In general I agree with the99contour, about how everything is build to a price and part sharing means compromise in terms of quality, and about how country of origin is not really a good indicator of quality anymore.However, as an engineer I can tell you it is not an excuse to blame parts sharing and low price for reliability problems. No matter you build your own parts or buy from OEM, if it fail, it is the assembler's fault. You either didn't do enough QA or you under engineered/spec-ed the parts. BTW, 30k is not a reasonable life for a wheel bearing. Every single car should have bearings that last at least 100k by now. This is 2007 for God's sake. It doesn't take a 20k car to achieve that, there are plenty of AMERICAN cars that can last that long without reliability problem by now. Mazda can do that, Ford can do that, GM can do that, so Toyota should do that too.
I personally have a 1995 corolla with 160k miles and going strong. When I shopped for a new car with my friend last year, I checked out the new corolla and immediately tell her to skip it. It is lower quality than my 10+ year old corolla in interior, the engine bay is not as well laid out, and pretty much anything is not as good or better for the price. Toyota has grown too quick too big too fast, they are cutting corner to achieve the volumes, models, and sales.
(This happens in any industry, when crunch time comes, you have to let some products that slightly fail pass QA, and worry about it later. Everyone doees it)
Will I still buy Toyota in the future? Sure, when I found a model that is good quality for the dollar, but if I don't, I have no problem buying any other brand that fits my need.
I'm studying to be an engineer, and I wasn't proposing that parts sharing, outsourcing and lower prices were valid excuses for lower quality parts. I am correct in saying that parts sharing and lower prices often mean low quality parts, even though it shouldn't
As for the quality of the 9th generation Corolla: I have a 2005 Corolla LE that I custom ordered with all but three options (leather, side airbags and stability control). I think the car is nice for what it is, a cheap car. You can rag on the Corolla all you want for being low quality and having a poorly laid out engine compartment, but did you look at most every other car in the segment? Cobalt/G5, Neon/Caliber, Focus, last generation Sentra are all not as well assembled or as thoughtfully laid out as the Corolla is. Mazda3 is better than the Corolla in some ways, but for a price. The Mazda is significantly faster, handles incredibly and has a 60-0 braking distance that rivals many sports cars. The interior of the Mazda is glitzy, impressive and higher quality than the Corolla. As far as gadgets, the Mazda has it hands down, steering wheel audio controls, Sirius, tilt/telescoping steering wheel, etc. Again the Mazda wins in the looks department, especially the Mazda3s. For all these wins, the Corolla is better in 3 ways:
1) Cost: A fully optioned 2007 Corolla cost 20k, while the Mazda3 fully optioned approaches 24k (although the Mazda3s Grand Touring has automatic climate control, Xenon lamps, heated leather seats, automatic lights and rain sensing wipers, Homelink, etc. most of which are features the Corolla doesn't have available)
2) Fuel Economy: The Corolla is rated at 32/38 and gets 30/36 when I drive it. The Mazda is rated at 25/31 as I drive the Mazda gets 18/28
3) Engineering Details: Sure the Mazda has a cold air duct fed from the grille to cool the battery, but you have to use a 10mm socket with a 6" long extension to get the top off of it to jump your battery when it does dead. It also has many of the dipsticks and fluid level checks near the back of the engine compartment where they are hard to check. The air filter requires you to disassemble too many other things to change. Worst of all it has a cartridge oil filter. Compared to the Mazda, the Corolla is much better laid out and designed.