When I look at the MPG figures for the Corolla and Civic, I keep wondering, "What the heck do these guys know that no one else does?"

The current Corolla and Civic are both very nice, high quality cars that get approx. 40 MPG highway without using a diesel or hybrid. And they have enough power that Toyota and Honda could very likely downsize the engines slightly to scratch out a couple more miles per gallon.

Where are the cars from the Big Three on the US market that can match these two models for quality, ergonomics, safety, overall design, and efficiency? For all the talk lately about what's wrong with the Big Three, this is the question that I think strikes at the heart of the matter. Product, product, product.

i keep thinking i'll replace my tercels with the corolla. I just don't think either of my tercels are going to die anytime soon. Great little cars.

"What the heck do these guys know that no one else does?"

I think the answer can be found in Japan.
Toyota and Honda's home-market tends to favor fuel efficient vehicles and with cut-throat competition from other great car makers (Nissan, Mitsubish, Mazda, Suzuki, Subaru etc...) the only way to survive was to renovate them selves...

And Big 3 in America?
They were enjoying "Not buying American is a treason" crap and slacked off with low Oil price.
GM and Ford now suffers greatly with Oil price surge...
Idiots.

Check this out this says something:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

One of the factors is profit margin. Ford and GM enjoyed the higher profit margins of large SUVs built on truck chassis. It is hard to convince the board that you should abandon these high profit margins in favor of high volume low margin products, even in the face of conditions that will raise the cost of fuel.

I think corporate culture has a lot to do with it. Toyota and Honda have a tendency to improve their products incrementally and learn from their mistakes (ie. when Toyota first introduced a minivan on the NA market..).

The US automakers seem to be in a hurry to scrap models that don't work, dissolve teams that don't produce results and introduce new models all the time instead of focusing on improving those that they already have.

Of course, that's a bit simplistic, but I think it's part of the big picture.

any details on how exactly the new model is different from the old? went to the japanese toyota site, from the photos, the new model just looks way more conservative and simplistic on the exterior, but my guess is that this is more due to its target market.
so Mike, any ideas on how the new corolla will be different?

When I look at the MPG figures for the Corolla and Civic, I keep wondering, "What the heck do these guys know that no one else does?"

Back in the early 80s, when "core competancies" was one of the management fads, I read a case study comparing Honda and Chrysler. Both had been through such an exercise. Chrysler decided that they would be the best in the world at marketing cars, would buy their engines from the Far East, and discontinued their expensive factory racing team. Honda decided that they would be the best in the world at engine technology, and expanded their own factory racing team to use as a testbed for new engine technology.

What Honda got out of their investment was a steady stream of incremental improvements in exotic alloys, practical precision machining, combustion chamber design, variable valve timing, etc. Every car in the Indy 500 this year was running with a Honda engine...

People seem to think that it is magic that a small car with a 1.8L 4 gets good mpg.

The other auto manufactures know the same things, however they have chosen different priorities.

ie more power and larger over more mpg.

2006 Chevrolet Malibu
with 2.2L 4 cylinder and auto (no manual available)
24 / 32 mpg

144 Hp / 155 Ft-lbs torque

2.2 / 1.8 = 1.22 The malibu with the base engine is ~22% larger than the only engine offered in the Toyota

Does the Toyota get 22% better mpg?

30/24 = 1.25 25% better in city driving epa est

38/32 = 1.1875 just shy of 19% better highway.

ave (18.75 + 25) / 2 = 21.875%

no magic it is just smaller.
The malibu is also 10" longer and almost 700lbs heavier.

If I lived in Japan where the 95th percentile is smaller than the 95th percentile in the US and all my driving was in town, etc etc ... well then Toyota it is.

But I don't, I live where I'll drive at 65-75 mph legally for 5 - 7hrs when visiting family as there is no train or airport that can take me there. I'll take slightly worse mpg if it means that I'll have power to maintain my speed while going up hill, likewise if it means that I have that much more head room that I can sit in the back without my head hitting the rear window.

Chevy Aveo (2007 model): 1.6L I4 engine. 103 hp / 107 ft-lbs. 27/37 mpg (city/hwy) with 5-spd manual transmission. Pax volume 91 ft3, luggage volume 12 ft3.

Toyota Corolla (2006 model): 1.8L I4 engine. 126 hp / 122 ft-lbs. 32/41 mpg (city/hwy) with 5-spd manual transmission. Pax volume 89 ft3, luggage volume 14 ft3.

Toyota has a bigger engine, better hp/torque, virtually equivalent total volume, and something like 14% better fuel economy.

What gives?

The Aveo isn't really a Chevy in the first place, it's a Daewoo with a Chevy badge on it. If you want to compare to a real Chevy, the Cobolt is it for the subcompact segment. The 2007 has a 148hp 2.2 liter standard and is rated 24/32 and 25/34. It's actually kind of funny that the Cobolt has so much larger an engine and more than 40% more power but the 25/34 rating with a manual honestly isn't that far from what the Aveo gets. Chevy could do a lot better than Daewoo at designing an efficient 1.6 - 1.8 liter engine, they just choose not to, and that's sad.

But I don't, I live where I'll drive at 65-75 mph legally for 5 - 7hrs when visiting family as there is no train or airport that can take me there. I'll take slightly worse mpg if it means that I'll have power to maintain my speed while going up hill, likewise if it means that I have that much more head room that I can sit in the back without my head hitting the rear window.

I'm always amused at how people stereotype places they've never been. You're saying Japanese cars can't go fast? That they don't have big cars in Japan? (Land Cruiser anyone?) No hills?

And I had no idea that one could predict fuel economy strictly from engine displacement. Thanks for pointing out that law.

The Aveo isn't really a Chevy in the first place, it's a Daewoo with a Chevy badge on it. If you want to compare to a real Chevy

GM owns 2/3 of GM Daewoo. Why exactly aren't the cars made by that company "real" GM cars?

The word is next generation Corolla will have 2 liter engine with 150 hp base and 200 hp performance, optional CVT transmission, multilink rear suspension, rear disc brakes, will use extra strength steel (much stronger, but practically unrepairable material), and will offer Celica-inspired coupe version. But these are only rumors.

I had heard of Toyota's delay for the Corolla a few months back. The industry-magazines are speculating that the "aggressive" look of the Civic and the subsequent success Honda has had with the redesigned Civic caused Toyota to pull back their planned Corolla release for a slightly more aggressive design.

Hopefully it'll be out sooner than later.

Maybe another point to remember is the actual cost of operating a vehicle, the Corolla is well known to be one of the lowest costing cars to operate, which includes excellent fuel economy and excellent emissions, which do not really cost anything other than our lungs. If Toyota and Honda didnt build excellent cars, Chevy wouldnt even think about it.

"What the heck do these guys know that no one else knows?"

General Motors (GM) lost well over $10 billion in 2005 and in the third quarter of fiscal year 2006 reported another $1.6 billion loss, with only $315 million in sales.

At the same time, the Chevrolet division was excited to tell us that they're bringing back the Camaro.

Ford is also suffering and has the cool looking Mustang.

Daimler-Chrysler is teetering on the brink and has various vehicles available with the Hemi. Sweet.

Petroleum reserves will run out in the lifetime of the next generation of consumers and Peak Oil is expected to be reached at or before the year 2020.

We need the Big Three to use their brains and resources to provide the car-buying public what it requires: high-quality, high-MPG vehicles at fair prices.

So now it's over 18 months after the last posting here and what do we see?

Yesterday the head of General Motors announced the closing of several facilities, affecting over 10,000 employees. GM is closing the Janesville, Wisconsin factory, their oldest manufacturing plant, which built a lot of the big SUV's and other gas guzzlers produced by the firm.

In Janesville, 2,600 workers there are now wondering what to do for a living.

Perhaps they can ressurect the plant and build fuel effecient vehicles and beat GM to the punch.

Let's revisit the issue raised earlier -- now it's been over two years since my last posting here and what do we see today?

The prophetical view I offered is summarized nicely by former New York city mayor Ed Koch in his column, linked below.

Koch comments on General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler: "those companies are run by incompetents and no longer able to compete, while foreign companies like Toyota, manufacturing their cars in the U.S., are selling them and not seeking to be bailed out."

FROM: http://www.newsmax.com/koch/bailout_crisis/2008/11/12/150417.html?s=al&promo_code=711A-1

GM is run by incompetents! So while normal people like you and I have to provide a life-time, detailed employment history and go pee in a cup somewhere just to get a low-level job, GM is run by incompetents who are paid millions of dollars and who end up ruining millions of peoples' lifes.