But does Ms. Maynard deserve the quality of her Lexus?
She criticizes Detroit for its quality control, but what about her own quality control? Aside from numerous typos, I noted the following errors in fact and basic logic:
1. She says GM once controlled 60% of the auto market. This common misconception likely springs from how sales statistics used to be published, without import sales. GM did have 60% of domestic car sales at its peak in the early 1960s, but "only" 52% of the car market.
2. She says Cadillac and Lincoln haven't led luxury vehicle sales since 1986. She's over a decade off. This is not a typo: she later states that import brands have led this segment for 15 years.
3. She says the Honda Odyssey owes its success to "its three rows of seats and solid handling." Minivans, unlike midsize SUVs (where a third row is a recent innovation), have had three rows of seats from Day One. Most likely she is referring to Honda's innovative third row that stows beneath the load floor.
4. She says the Tundra instantly made Toyota a force to be reckoned with in the large pickup market, unlike its predecessor the T100. Her evidence? Quality rankings. But the T100 was also at the top of these rankings.
5. She says Honda's original CVCC small car was likened by a critic to one of its riding lawnmowers. However, the CVCC preceded Honda's first riding mower by a decade. She might be referring to a relatively recent criticism of a 30-year-old car, but that's not at all clear and if so not relevant.
6. She says Toyota and Honda created the CR-V and RAV4 based on their superior understanding of the American consumer, when both vehicles were created for the Japanese consumer and only belatedly exported.
7. She says the Mercedes M-Class handles as well as a Mercedes car. Maybe to someone who doesn't know anything about handling...
8. She says the "escape doors" (she creates a new term without realizing it) on the Nissan Titan can be opened independently of the front doors. Nope.
9. She says pickups commonly come equipped with "unfinished or scantly painted beds." Have you seen an unpainted pickup bed?
10. She says Nissan's pickups before the Titan were "primarily popular with California surfers." I had no idea surfers were such a large market. Or is she basing this on the brochure?
11. She says Ford borrowed the Taurus's aero styling from the 1984 Audi 5000. What about the similarly styled 1983 Thunderbird? In fact, Ford introduced a number of aero cars in North America and Europe before the Audi appeared, and the two companies' aesthetics were significantly different. (Ford's bordered on bulbous while Audi's was sheer and lean.)
12. She says Ford made $2,500 on the 1986 Taurus "at a time when most companies lost money on every car they sold." In fact, 1986 was a boom year in auto sales, the best of the 1980s in sales and also quite profitable. Even in the worst years of the 1990s there was never a time when MOST companies lost money on EVERY car they sold. Think about it.
13. She says Toyota introduced a new Camry in 1988. The correct year is 1986. (She uses calendar years.) She presents it as Toyota's response to the first Taurus, which appeared at the end of 1985. Quick response.
14. She notes that the 1992 Taurus had "a larger engine" than the 1991. The four-cylinder was dropped, but Ford never sold many four-cylinder Tauruses. The V6 engines that powered the great majority of 1991s were unchanged for 1992. Larger BASE engine, sure. Significance to the consumer? Zip.
15. Explaining the failure of the 1996 Taurus: "The cheapest version cost close to $20,000, and once options were loaded on the car, the price approached $23,000. That was a steep price for a family car in the mid-1990s--still more than some Camry and Accord models cost today." No factual error here, just poor logic. I can think of no justification for comparing a loaded 1996 car to a base 2003? Does she avoid the more valid comparison between a loaded 1996 Taurus and a loaded 1996 Camry or Accord because the latter two listed for $26,700 and $25,500, respectively, or out of ignorance?
These are just some of the errors I caught in a quick read through of the first two chapters, a sixth of the book. I found many others in later chapters, but I'm about out of space. Ms. Maynard's quality control is clearly far worse than Detroit's ever was. Do people who fail to produce quality products deserve to own them? There's no law against this, but hypocrisy is another matter.
Beyond these errors, Maynard's "research" is questionable. She mentions that BMW's CEO served her chocolate cake and champagne in his hotel room. Is she trying to undermine her own credibility? More troubling, her research was not systematic. She toured import brand facilities, but not those of American brands. How are we to know the things she praises about the former are not present in the latter?
Overall, instead of rising above common perceptions, some of which are tired misperceptions, Maynard is a slave to them. Instead of conducting a thorough analysis of the major auto manufacturers, she provides highly selective, even inaccurate impressions that support a pre-formed conclusion. There is never a hint that reality might be more complicated than "import brands good, American brands bad." It is, but no one will learn that here.
One whole chapter on Camry, one whole chapter on Hyundai/BMW, one whole chapter on the ENTIRE history of Toyota & Honda, etc. gets pretty boring, as I really could do without a complete history lesson of the major import manufacturers. The book should have focused on what has been going on at the Big Three (decisions made, models produced, sales info, market trends, quality/reliability) and how consumer preferences have led to the imports' increased market share in the US......
There was just too much emphasis on specific imports with too little relevant content as pertains to the title of the book.