..."
CU also heard from dissatisfied new-car owners throughout these years. In 1963, as production once again approached the eight million target, things seemed to get worse. In that year, for example, CU's auto consultants noted that 32 out of 32 cars bought for testing showed troubles within the first 5000 miles of driving - most of the troubles were minor, some were major, but all were troubles that should have been caught at the factory (see CONSUMER REPORTS, October 1963). In 1964, as the eight million goal was finally hit, new-car troubles continued to plague dealers and consumers. Then came the 1965s. For this model year, on top of their heavy production schedule, auto manufacturers levied two speed-ups: to stock up before last fall's strike, and to catch up after the strike.
It was apparently during the pre-strike speed-up that the troubles with some early Ford and Mercury and Plymouth, Dodge, and Chrysler cars occurred (see CONSUMER REPORTS, January 1965). The involvements were serious - a rear suspension arm attachment that might break loose on the two Ford cars and take them out of control, and a steering gear support on the three Chrysler cars which needed inspection to determine if rewelding was necessary. Cars from later production showed no such faults. And CU's examination of the 1965s actually bought for test revealed no other problems so serious; no problems, for that matter, were found with the basic mechanisms of any of the cars. They were simply incredibly sloppy. The things wrong with them were minor, multiple and annoying (see the list on page 175). And they all foretold unhappy owners who would be seeking satisfaction under those new-car warranties which are so highly touted by car salesmen from coast to coast."
CONSUMER REPORTS
April 1965
p. 173
I'll post that list from page 175. It is an education.
"...Last year, in addition to calculating the average incidence of dissatisfaction, CU studied the warranty experiences of 48,000 respondents who had purchased 1963 and 1964 cars.....Around a fourth of the 1963 and 1964 U.S. cars bought by CU respondents were not in a satisfactory condition when delivered. those who had bought 1964 Chrysler cars, reported less than a fifth of them in unsatisfactory shape on delivery, while more than a quarter of the owners of 1964 General Motors cars reported dissatisfaction. Ford and American Motors came in the middle with the difference between them not statistically significant, and GM's lag behind American Motors was also not significant. For the 1963s, the line-up was Chrysler ahead, with about 16% unsatisfactory as delivered, General Motors and Ford next with about one quarter, and American Motors significantly below the other three. thus, the record of Chrysler cars for both years was better than that achieved by other American makes. But the Chryslers were not up to the Volkswagen, which shamed the whole domestic industry. Ninety per cent of these cars were reported OK on delivery.
CONSUMER REPORTS
April 1965
p. 174
Steve