I don't think so. I think Toyota and Honda got their reputations by having maintenance schedules that had you to replace pretty much every wear part in the car in 100,000 miles. That had never been done before. I never owned a car where you had to change the water pump when you had to changed the timing belt, for example. In fact, I never owned a car, where you had to change the timing belt or risk destroying the engine, nor have I known of a relatively recent a car other than Honda that needs valve adjustments every (what is it on the CVCC - 10,000 miles?). And by the way, I think the CVCC is an awesome amazing engine.

This service schedule --far more extensive and expensive than anything I ever owned -- also got people used to taking the car to the dealer all the time for service, and I think the quality issue became a perception more than a reality.

And most people who own Toyotas and Hondas just ignore the fact that they had problems with for example, CV joints that all went out in the later, 70s, sludged engines, seatbelt problems, electrical problems, because it didn't fit the narrative of everyone else around them. Or what about the interior of the 2004 era Toyota's and Lexus, in which the entire dash is destroyed just by being out in the sun a little bit? I haven't had an interior that shitty ever.

I personally have only owned General Motors, I do my own service, and I've never gotten stuck. The cars I have gotten stuck in? Hondas. Bad clutch designs, bad radiators. I'm not saying they're bad cars, but I'm also saying I don't think they're any better than anything else.

And just like people here who always brag about their Toyotas and Hondas going 200,000 or 300,000 miles, that's my experience with General Motors going back to models from the 1960s.

Please note that I am not counting the Vega in any of this....