something i never woulda have expected.

Well at least it was for cars built in 2003. I'm tired of reading and hearing about all of those initial quality results. If you cant build a car to last 90 days than you need to lock the doors. You know whats really sad about that article? Buick had only 4 models in 03. I think sales were a little shy of 400K units. I'm not sure how many Lexus had. In other words if you aint building any cars than its easy not to screw up. Now if Chevy could place in the top 5 than that would be something to talk about. If anything it proves that Toyota and Honda cant build a car that will stay put together after the warranty expires any better than the Detroit 2.5.:rolleyes:
 
Well at least it was for cars built in 2003. I'm tired of reading and hearing about all of those initial quality results. If you cant build a car to last 90 days than you need to lock the doors. You know whats really sad about that article? Buick had only 4 models in 03. I think sales were a little shy of 400K units. I'm not sure how many Lexus had. In other words if you aint building any cars than its easy not to screw up. Now if Chevy could place in the top 5 than that would be something to talk about. If anything it proves that Toyota and Honda cant build a car that will stay put together after the warranty expires any better than the Detroit 2.5.:rolleyes:


very well said.


My bossman is a very strong mopar guy and i have to hear it everyday about how gm is losing money and can't build cars worth a damn. But it's funny to me that daimler(sp) sold chrysler because it was losing money.

My bossman's answer to that was quote : the reason they got sold was because the 300m was talking away sales from the mercedes name plate. go figure huh!
 
Top