Toyota sales top GM, Ford.

[Xtremehkr]

Link. (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/1015toyota15.html)

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. - Toyota Motor Corp., Japan's largest automaker, overtook General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. in U.S. retail market share in early October as auto sales plunged after domestic automakers' ended employee-discount offers, according to an industry report.

Toyota gained four points of U.S. market share in the first nine days of October, to 18.2 percent, according to data from the Power Information Network. GM's sales fell 57 percent and Ford's fell 45 percent as sales in the U.S. auto industry dropped 33 percent from a year earlier. The figures don't include fleet sales, which can account for 30 percent of domestic automakers' sales, Power said.

"The aftermath of the employee-pricing programs is having a dramatic impact on automotive retail sales in October," Jeff Schuster, executive director of global forecasting at J.D. Power and Associates, said Friday. "A lot could happen between now and the end of the month, but at this point, we're on track for an October like we haven't seen since the early 1990s."

GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler scored sharp gains in U.S. sales earlier this summer by offering consumers the same discounts that employees pay. The programs helped clear out 2005 models before losing steam. The automakers discontinued the offers this month in hopes that the 2006 models would sell without generous incentives.

GM's early October sales decline prompted Standard & Poor's Equity analyst Efraim Levy on Friday to lower his fourth-quarter earnings forecast on GM by 97 percent to 69 cents a share. GM reports third-quarter earnings Monday. Levy and 17 analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial expect GM to report its fourth-consecutive quarterly loss.

A lot could change before the end of the month, said Jim Sanfilippo, senior analyst at Automotive Marketing Consultants Inc. in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. He estimates that 20 percent of sales are booked on the last day of any month.

Ford's chief sales analyst, George Pipas, said Thursday that October sales would likely fall because the employee discounts spurred customers to buy sooner than they might have. Ford's sales dropped 20 percent in September.

Through September, fleet sales accounted for 28 percent of Ford's sales, 25 percent of GM's sales and 25 percent of Chrysler's sales, spokespeople for the firms said. Toyota's fleet sales average 6 percent to 7 percent of sales, a Toyota spokesman said.

Ok, time for GM and Ford to start making a comeback, anytime in the near future would be good.

[yoda13]

I agree, but I have finally given up on the domestics and now a Nissan and a Honda reside in my driveway. :o

[iDM]

I was raised in a strict American only car household and what i'm sure is going to really grind my dad's gears will be when i pick up my first car that is a non-gas guzzling Japanese import.

Still being angry after 50 years at a company that makes CARS not bombs, puts AMERICANS to work, usually uses less fuel, and almost always last longer(mileage) i think is a good thing.

I will not let pride stand in the way of a superior longer lasting, cheaper, more fuel efficiency and often better looking car purchase.

[katie ta achoo]

I hope this trend continues.

Face it, it's cheaper and easier to manufacture NOT in the US. Labor costs are WAY lower. it's allllll good.

they also make more fuel-efficient vehicles. OH YES!


but then again, I've been involved with Macroecon for too long, so outsourcing doesn't bother me. It's better for the economy as a whole, GLOBALIZATION WOO!!!

/Ph.D. HERE I COME!
//BAM!

[bousozoku]

I'm not thrilled that the domestic car makers are running into problems but they seem to have done what was necessary and sat on what success they'd grown.

I would hope that they'd go for a more aggressive approach to automaking, similar to what Chrysler has done. Ford has had its moments but GM seem to pay more attention to price-cutting than to creating efficient cars and small, great cars.

[mad jew]

It was just a matter of time. A similar thing is happening in Australia although for different reasons. The two major local manufacturers (Ford and Holden) have stuck to making large, powerful RWD sedans predominantly but the petrol prices are really hacking into the sales. For one of the first times in ages, a small Toyota hatchback (Corolla) outsold the current darling of our industry; the Holden Commodore, last month. :(

[iJon]

I hope this trend continues.

Face it, it's cheaper and easier to manufacture NOT in the US. Labor costs are WAY lower. it's allllll good.
I'm not positive but I think almost all the Toyota's for the American market are produced here in North America.

jon

[bousozoku]

I'm not positive but I think almost all the Toyota's for the American market are produced here in North America.

jon

Indeed, they are, though those made under the Lexus brand are not.

Toyota have at least partly assembled small pickups in the U.S.A. since the early 1970s to avoid the tariffs. I believe the full-size pickup, the Corolla/Matrix, and the Camry are all built locally in this country for now.

There was another thread talking about their problems with U.S. workers' education and their desire to move things to Canada.

[katie ta achoo]

I'm not positive but I think almost all the Toyota's for the American market are produced here in North America.

jon


Bla. Serves me right for not googlin' before postin'.

cursed google, why aren't you built right into my brain?

[fklehman]

I drive a Honda that gets 38 miles per gallon. Wouldn't buy anything but a Toyota or Honda these days because their cars are more reliable and last WAY longer. They hold their value because they'll last you 200,000 miles before they croak. Can't say that about many Frods or Chevys and that's why you wouldn't catch me dead in one. They pumped out SUVs for years with no social conscience at all, so I won't shed a tear if they go belly up--as long as the executives' golden parachutes get liquidated and shared among the workers. It's good to see more Americans buying foreign cars that get better mileage, and I can only hope that gas stays at $3 a gallon for a long time to come. Doesn't bother me any because I bought responsibly. I laugh at all the poor sods paying $100 to fill up their SUVs because Europe's been paying those prices for years and it's time Americans got used to the fact that oil is not infinite. I have no sympathy for Ford or Chevy and I hope they go bankrupt and die, and in the meantime I hope gas hits $5 a gallon to punish all the idiots who bought SUVs to drive 3 miles on paved road to the grocery store. Flame away.

[jimsowden]

My car is fueled by my own sense of self worth.

[quagmire]

Indeed, they are, though those made under the Lexus brand are not.

Toyota have at least partly assembled small pickups in the U.S.A. since the early 1970s to avoid the tariffs. I believe the full-size pickup, the Corolla/Matrix, and the Camry are all built locally in this country for now.

There was another thread talking about their problems with U.S. workers' education and their desire to move things to Canada.

If your Toyota starts with a J in the serial number, then it is built in Japan. If it has a U or something like that, it is built in the US.

[Abstract]

I'm not American, so I guess a GM, Ford, or Chrysler would be an import to me. :p

Anyway, I'm glad they're all suffering. They sold the most ridiculous cars for such a long time. They're either large and crappy, medium-sized and crappy, or small and crappy. I don't think their high level of sales in the past has reflected customer satisfaction with their new cars. It may take a decade for reputation to catch up with sales, no matter how strong brand loyalty may be, but their bad rep and poor customer experiences over the past 10-15 years with their new cars is taking it's toll.

I don't care who makes the car. I just want the best that my money can buy, and right now, it happens to be Japanese cars. When American companies make a quality product for many consecutive years, and their reputation is high again, it'll be okay.

[bousozoku]

I'm not American, so I guess a GM, Ford, or Chrysler would be an import to me. :p

Anyway, I'm glad they're all suffering. They sold the most ridiculous cars for such a long time. They're either large and crappy, medium-sized and crappy, or small and crappy. I don't think their high level of sales in the past has reflected customer satisfaction with their new cars. It may take a decade for reputation to catch up with sales, no matter how strong brand loyalty may be, but their bad rep and poor customer experiences over the past 10-15 years with their new cars is taking it's toll.

I don't care who makes the car. I just want the best that my money can buy, and right now, it happens to be Japanese cars. When American companies make a quality product for many consecutive years, and their reputation is high again, it'll be okay.

I'm mostly thrilled with Chrysler and their minivans. My parents have the cheapest version and except for the local dealer putting off warranty claims that would have solved major problems in performance, they got a good deal. I've even considered one. The neon I drove felt pretty good but of course, there have been various issues.

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

Flame away.

Wish granted. No matter how efficient your car is, at the current rate you'll still pay 3x the amount you paid when gas was 1 dollar. At 5 dollars, you'll still pay 5x the amount you did when gas was 1 dollar.

And crude oil prices affect the prices of much more than the gas you pump in your car. Every company delivering you packages, every company you buy retail from will raise their prices because everyone in their distribution chain has done the same. The rise in oil prices will force them to.

You'll pay again when you turn on your heat, if it's natural gas powered. You can laugh all you want at SUV drivers woes, but your little fuel miser import won't save you.

HTH.

[iceTrX]

I'm gonna have to disagree with most of you in this thread since I'm from Detroit with a family history in the US auto industry. You guys should not encourage any American auto manufactures death, it would cause their suppliers to go bankrupt *cough* delphi* and would put many people here in Michigan (and throughout the US) out of work. This would not be cool as many people I know work for the US auto industry and the devastation from it toppling would ruin the local economy, michigans economy, and possibly the national economy. By the way I believe GM is trying with its compact cars. Look at the Chevrolet Cobalt, its a really competitive car to the Japanese compacts. I got a Cobalt Sedan LS Sport back in March and this thing is night and day from the car is replaced (Cavalier). The interior is beautiful and very comfortable (could use a little more rear interior room), the engine is fuel efficient and very modern (Adaptive Electronic Powersteering, drive by wire throttle, sequential fuel injection, twin cam, partial zero emissions, etc), and the car is just a joy to drive. I know GM built some crappy compact cars in the past but I encourage you guys to actually look into their newer stuff, its nice (by the way just don't shrug it off as another crappy GM product, drive one for awhile and try to convince me that its crap, because its not).

[Xtremehkr]

I'm gonna have to disagree with most of you in this thread since I'm from Detroit with a family history in the US auto industry. You guys should not encourage any American auto manufactures death, it would cause their suppliers to go bankrupt *cough* delphi* and would put many people here in Michigan (and throughout the US) out of work. This would not be cool as many people I know work for the US auto industry and the devastation from it toppling would ruin the local economy, michigans economy, and possibly the national economy. By the way I believe GM is trying with its compact cars. Look at the Chevrolet Cobalt, its a really competitive car to the Japanese compacts. I got a Cobalt Sedan LS Sport back in March and this thing is night and day from the car is replaced (Cavalier). The interior is beautiful and very comfortable (could use a little more rear interior room), the engine is fuel efficient and very modern (Adaptive Electronic Powersteering, drive by wire throttle, sequential fuel injection, twin cam, partial zero emissions, etc), and the car is just a joy to drive. I know GM built some crappy compact cars in the past but I encourage you guys to actually look into their newer stuff, its nice (by the way just don't shrug it off as another crappy GM product, drive one for awhile and try to convince me that its crap, because its not).

I don't want to see them die, I want to see them compete. I reward quality of product. The Cobalt is a nice looking car, but only one model comes with that engine. It's reliability and quality over the long term has yet to be proven.

[quagmire]

I don't want to see them die, I want to see them compete. I reward quality of product. The Cobalt is a nice looking car, but only one model comes with that engine. It's reliability and quality over the long term has yet to be proven.

The Ecotec 4 cylinder is in the Malibu/Pontiac G6 and the Chevy HHR. I agree though long term quality hasn't been tested yet. But, the engine should be solid though.

[kenneth]

I was raised in a strict American only car household Hard to tell what that means these days. Many of the Toyotas sold in America were made in America. Many cars with American brand names are made in Mexico. I have owned both American and Japanese cars (by company brand name) and the difference is night and day in reliability and how long these cars last. I am driving in a 16 year old Toyota (runs great) and the next car will be a Toyota. GM can give their cars away for free and I would not switch.

[Abstract]

I'm gonna have to disagree with most of you in this thread since I'm from Detroit with a family history in the US auto industry. You guys should not encourage any American auto manufactures death, it would cause their suppliers to go bankrupt *cough* delphi* and would put many people here in Michigan (and throughout the US) out of work. This would not be cool as many people I know work for the US auto industry and the devastation from it toppling would ruin the local economy, michigans economy, and possibly the national economy.

Yeah, and?

Every company has to compete. If it can't compete, the company dies. I don't want to feel sorry for a company that has made poor products for 10-15 years and can't compete, and I certainly won't feel bad just because it's an American company. I also hope that the US government doesn't intervene and offer US car companies further tax breaks and stuff like that. These companies need to get their isht together, and this means being able to produce not only a good car, but a car that people actually WANT!

Sucky-ness has no political boundaries.

[Dont Hurt Me]

My wife and i are looking for a new car next year and Toyota and Honda top the list. GM & Ford are lost in big fat corporate profits without ever looking to the future. They went throught the 70s but did these two do anything about MPG?? Nope these two were lobbing Congress so they wouldnt have to build cars that can get 30 - 40 mpg but the smart folks at Honda and Toyota kept working on Hybrids and economy knowing one day we would get hit with high gas prices. The sales are their reward

GM/Ford could have done the same. I guess it was easier to throw $$$ at Congress instead of throwing $$$ at R&D.

[cube]

From some statistics I have seen, the most reliable brand is Subaru.

[kjr39]

This has been coming for a long time.

FWIW, I just moved from Detroit on the basis of economy there is going to be in for a long, tough road and I didn't want to be stuck with it. Thankfully, we were able to get our house sold.

I grew up in MI and my pop spent 40 years at GM. Myself, I made roughly 10 months at Ford before I figured out that the problems there are huge and I need to get the hell out of there. The 21st century hasn't hit in South Eastern Michigan yet. For some reason, people there (both blue and white collar workers) don't seem to understand that the day of working 30 years and then retiring on their pensions, is over! The union works overtime to ensure that they do everything in their power to scare workers into thinking that management is going to screw them over. Management does everything they can to be decades behind the curve by designing poor, misplaced products. The culture of the company is one of complacency and laziness. Too many people there have convinced themselves that they are so busy, they can't help you. The average work day seems to be about 6 hours for most folks. Especialy in the summer, where the offices are empty at about 3:30 or 4:00. Promotions are a matter of tenure and not ability.

If you still work and live in and around the Detroit area, here is my advice to you. MOVE! And move now. Take the hit on your property and get out. Don't convince yourself that cannot afford to lose a buck or two on your house. I lost money on mine and moved, found a job and with the difference in pay, I am already ahead. If you have family, visit during vacation and holidays, but get out. GM and Ford are going Ch. 11. They are going to break the unions. They will cut your pensions. The SE Michigan area has over a decade of decline ahead of it.

The culture of the area needs to change. I have been telling my father and any of his friends for years to save their money. For years, they laughed at me and told me that I didn't know what they were talking about. Well, "Ha-farking-Ha!"

[Thomas Veil]

I'm probably gonna catch hell for this from the domestic car haters, but...the situation isn't as simple as some seem to think.

Yes, years ago, domestic manufacturers turned out oversized, junky cars. Believe it or not, it was not all their fault. Until the '70s oil crisis hit, Americans (not manufacturers) were in love with big, boat-sized cars. You can't fault the automakers for giving the people more of what they were buying. When the crisis hit, the Japanese were fortunate to be in prime position to be able to deliver small, more efficient cars.

What you can hit American manufacturers for, at least largely, was the poor quality of their cars. But even then, the American mentality was not how good the quality was, it was how cheap (inexpensive) the product was. I blame both consumers and manufacturers for pursuing that dead end.

The Japanese, seeing an opening, flooded the American market with imports -- some of which weren't a whole lot more reliable than American cars. What they were was more fuel-efficient...and in the 1970s, that was important.

The Japanese were not at all guiltless. While they sent tons of Toyotas and Datsuns over here, they made tons of excuses for keeping Chevys and Fords from reaching their shores. Trade was almost completely a one-way street. So while the American manufacturers had one foot in the grave, fumbling around trying (mostly without success) to produce small, high-mileage cars, Japan was helping them put the other foot in the grave via its protectionist practices.

The Japanese companies began building cars and buying parts in this country not out of the goodness of their hearts, but to avoid retaliatory protectionism movements in this country.

Nowadays, quality levels between the European, American and Japanese cars are extremely close. So not buying domestic because of the bad cars they used to make makes as much sense as buying American because the Japanese were protectionists.

With quality levels being so similar, I myself put more stock nowadays in style, features and price. I generally tend to favor American cars because of their clean, logical dash layouts and their styling.

Foreign hybrids tempted me for a while, but I'm disappointed that the mileage figures quoted seem to be overblown, and that overall cost of operation is very close to that of a standard combustion-engine automobile. It's also important to me that a car not be small and low-slung, because as you get older you find your body has much less tolerance for that sort of vehicle.

[quagmire]

I'm probably gonna catch hell for this from the domestic car haters, but...the situation isn't as simple as some seem to think.

Yes, years ago, domestic manufacturers turned out oversized, junky cars. Believe it or not, it was not all their fault. Until the '70s oil crisis hit, Americans (not manufacturers) were in love with big, boat-sized cars. You can't fault the automakers for giving the people more of what they were buying. When the crisis hit, the Japanese were fortunate to be in prime position to be able to deliver small, more efficient cars.

What you can hit American manufacturers for, at least largely, was the poor quality of their cars. But even then, the American mentality was not how good the quality was, it was how cheap (inexpensive) the product was. I blame both consumers and manufacturers for pursuing that dead end.

The Japanese, seeing an opening, flooded the American market with imports -- some of which weren't a whole lot more reliable than American cars. What they were was more fuel-efficient...and in the 1970s, that was important.

The Japanese were not at all guiltless. While they sent tons of Toyotas and Datsuns over here, they made tons of excuses for keeping Chevys and Fords from reaching their shores. Trade was almost completely a one-way street. So while the American manufacturers had one foot in the grave, fumbling around trying (mostly without success) to produce small, high-mileage cars, Japan was helping them put the other foot in the grave via its protectionist practices.

The Japanese companies began building cars and buying parts in this country not out of the goodness of their hearts, but to avoid retaliatory protectionism movements in this country.

Nowadays, quality levels between the European, American and Japanese cars are extremely close. So not buying domestic because of the bad cars they used to make makes as much sense as buying American because the Japanese were protectionists.

With quality levels being so similar, I myself put more stock nowadays in style, features and price. I generally tend to favor American cars because of their clean, logical dash layouts and their styling.

Foreign hybrids tempted me for a while, but I'm disappointed that the mileage figures quoted seem to be overblown, and that overall cost of operation is very close to that of a standard combustion-engine automobile. It's also important to me that a car not be small and low-slung, because as you get older you find your body has much less tolerance for that sort of vehicle.


Good Post! Also some issues were due to sabotage by union workers.

[kjr39]

In case anyone wants the stats in regards to Tommy Veil's post:

J. D. Power (http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005069)

[Xtremehkr]

Consumer taste plays a major role in what vehicles are produced. But quality does as well.

Whatever Toyota is doing, seems to be the right decision as far as consumers are concerned.

GM and Ford are not meeting consumers expectations, otherwise their market share would not be declining. There is no reason why they cannot be making vehicles that are able to compete with Japanese manufacturers. Toyota and Nissan are now competing in the full size segment as well, and are doing well. Overall, their range of products are more competitive than Ford or GMs.

Unions and the companies they work with are both guilty of working against their own best interests in some instances. That is a different discussion though.

[fklehman]

I'm quite aware that the rise in gas prices affects other prices elsewhere...I am 100% prepared to pay extra money to heat my house, afford groceries, etc. No problem. Whatever it takes to force behavioral change. This country actually took a few steps forward back in the 70s when the fuel crisis was even worse. We set fuel economy standards and started researching alternative energy resources. As soon as the crisis let up we relaxed; our government relaxed the CAFE standards it had set, created loopholes for automakers to make millions of pickups and SUVs that didn't have to meet strict fuel economy standards, and slowed its investment in alternative energy research funding. Americans forgot what it was like to not have easy gas, so we bought all those huge cars. Americans proved that the ONLY way they will change their behavior is if gas prices go through the roof, which is once again happening as Toyota and Honda are handing Ford's and GM's heads to them. If it takes $5 a gallon gas to accelerate the process of researching a life beyond fossil fuels--national energy independence so that we're not paying millions to Saudi terrorists for their oil--then I say it's a small price to pay. If American only understand dollars and cents, then that's how it will have to go. I'll pay the $5 and pay it happily.

[quagmire]

I'm quite aware that the rise in gas prices affects other prices elsewhere...I am 100% prepared to pay extra money to heat my house, afford groceries, etc. No problem. Whatever it takes to force behavioral change. This country actually took a few steps forward back in the 70s when the fuel crisis was even worse. We set fuel economy standards and started researching alternative energy resources. As soon as the crisis let up we relaxed; our government relaxed the CAFE standards it had set, created loopholes for automakers to make millions of pickups and SUVs that didn't have to meet strict fuel economy standards, and slowed its investment in alternative energy research funding. Americans forgot what it was like to not have easy gas, so we bought all those huge cars. Americans proved that the ONLY way they will change their behavior is if gas prices go through the roof, which is once again happening as Toyota and Honda are handing Ford's and GM's heads to them. If it takes $5 a gallon gas to accelerate the process of researching a life beyond fossil fuels--national energy independence so that we're not paying millions to Saudi terrorists for their oil--then I say it's a small price to pay. If American only understand dollars and cents, then that's how it will have to go. I'll pay the $5 and pay it happily.

GM is already leading the way in the Hydrogen powered vehicles development.

Consumer taste plays a major role in what vehicles are produced. But quality does as well.

Whatever Toyota is doing, seems to be the right decision as far as consumers are concerned.

GM and Ford are not meeting consumers expectations, otherwise their market share would not be declining. There is no reason why they cannot be making vehicles that are able to compete with Japanese manufacturers. Toyota and Nissan are now competing in the full size segment as well, and are doing well. Overall, their range of products are more competitive than Ford or GMs.

Unions and the companies they work with are both guilty of working against their own best interests in some instances. That is a different discussion though.

By your logic, people should be flocking to OS X in herds and not in the little sizes currently. OS X is better then Windows, yet people don't perceive it as that way and they think OS X doesn't meet their expectations. GM and Ford are putting out great cars right now. GM has 8 JD and Power awards for quality(initial and long term). It just the public takes the 1980's thinking of GM and Ford is crap when they were, and refuse to look at them.

[Xtremehkr]

GM is already leading the way in the Hydrogen powered vehicles development.



By your logic, people should be flocking to OS X in herds and not in the little sizes currently. OS X is better then Windows, yet people don't perceive it as that way and they think OS X doesn't meet their expectations. GM and Ford are putting out great cars right now. GM has 8 JD and Power awards for quality(initial and long term). It just the public takes the 1980's thinking of GM and Ford is crap when they were, and refuse to look at them.

My logic is based upon what consumers are choosing to do, which is to buy cars that have the qualities Japanese vehicles do. I don't know what other reason it would be for.

There are always exceptions to the rule. I think that people should be choosing OSX over windows as well. Why they aren't is something that is not clear to me. Not entirely anyway, I have some ideas.

There are many differences between the two industries that make them hard to compare however.

If my company uses Ford as there fleet vehicles, I don't have to have any extra knowledge about how vehicles work in order to drive a Toyota in my time. A car is a car is a car for the most part.

The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Apple is not as easily replaceable as a windows based machine is. People use windows based machines at work and because Apple has little daily influence on them, they are less likely to automatically consider an Apple when it comes to purchasing a computer.

Even if Apples differences are better, it still requires extra effort that people may not be willing to accept. They also have to pay a bit more and accept that they are not going to have as much choice when it comes to software.

The other problem concerns how much people actually know about OSX. Do the majority of people know why it is better to make the transition? I am not sure that they do.

The decision to change vehicle brands requires next to nothing, they all work the same way for the most part. They all have the same features, for the most part. Everything is basically the same. The difference lays in how well the different components perform, how long they will last, and how well they work.

There are too many differences between OSX and windows for the two to be as easily interchangeable. Especially considering the market structure. If your company uses a Windows based system and software, you get used to that structure. And if you want to bring work home, or have to, you are going to stick with Windows. Not in all situations, but in the majority. I don't want to get into a windows/mac argument though, I am an Apple supporter. Despite the lack of being able to run company software at home, I am willing to look beyond that. I think my company would benefit from being able to use Apple, but they can't, the software isn't there.

[Abercrombieboy]

Mark my words...this car is going to be a hit just like the 1986 Taurus was. Remember where all cars were (foreign and domestic) before the 1986 Taurus came out. Let me see here...Chevy Celebrity, K-Cars, old square underpowered Accords...etc. Remember what everyone offered in 1985 then came the Taurus. What happened after that?

True, this time it does not seem so radical, but imagine a domestic car that gets good fuel economy, looks nice, has a great price, has great driving dynamics and is built with quality materials. Ford is getting the idea with the Fusion. I looked at one this weekend and this car will go head to head with any Camry or Accord. Don't discount it just because it says Ford. Get in it, drive it, look at every detail, then make a decision. Oh and by the way...save yourself a lot of money.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/

For all of you cheering for the end of GM and Ford do you have any idea how much the economy would be damaged? I mean it's not just the hundreds of thousands of people they employ, but also all the suppliers. It would be huge. I know some say that the US is better off with a service based economy, but I can tell you all of these people will have a hard time feeding their families on Walmart wages. We already have a terrible trade deficit as it is. Oh lets pray for GM and Ford to go under...not very smart. I know it is trendy to bash US built products, but I bought a new 2005 Ford and it is a very well built vehicle as good as anything coming from Japan right now. This is not 1980 anymore.

The last thing I will say is the domestics build vehicles that get just as good fuel economy as the Japanese. The Ford Ranger is the highest MPG pickup you can buy right now, the Ford Escape Hybrid is the highest MPG SUV right now. Chevy Cobalt and Ford Focus get good MPG. The Pontiac G6, Chevy Malibu, Chrysler 300 (V6), Ford 500, Ford Fusion all get about the same MPG as their Japanese counterparts. Also, I love how all the pro-Japanese people love to think their beloved companies would NEVER produce a vehicle that gets poor MPG. Nissan Titan, Nissan Armada, Nissan Pathfinder, Toyota Sequoia, Toyota Tundra...Do you really think all of these vehicles get great economy?

[kjr39]

FWIW, the Ford Fusion (and accompanying Mercury and Lincoln cars) are built off of the Mazda 6 platform. And, it is built in Mexico...

[Studawg7]

here is my two cents. my family has been a chevy family for i dont know how long. every single chevy has had over 100,000 miles and lasted 10+ years. i dont know about you, but that says something about quality. As for my current car, its an old hand-me down from the family, its a 96 chevy lumina. Guess what, it still runs great. Other than financial reasons (im a grad student) why would you drive an older car, especially if you look at the environmental impact. Emissions get lower and lower over time so that car of 15 years ago has worse emissions than a new car today (domestic or foreign). If you want some info, just go to the EPA website. They have lots of info on technology that is being used today that helps emissions.

again, my two cents

[joeconvert]

My wife and i are looking for a new car next year and Toyota and Honda top the list. GM & Ford are lost in big fat corporate profits without ever looking to the future. They went throught the 70s but did these two do anything about MPG?? Nope these two were lobbing Congress so they wouldnt have to build cars that can get 30 - 40 mpg but the smart folks at Honda and Toyota kept working on Hybrids and economy knowing one day we would get hit with high gas prices. The sales are their reward

GM/Ford could have done the same. I guess it was easier to throw $$$ at Congress instead of throwing $$$ at R&D.

I urge you to know what the hell you are talking about in the future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38168-2004Nov9.html - Article describing the GM Hydrogen push

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/shell_012705.html - GM site discussing the New Yoirk Station

http://www.automotive-technology.com/projects/gmev1/ - You might have forgot about this (GM's electric efforts)


Bottom line is that until recently energy prices have simply made the buying public uninterested in alternative fuels experiments, prototypes and products.

There are some incredibly ignorant comments in this thread concerning the desire for continued increase in energy prices and mass corporate shutdowns.
Wait until an apple starts costing you $5.

[bousozoku]

here is my two cents. my family has been a chevy family for i dont know how long. every single chevy has had over 100,000 miles and lasted 10+ years. i dont know about you, but that says something about quality. As for my current car, its an old hand-me down from the family, its a 96 chevy lumina. Guess what, it still runs great. Other than financial reasons (im a grad student) why would you drive an older car, especially if you look at the environmental impact. Emissions get lower and lower over time so that car of 15 years ago has worse emissions than a new car today (domestic or foreign). If you want some info, just go to the EPA website. They have lots of info on technology that is being used today that helps emissions.

again, my two cents

That's great. Buick has been touting that it has the best GM quality. My mum's friend and her new husband recently bought the new Buick SUV for $30,000+. They took a trip and about 1000 miles from home, the engine failed in such a way that it was going to take 3 weeks to repair it. After much discussion about wanting a brand new vehicle instead of repaired, they were given a loaner vehicle and drove home. They received their SUV once again and, in less than a week, the engine died.

You are the lucky one.

[plinden]

For the first time in my six years in the US, I saw a car commercial last night that emphasized miles per gallon, not "POWERRRRRR!!!!" Can't remember what it was, but I think it was a domestic car, and that's definitely a change.

Bring on the higher fuel prices, I say.

[yg17]

My parents have owned GMs since I was born up until a year ago. Their most recent GM cars, Pontiacs, a 97 Grand Am and 97 Trans Sport, both bought new, were pieces of crap. The Grand Am was just completley unreliable and broke down often since they bought it. I ended up getting into an accident with the Grand Am and it was completley unsafe. A car should not have $8,000 worth of damage from a 5mph crash. It didn't hold up at all, and it was totaled. In January 2004, I then bought the first import to ever sit in our garage, a 2004 Hyundai Tiburon. Despite my dad knowing his Pontiacs sucked, I got the "You're buying a foreign car, they're so unreliable" speech from him.

Fast foward to September 2004. The Trans Sport was just over 100,000 miles, and needed nearly a grand in repairs. Yes, I'm aware the car had 100,000 miles. That doesn't mean it's OK for a car to screw up like that. My parents repaired it, and the car was good until October when something else went wrong. Oh, I completley forgot to mention the car's history of needing repairs since they bought it, didn't I? Always needing one thing or another fixed, just nothing too expensive until Sept 04. So back to the story, in Oct 2004, the car needed more repairs. The entire car would shake and struggle to move, and that was when my parent's pretty much said "**** it, we're buying a new car." I was expecting them to go back to GM like always. But my dad was actually considering an import. My parents were impressed that my Hyundai didn't break down once within the first 9 months of ownerhsip (and nearly 2 years later it hasn't), something their GM cars could never achieve. So one day in October, we went to the Hyundai dealer to drop my car off for an oil change. I went in my car, my dad followed in the barley running Trans Sport with the intention of picking me up, running a few errands with him then going back to get my car. But, upon walking into the dealership, he fell in love with a Hyundai Sonata and ended up driving that home. Then in July, my sister got a new Elantra after the advice of my dad. Our driveway looks like a Hyundai dealer, the dealership loves us, but most importantly, neither car has had any major problems (my power window motor crapped out, fixed under warranty).

Cliffs notes: when a man who swears by a certain car company and refuses to buy a foreign car, has enough problems that he now swears by a foreign car company and refuses to buy from the previous company he loved, you know there's a problem.

[ehurtley]

I hope this trend continues.

Face it, it's cheaper and easier to manufacture NOT in the US. Labor costs are WAY lower. it's allllll good.

they also make more fuel-efficient vehicles. OH YES!


but then again, I've been involved with Macroecon for too long, so outsourcing doesn't bother me. It's better for the economy as a whole, GLOBALIZATION WOO!!!

/Ph.D. HERE I COME!
//BAM!

Actually, a majority of Toyota's sold in the U.S. are made in the U.S. http://www.toyota.com/about/news/corporate/2005/10/03-1-sales.html At the bottom, last paragraph:
Sales of North American-built vehicles accounted for 63.2 percent of total September sales.

P.S. I own a Prius.

[decksnap]

I can't believe after years of seeing gorgeous interiors come out of Asia, the interiors of American cars look so horrid still today. When I was buying a new car last year, I looked at a lot of them, and the difference is astounding. Honda, Toyota, and especially Nissan have well-crafted, beautiful interiors. The American car interiors are just junk. Complete junk, with the exception of a couple cadillacs. A girl at my work has the 20th anniversary 'special edition' Pontiac Grand Am, which is supposed to be the pimped version. The interior is so ghetto it totally betrays the exterior, which really isn't that bad.

BTW, being proud of a car for making it 100,000 isn't saying much. 200,000 is where you could be proud of an engine, and most American cars won't make it there.

[Thanatoast]

There are some incredibly ignorant comments in this thread concerning the desire for continued increase in energy prices and mass corporate shutdowns.What DHM said was true. Throughout the last several decades the American auto manufacturers have been more concerned with profits than long-term growth or viability.

This isn't to mention the major healthcare issues involved. GM pays for healthcare, Toyota in Japan does not. Japan has a functional national healthcare system. You can see another part of why GM was $1.6 billion in the red last quarter while Toyota was in the black.

and Chevy's are just plain fugly these days

[Studawg7]

What DHM said was true. Throughout the last several decades the American auto manufacturers have been more concerned with profits than long-term growth or viability.

its always been about profit, they [GM and Ford] just cant get it right at this moment in time. Everything is cyclical, they'll be back in the black someday.

and Chevy's are just plain fugly these days

to each his own, i think the prius and other toyotas dont look that great, but id hardly say a car like the covette is "fugly."

[Abercrombieboy]

FWIW, the Ford Fusion (and accompanying Mercury and Lincoln cars) are built off of the Mazda 6 platform. And, it is built in Mexico...

So those two things make it a bad car? The Mazda 6 is regarded as one of the best handling front wheel drive sedans ever built. The problem with the 6 is lack of room in the back seat and trunk. Ford gave it a wheelbase stretch and reengineered the 6's platform into the CD3 platform which these cars are built off of. It is a larger car then the Mazda 6.

It might be built in Mexico, but Ford's Hermosillo plant is one of the more modern plants in North America and has a good record. Go and look at these cars built in Mexico and you tell me if you can see any assembly glitches? They are a world class product. I can't blame Ford for moving some production to Mexico. UAW is getting harder and harder to deal with and if they can't make a profit the company will go broke. The Japanese that build cars in the US are NOT under Union contracts so they don't have their hands tied like Ford, GM and DC do.

I can't believe after years of seeing gorgeous interiors come out of Asia, the interiors of American cars look so horrid still today. When I was buying a new car last year, I looked at a lot of them, and the difference is astounding. Honda, Toyota, and especially Nissan have well-crafted, beautiful interiors. The American car interiors are just junk. Complete junk, with the exception of a couple cadillacs. A girl at my work has the 20th anniversary 'special edition' Pontiac Grand Am, which is supposed to be the pimped version. The interior is so ghetto it totally betrays the exterior, which really isn't that bad.

Again I challenge you to go and look at the new Fusion, Milan and Zephyr. These cars do not have a junky interior. In fact, in most recent reviews they said the interior of these cars go up against anything from Asia. Many reviews actually chose the fit and finish of these cars over their Asian counterparts. Small details like contrast stitching on the leather seats, "piano black" interior accents, analog clocks, etc really set the interior off. Don't take my word for it...take the automotive press who is import biased anyhow...

Here is what Motor Week said...
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2504a.shtml

and Car and Driver
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=9973

These guys LOVE Toyota and Honda and proclaim they can do NOTHING wrong, yet their review of the Fusion is very positive. It just seems to me that most people discount this car because of what the company built years ago. That is like discounting Apple because you had a bad experience with an Apple IIe.

[decksnap]

Abercrombieboy- I guess I'll have to take your word for it, because I haven't seen these cars in person. I just wonder what a difference a year makes, because quite frankly, very few American cars came out last year that didn't have horrible interiors.

But supposing you're right, there's still a lot of work to be done in a lot of areas across a lot of American car lines for them to compete on quality.


Edit: Just looked at the reviews- the interior still looks pretty typical American car. I'll have to see it in person I guess, but I'm not holding my breath.


Exterior looks like they locked a Jetta and an Accord in a room overnight.

[quagmire]

That's great. Buick has been touting that it has the best GM quality. My mum's friend and her new husband recently bought the new Buick SUV for $30,000+. They took a trip and about 1000 miles from home, the engine failed in such a way that it was going to take 3 weeks to repair it. After much discussion about wanting a brand new vehicle instead of repaired, they were given a loaner vehicle and drove home. They received their SUV once again and, in less than a week, the engine died.

You are the lucky one.


More like your moms friend was a unlucky one. Lemons happen. Basing GM=crap upon 20 years ago statistics and one experience isn't valid in these days where GM won 8 awards from J.D and Associates(initial and long term quality). Also GM has a number of plants that rank high in quality. You also have to consider some of the issues GM had with cars was due to union workers sabotaging the cars. The Korean car makers were known for making crappy cars and in 2002 they began to turn it around and today have grown fairly reliable. And yet you guys hold a grudge against GM and Ford that there crappy cars were 20 years ago when Koreans were crappy up to 2002. Bad logic. I also agree that GM and Ford had crappy interiors. But as you can see with GM's and Ford's new 2006 redesigned or totally new cars, the interior is a lot better. The new Tahoe's interior is what you would expect in the Escalade. The Impala's interior looks like something you expect in a Buick or Cadillac.

[yg17]

It might be built in Mexico, but Ford's Hermosillo plant is one of the more modern plants in North America and has a good record. Go and look at these cars built in Mexico and you tell me if you can see any assembly glitches? They are a world class product. I can't blame Ford for moving some production to Mexico. UAW is getting harder and harder to deal with and if they can't make a profit the company will go broke. The Japanese that build cars in the US are NOT under Union contracts so they don't have their hands tied like Ford, GM and DC do.

I believe it was you, who a few posts earlier, who stated that if Ford and GM go bankrupt, the economy would take a hit because of all of the jobs lost. Now, you're defending them for moving production to Mexico where American workers are definitley losing their jobs. Make up your mind already :rolleyes:

Ford, GM and Chrysler are moving jobs out of the country. The Japanese, Korean and European countries are creating jobs in the country. Yet you still have the mullet wearing rednecks in small towns like the one I live in who support the big 3 to the death for boosting the American economy and I'm a traitor and anti-American (yes, I have been told that) for owning a Hyundai. God damn Hyundai for building one of the largest auto plants in the United States, all they do is hurt the American economy :rolleyes: Oh well, let them think what they want. I'll continue to buy good ol, economical, "imported" cars for as long as I live.

[bousozoku]

More like your moms friend was a unlucky one. Lemons happen. Basing GM=crap upon 20 years ago statistics and one experience isn't valid in these days where GM won 8 awards from J.D and Associates(initial and long term quality). Also GM has a number of plants that rank high in quality. You also have to consider some of the issues GM had with cars was due to union workers sabotaging the cars. The Korean car makers were known for making crappy cars and in 2002 they began to turn it around and today have grown fairly reliable. And yet you guys hold a grudge against GM and Ford that there crappy cars were 20 years ago when Koreans were crappy up to 2002. Bad logic. I also agree that GM and Ford had crappy interiors. But as you can see with GM's and Ford's new 2006 redesigned or totally new cars, the interior is a lot better. The new Tahoe's interior is what you would expect in the Escalade. The Impala's interior looks like something you expect in a Buick or Cadillac.

I don't have much against Ford, except for their not acknowledging the problems with the Explorer and Mountaineer that allegedly contributed to so many people losing their lives. They had been quite a responsible car company since 1982.

Isn't the Escalade a Tahoe anyway? It's nice that they fix up the Tahoe to look good.

I'm still impressed with the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix as a prime example. They're practically the same car, yet they could not be more different. Slick advertising is all that sells the Vibe. If they were sold side-by-side, Pontiac wouldn't likely sell any to people who were open-minded about vehicles from any country. The Vibe is sloppy in contrast to the Matrix.

[quagmire]

I believe it was you, who a few posts earlier, who stated that if Ford and GM go bankrupt, the economy would take a hit because of all of the jobs lost. Now, you're defending them for moving production to Mexico where American workers are definitley losing their jobs. Make up your mind already :rolleyes:

Ford, GM and Chrysler are moving jobs out of the country. The Japanese, Korean and European countries are creating jobs in the country. Yet you still have the mullet wearing rednecks in small towns like the one I live in who support the big 3 to the death for boosting the American economy and I'm a traitor and anti-American (yes, I have been told that) for owning a Hyundai. God damn Hyundai for building one of the largest auto plants in the United States, all they do is hurt the American economy :rolleyes: Oh well, let them think what they want. I'll continue to buy good ol, economical, "imported" cars for as long as I live.

So GM can only build cars in the U.S? Talk about not helping out the global economy. GM still builds a lot of vehicles in the U.S. There is nothing wrong with building in other countries. Toyota can build here too. I wouldn't mind where my vehicle was built as long as it is reliable. Fact is though, GM and Ford still employ more people then Toyota. Come 50-100 years, Toyota will face the same issue as GM and Ford is dealing with today with retirees. GM has more retirees then workers. GM still pay those retirees at full wage and pension as if they were working. Toyota has no such things to pay. The more they invest in the US for building cars, the more money they will be paying when the retirees demand their full pay check. Good luck Toyota with the UAW!

I don't have much against Ford, except for their not acknowledging the problems with the Explorer and Mountaineer that allegedly contributed to so many people losing their lives. They had been quite a responsible car company since 1982.

Isn't the Escalade a Tahoe anyway? It's nice that they fix up the Tahoe to look good.

I'm still impressed with the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix as a prime example. They're practically the same car, yet they could not be more different. Slick advertising is all that sells the Vibe. If they were sold side-by-side, Pontiac wouldn't likely sell any to people who were open-minded about vehicles from any country. The Vibe is sloppy in contrast to the Matrix.


Yes the Escalade is a tahoe, but the interior of the new Tahoe is what you would expect in the Escalade, since it is a Cadillac. Can't wait until the new Escalade gets unveiled, the interior is going to rock! You know whats ironic though? Many people and sites say the Vibe is the most unreliable vehicle in GM's line up right now. Ironic yes? And it is like Toyota blaming the drivers for the Scion tC problems.

http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=103151

[Thanatoast]

its always been about profit, they [GM and Ford] just cant get it right at this moment in time. Everything is cyclical, they'll be back in the black someday.

to each his own, i think the prius and other toyotas dont look that great, but id hardly say a car like the covette is "fugly."
Well, of course it's always been about profit. It's about profit at Toyota, too. The difference is that GM management put the focus on short-term stock gains, while ignoring their looming pension and healthcare quagmire, while Toyota built a sustainable business model that will outlast GM and make more money more reliably, over the long run.

And the Corvette just proves the rule. The Cobalt isn't bad, but the rest have that funky silver bar across the front.

[quagmire]

Well, of course it's always been about profit. It's about profit at Toyota, too. The difference is that GM management put the focus on short-term stock gains, while ignoring their looming pension and healthcare quagmire, while Toyota built a sustainable business model that will outlast GM and make more money more reliably, over the long run.

And the Corvette just proves the rule. The Cobalt isn't bad, but the rest have that funky silver bar across the front.


Ignoring the pension and health care? First, yes it was GM's fault for agreeing to the ridiculous contract back in 1987 with the UAW. That was when they were making tons of money and they could afford it and they didn't want strikes and sabotages. Now they are fixing it. As I said above, 50-100 years, Toyota will face the same thing when they invest so much in the US, they will will be doing the same thing GM is doing. This is what GM is doing about their health care problem. And it is a cool gold bowtie on the rest of the Chevy lineup.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=21358

[Abercrombieboy]

Yet you still have the mullet wearing rednecks in small towns like the one I live in who support the big 3 to the death for boosting the American economy and I'm a traitor and anti-American (yes, I have been told that) for owning a Hyundai.

I am educated and do not have a mullet and I drive a Ford. I am not bashing you for driving a Hyundai, but you appear to be bashing me for supporting the Ford Motor Company. I don't want a Hyundai, but if you do, that is cool. I never tell anyone what to buy (well I try with computers sometimes). All I am trying to say is that Ford is showing some great progress with their new models (new Mustang, Fusion, Milan, etc.) That was my only point. I think people should give them and GM a look instead of just thinking...oh ya...Ford built the Pinto and Chevy made the Vega. It is not like that anymore.

I don't have much against Ford, except for their not acknowledging the problems with the Explorer and Mountaineer that allegedly contributed to so many people losing their lives. They had been quite a responsible car company since 1982.

What problems were there with the 1991-2001 Explorer/Mountaineer that were any different then every other body on frame SUV had at the time? Ford made a mistake when they went with Firestone Wilderness A/T's on the vehicle. Wait a minute, Firestone is made by Bridgestone (a JAPANESE corporation) so we better rule them out! I had a friend in college that rolled his 1994 4Runner. It must have been Toyota's fault! No, it was his own fault. Overdriving the vehicle was the fault and it was his fault. If the government would have mandated a recall of the Explorer they would have had to recall every BOF SUV built during that time. There were models with a higher rollover rate and higher driver/passenger death rate then the Explorer.

Ford fixed the Explorer in 2002 by making the SUV wider, the frame lower and installing an independent rear suspension (something very few other companies have done with their body on frame SUV's). The solid rear axle can "jack" in emergency situations and can make the vehicle more likely to roll. In 2005, Ford installed RSC (Roll Stability Control) as standard equipment on all Explorers and Mountaineers. It is the same system that is found on the Volvo XC90.

[Xtremehkr]

So, if GM is doing everything right, why are they not selling as many vehicles?

GM and Ford are starting to turn things around, they are not there yet.

They let things go for far too long and are just now making the necessary adjustments.

You can't just claim that GM makes better vehicles and then refuse to admit otherwise. Ford and GM stock receive a junk bond rating, and are not performing well in the eyes of economists.

There is a real problem there that needs to be addressed. Excuses are not working anymore.

[bousozoku]

...
What problems were there with the 1991-2001 Explorer/Mountaineer that were any different then every other body on frame SUV had at the time? Ford made a mistake when they went with Firestone Wilderness A/T's on the vehicle. Wait a minute, Firestone is made by Bridgestone (a JAPANESE corporation) so we better rule them out! I had a friend in college that rolled his 1994 4Runner. It must have been Toyota's fault! No, it was his own fault. Overdriving the vehicle was the fault and it was his fault. If the government would have mandated a recall of the Explorer they would have had to recall every BOF SUV built during that time. There were models with a higher rollover rate and higher driver/passenger death rate then the Explorer.

Ford fixed the Explorer in 2002 by making the SUV wider, the frame lower and installing an independent rear suspension (something very few other companies have done with their body on frame SUV's). The solid rear axle can "jack" in emergency situations and can make the vehicle more likely to roll. In 2005, Ford installed RSC (Roll Stability Control) as standard equipment on all Explorers and Mountaineers. It is the same system that is found on the Volvo XC90.

Since you want to talk about Firestone being the problem with the Ford Explorer, you'll be happy to know that the incident with that plant in Illinois producing tires where the tread separated from the rest of the tire was not the first time. Quality control at that plant was apparently lacking. Why did Bridgestone let it happen? I don't know but they seemed to take more responsibility for the problem than the Firestone manglement (yes, I've spelt it that way on purpose) did. Why do American tire companies still make some tires in watchcase, rather than segmented form? We know it's safer to use segmented form but it's cheaper the other way.

I agree that people are aggressive, and from what I've seen, extremely aggressive in Ford Explorers, on the road while driving SUVs. They don't tend to consider the physics of their decisions. Had Mazda and Ford considered safety and aggressive driving more thoroughly, they would have made the Explorer a safer vehicle from the start. They were obviously content to offer a lower price against the Jeep Cherokee and forego extra safety measures that would have saved lives. It's obvious that the Cherokee didn't have the same combination of problems, leading to so many deaths, yet it's still an SUV and easily rolled. Moreover, it was the earlier design, having been started by Jeep in the late 1970s.

[Abercrombieboy]

I agree that people are aggressive, and from what I've seen, extremely aggressive in Ford Explorers, on the road while driving SUVs. They don't tend to consider the physics of their decisions. Had Mazda and Ford considered safety and aggressive driving more thoroughly, they would have made the Explorer a safer vehicle from the start. They were obviously content to offer a lower price against the Jeep Cherokee and forego extra safety measures that would have saved lives. It's obvious that the Cherokee didn't have the same combination of problems, leading to so many deaths, yet it's still an SUV and easily rolled. Moreover, it was the earlier design, having been started by Jeep in the late 1970s.

First of all, yes the horrible Firestone tires contributed to the problem. Since those tires have been replaced many of the rollover issues are gone. Is the vehicle still easy to roll? Sure. It has a high center of gravity. The only difference now is that tires are not ripping up at any given moment. I had a tread seperation on an old Blazer one time and it is not a pretty event. I promise a driver not knowing what to do could easily loose control and roll a vehicle that had a much lower center of gravity then the Explorer.

I am assuming you are talking about the XJ Cherokee that came out in 1984. It was a uni-body SUV and you are right it did have advantages over the Explorer at the time, yet it's occupant death rate was about the same as the Explorer (depending on the configuration). http://www.informedforlife.org/DrivingIsDangerous.htm

It may have been better when it came to rollovers, but the old Cherokees did not do well in other types of collisions. It was a primitive design as far as uni-bodys were concerned and did very poorly in frontal crash tests and side impact. Of course, no vehicles did great back then, but the SUV's with a frame under them seemed to fair better in severe collisions.

So what was the root of the problem? The same problem EVERY other company had at the time (except Jeep). They had an SUV that was based on a compact pickup chassis. GM did it with the S10. Toyota did it with the 4Runner. Nissan did it with the Pathfinder. and Ford did it with the Explorer (it had a Ranger chassis under it). Why did this not work? Because the vehicle dynamics changed too much. They all did it however because when the vehicles first came out, SUV's were not big sellers. Then something happened that suprised Ford and the rest of the industry. The Explorer took off and took off BIG TIME. Now they had an SUV like everyone elses that had some faults in the basic design, but the difference was instead of selling a few thousand like the other companies did, they sold MILLIONS. When you get numbers like that on the road, if something small happens it is going to be big. If you take it in perspective however, using vehicle death rates you can see there was nothing about the Explorer that stood out from the rest. Ford knew there were some issues with the design, but their design was hardly any different then anyone else's at the time.

The first thing they did in 1995 was to get rid of the old Twin-I Beam front end. It was a horrible design that dated to the 1960's. Sturdy for off-road, but would jack the front just like a solid axle will jack the rear. Still there were issues. The engineers finally got what they wanted over management in 2002. The result is a good safe truck as far as body on frame SUV's go. The Explorer that is rolling down the road today does not share one thing with a pre 2002 Explorer. The old Explorers are still all over the place and most provide good safe transportation for their owners as long as they drive them like they should and maintain the suspension and tires. You are right, they drive SUV's way to aggressive. Did Ford make errors when building the first Explorer, yes, but the same errors everyone else made. I don't think they were sitting in their office saying, "How can we kill someone today?"

Ford made 2 mistakes in vehicles when it came to safety. Number one was the Pinto and number 2 was the Bronco II. They were both death traps, but every company has a death trap somewhere in their closet. If you think the first little Japanese rust buckets they imported in the late 60's to 70's were safe vehicles, then you are kidding yourself. Japan has came a long ways in vehicle design just like the domestics did, they just got their act together a little quicker.

It is time to look at what the companies offer today. Most Ford and GM vehicles score well in crash tests and both use new designs that help reduce rollover. They also offer new technology to make the vehicles easier to control. All cars built by any decent company today are fairly safe cars. Did Ford learn a lesson with the Bronco II and later Explorer? Yes. If they had not it would still have a compact pickup chassis under it and would not have technology like AdvanceTrac, Roll Stability Control, tire pressure monitoring, roll over canopy air bags, etc.

[ehurtley]

Yet you still have the mullet wearing rednecks in small towns like the one I live in who support the big 3 to the death for boosting the American economy and I'm a traitor and anti-American (yes, I have been told that) for owning a Hyundai. God damn Hyundai for building one of the largest auto plants in the United States, all they do is hurt the American economy :rolleyes: Oh well, let them think what they want. I'll continue to buy good ol, economical, "imported" cars for as long as I live.

heh. I own a '99 Hyundai Accent. Paid $6795 for it brand new with only 12 miles on the odo as they were clearing out the '99s. It's been a reliable little beast; the only thing I wish it had was A/C. (Because of the insane loss-leader deal on the lowest-end model, adding A/C would have ended up costing me $4000!) I also own an '04 Toyota Prius, and a '94 Ford Explorer. (Which is seeing extremely little use now that I'm driving the Prius as my daily commuter, and my wife driving the Accent as hers.)

Last week, driving in my Prius (which does, by the way, have an American flag and a 'support our troops' sticker) I was being tailgated by a jacked up Ford Excursion while doing 45 in a 35 zone going up a hill. (I was surprised he could keep up with me up that hill.) When I got to the top of the hill, waited for the light, and turned onto a four-lane road, he immediately roared around me in the other lane, then cut me off. On the back, he had four 'support our troops' magnets, and a custom license plate 'GS GZLR'. Ah, the joy of redneck arrogance.

[CanadaRAM]

Wish granted. No matter how efficient your car is, at the current rate you'll still pay 3x the amount you paid when gas was 1 dollar. At 5 dollars, you'll still pay 5x the amount you did when gas was 1 dollar.

And crude oil prices affect the prices of much more than the gas you pump in your car. Every company delivering you packages, every company you buy retail from will raise their prices because everyone in their distribution chain has done the same. The rise in oil prices will force them to.

You'll pay again when you turn on your heat, if it's natural gas powered. You can laugh all you want at SUV drivers woes, but your little fuel miser import won't save you.

1) Home heating energy cost (gas, oil or gas/oil generated electricity, esp. if you are renting or in a condo)
2) Delivery costs embedded in the retail price of goods
3) Miles per gallon of your personal vehicle

Which, of the three cost factors above, do you have control of?

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

1) Home heating energy cost (gas, oil or gas/oil generated electricity, esp. if you are renting or in a condo)
2) Delivery costs embedded in the retail price of goods
3) Miles per gallon of your personal vehicle

Which, of the three cost factors above, do you have control of?

The answer is: you really have control of all three things I mentioned. You can buy a subzero sleeping bag to keep your home energy costs down. You can buy fewer goods than you normally would. And you can purchase a car that consumes less gas.

The point is that our buddy the 5 dollar per gallon of gas advocate cannot escape the increasing price of fuel by driving his zippy 4 banger around. Those other costs - the ones you just repeated here -will hit him as well, whether he has control of them or not.

HTH

[Abercrombieboy]

The point is that our buddy the 5 dollar per gallon of gas advocate cannot escape the increasing price of fuel by driving his zippy 4 banger around. Those other costs - the ones you just repeated here -will hit him as well, whether he has control of them or not.

HTH

$5 fuel would get inflation rolling better then anything. If he wants a period of high inflation again just get the fuel prices at $5 and see what happens. Most are worried about inflation kicking in with the current fuel prices which are finally starting to go down around my area.

[aloofman]

This isn't to mention the major healthcare issues involved. GM pays for healthcare, Toyota in Japan does not. Japan has a functional national healthcare system. You can see another part of why GM was $1.6 billion in the red last quarter while Toyota was in the black.


GM and Ford are now dropping hints that the U.S. government needs to start working toward a national healthcare system. No joke.

GM is already leading the way in the Hydrogen powered vehicles development.


If only hydrogen were an energy source instead of a white elephant. Increasing gas mileage improves efficiency and reduces oil consumption and pollution now. The hydrogen thing is a show to make them look like a responsible company.

From some statistics I have seen, the most reliable brand is Subaru.

And yet every Subaru owner I've ever met is in the shop all the time. So much for anecdotal evidence, right?


Yes, years ago, domestic manufacturers turned out oversized, junky cars. Believe it or not, it was not all their fault. Until the '70s oil crisis hit, Americans (not manufacturers) were in love with big, boat-sized cars. You can't fault the automakers for giving the people more of what they were buying. When the crisis hit, the Japanese were fortunate to be in prime position to be able to deliver small, more efficient cars.

This is true, but the Big Three were also very complacent because they had the American market pretty much to themselves (the smalll trickle of European cars notwithstanding). Until the late 1960s, no foreign carmaker was strong enough to penetrate the American market because the other automaking nations needed years to recover from World War II. The Big Three were in denial about their vulnerability for a very long time, and this is one of the causes of their lack of long-term planning and overly generous labor agreements over the years.

What you can hit American manufacturers for, at least largely, was the poor quality of their cars. But even then, the American mentality was not how good the quality was, it was how cheap (inexpensive) the product was. I blame both consumers and manufacturers for pursuing that dead end.

There's something to this. Americans used to buy a new car every few years. When you don't own a car very long, quality is less likely to be an issue.


The Japanese companies began building cars and buying parts in this country not out of the goodness of their hearts, but to avoid retaliatory protectionism movements in this country.

It also cushions them from exchange rate fluctuations.

[quagmire]

If only hydrogen were an energy source instead of a white elephant. Increasing gas mileage improves efficiency and reduces oil consumption and pollution now. The hydrogen thing is a show to make them look like a responsible company.

And you know though hydrogen fuel cell cars are going to replace the gasoline cars right? The hybrid thing with Toyota is just to show they are responsible as well. While they cost more over the regular combustion engine cars and takes 2-4 years for the gas savings to balance out the extra cost of the vehicle. Plus another $3000 to $5000 to replace the batteries. So Hybrids while turning out less emissions then regular cars, they sort of make that up by having the batteries to deal with and the extra cash to spend out.

[oingoboingo]

And yet every Subaru owner I've ever met is in the shop all the time. So much for anecdotal evidence, right?

They must be very unlucky. Subarus have a fairly bulletproof reputation here in Australia, and none of my friends with Subarus have ever had any problems. They are also consistently score highly in non-anecdotal surveys like the JD Power satisfaction reports. Maybe it's the local mechanics that are the source of the problem.

[jeffy.dee-lux]

I think a lot of people are racist when considering car companies. :D
No seriously though, people are like American=Bad and Japanese=Good or vice versa. As far as moral high ground goes, i don't think you can really group these companies by nationality. I mean I personally think Toyota is very different from Nissan, and Honda's different too... I also think every company wants to make money as much as every other one, thanks to the nature of corporations and that business that legally obligates CEO's to make as much money as damn well possible. I think a company is really defined by the guy in charge, as we all could probably agree looking at Apple and Steve Jobs. If the CEO doesn't have a vision beyond making the most amount of money, they're not gonna do much. Of course the CEO is legally required to balance this vision with shareholder demands, so they aren't able to accomplish as much as they'd like, which sucks a lot.

Personally, I've always been a Ford fan, definitely just cause I started paying attention to cars when i was about 11 or so and we just got a Crown Vic wagon, and not when i was 4 and we still had a toyota. Lately i've been happy to find out that my appreciation of ford cars doesn't necessarily mean I'm a hypocrite. I've been finding out that Bill Ford is a really cool guy with some great ambition. I could only imagine what he'd accomplish if he didn't have to please shareholders. At least he's starting to present his ideas for the company in a way that might not piss shareholders off. Just google Bill Ford + Environment to get a couple interesting reads.

[aloofman]

And you know though hydrogen fuel cell cars are going to replace the gasoline cars right?


Since the only sources of hydrogen are more expensive, less efficient, and (usually) higher polluting than gasoline, we'd all have to get real stupid at the same time for that to happen.

All together now: hydrogen is not an energy source. It is merely a different fuel, a fuel that requires far, far more energy to make than it creates. The reason that a fuel cell's only "waste" is water vapor is because someone put a lot of energy into separating the hydrogen from another substance in the first place.

[vniow]

Mark my words...this car is going to be a hit just like the 1986 Taurus was.

There will be no good from it then.

<--Taurus owner

[2jaded2care]

GM and Ford were making their profits on big SUVs, and the reality of the world's energy situation has finally started to register with the buying public. Again.

Another problem is that lots of car buyers tend to have long memories. I had a Ford car in the '80s, and I still won't consider a Ford to this day. Besides its lack of longevity, I remember distinctly that their brilliant engineers had put hard plastic in the center of the steering wheel, and to activate the horn you had to push the turn signal stalk in. How's that for an intuitive interface, as well as giving you something solid to crush your ribs and lungs on if you somehow got into a front-end collision without a seatbelt?

That, and the car sounded like a truck. My current vehicle, an import nameplate made in the US, also sounds like a truck -- but hey, it is a truck.

I don't hope that GM and Ford go under, the more choice the better. However, that they perfected the notion of "planned obsolescence" doesn't make their current job any easier.

[jeffy.dee-lux]

Another problem is that lots of car buyers tend to have long memories. I had a Ford car in the '80s, and I still won't consider a Ford to this day. Besides its lack of longevity, I remember distinctly that their brilliant engineers had put hard plastic in the center of the steering wheel, and to activate the horn you had to push the turn signal stalk in. How's that for an intuitive interface, as well as giving you something solid to crush your ribs and lungs on if you somehow got into a front-end collision without a seatbelt?
That, and the car sounded like a truck. My current vehicle, an import nameplate made in the US, also sounds like a truck -- but hey, it is a truck.



That sounds a lot like the old Grand Marquis wagon i got carted around in when i was a wee one. Didn't the horn get put off to the side to make way for an airbag? Maybe not though, i just went for a ride in my buddy's 1980 triumph spitfire, it had that side horn tooter thing, but definitely no air bag.


As far as the hydrogen goes....
"Since the only sources of hydrogen are more expensive, less efficient, and (usually) higher polluting than gasoline, we'd all have to get real stupid at the same time for that to happen. "

that should be an "or" rather than an "and". Sure electrolysis isn't a very efficient way of producing hydrogen, but if you do it up here in Quebec, it won't be too expensive and it definitely won't pollute too much. I'm definitely not saying our province could all of a sudden handle all the energy requirements of the transportation sector through hydroelectricity. And in fact, its not very likely that we will be increasing our hydroelectric capacity very much either. But sustainable hydrogen production does seem to be a possibility, and that means that any company making cars that could actually use this hydrogen as a store of energy should be applauded for making those advances.

I'm definitely part of the camp that thinks way too much is being put into hydrogen right now, there's a lot of hype coming from certain political figures who have realized mentioning hydrogen really gets them a long way. I definitely think Ahnold is acting a bit prematurely in building fueling stations, although i guess it does help for the various test vehicles, but do they really need to drive from one end of california to the other?

Hydrogen powered cars won't do us any good until we find a good way to produce the hydrogen. There are possibilities though. The latest thing i heard was at a conference with David Mark, the director of the MIT laboratory for Energy and the environment. He mentioned the possibility of creating the hydrogen from nuclear energy directly, without the inefficient step of producing electricity and using it for electrolysis. He didn't go into details but he said something about the electrons being used directly to separate the H's and the O's.

So anyways, they gotta work that stuff out, otherwise we'll just be hiding the problem, like sending the dumps farther out of town, we'll be taking the pollution away from our tail pipes and over to those thermal power plants instead, not a very good solution. But while they're working that out, there are a ton of other hurdles to cross. So while i think Ahnold and Bush are a little rediculous cause they really don't understand the situation and really shouldn't be buildling all these expensive robotic fueling stations all over the place, I do think its a good thing that car companies have already started to develop hydrogen powered cars. So lets give GM and Ford a big hand for the work their doing in that area. I know ford has got a bunch of hydrogen fuel cell foci running around, plus some E-series vans that run on IC engines burning hydrogen, what bill ford and many others think will be an intermediate step between current IC engines and Hydrogen fuel cells.

[aliasfox]

The Fusion/Milan, 300, Five Hundred, La Crosse, and G6 may be decent cars, but the marketplace really doesn't care anymore. Initial quality may be high and cost of ownership through the first 100,000 miles may be comparable to the Japanese (and increasingly, Korean) imports, but people still aren't biting. Why? Brand. Twenty and thirty somethings looking for a new car today don't remember too much about crap produced in the 80s- hell, Hyundai's new strength in the marketplace proves that- as little as 10 years ago Hyundai had not a single attractive offering in their stable. But one thing Hyundai didn't do that the Americans are doing (much more with Ford and GM, less so with Chrysler) is put a TV ad up every commercial break talking about employee discounts or about how much cash back is offered. These aspects weaken a brand and even if it produces decent quality products, will not generally be accepted by the market because their budget marketing makes them feel inferior to the market.

Most of GM and Ford need to focus on higher brand equity by swallowing a few quarters (or even a few years) of lower sales by marketing to the same consumer that Toyota, Honda, and Nissan market to. Right now, GM and Ford target under the Japanese imports because that's where they feel they can fight them. But to most people, if you're already spending $25k for a car, is a grand or two for the peace of mind really all that much more to spend to get a Camry vs a G6 or an Accord vs an Impala? Probably not. Hyundai broke into the competitive ranks... though it may be riding on Samsung's coattails (Korea's the new Japan?).

Cadillac, like Hyundai, is another brand that's coming back from under the shadow of poor quality and budget oriented marketing. Five years ago, the Cadillac Deville and STS were also-rans in the market. Today, the XLR and STS, while not winning many of the comparisons that they are placed in, are at least being invited. I'd be happy to purchase an XLR...

As for what I drive, I'm a broke and sleep deprived marketing major who commutes most places by bike- class, work, groceries, parties... better for me, better for my wallet, and better for the environment than even a Prius. More Americans could stand to commute to work by bike 2-3 times a week, and most Americans could stand to enjoy the outdoors and beautiful fall weather instead of staring at the boob tube all weekend. Just my two cents.

[minimax]

Just a question: why are americans here only comparing american to japanese cars..? Do european cars not exist in the US? Are they too expensive?
Just curious :confused:

[garybUK]

Just a question: why are americans here only comparing american to japanese cars..? Do european cars not exist in the US? Are they too expensive?
Just curious :confused:


Yeah too true..... Most European cars beat any American / Japaneese rubbish anyway...

BMW, Mercedes, Renault, Citroen (are getting better), Peugeot are making some stunning cars....... Can't beat the Renaults on their engines, very fast and pretty damn good on fuel. (Meganne 225hmmm)

Ford have to buy their luxury cars..... Aston Martin (x-english), Landrover still built in Solihull, Jaguar still built in Gaydon...

My next car will be either a Jag X Type (3rd Choice), BMW 3 Series (2nd Choice) or Mercedes S200 Kompressor (1st Choice).

That's going from the total ulreliability of a Ford Fiesta.... yeah the parts are cheap but that's because they are built that way.

[Xtremehkr]

Just a question: why are americans here only comparing american to japanese cars..? Do european cars not exist in the US? Are they too expensive?
Just curious :confused:

You don't get regular European cars over here for the most part. There is VW, maybe one or two other mainstream manufacturers, but for the most part they don't compete. VW does not have a stellar reputation either.

[geese]

You don't get regular European cars over here for the most part. There is VW, maybe one or two other mainstream manufacturers, but for the most part they don't compete. VW does not have a stellar reputation either.


Doesn't it vary from state to state? I went to Minneapolis recently and i saw a fair few VWs and a handful of Jags & BMWs.

Amusingly, I saw a clapped out Sterling (rover 800) in Washington state. I very desirable car had it not been built by zoo monkeys.

[bousozoku]

Just a question: why are americans here only comparing american to japanese cars..? Do european cars not exist in the US? Are they too expensive?
Just curious :confused:

Oh, you noticed that. :D Actually, most of the European brands have dwindled over the years, due to poor management. Fiat and Renault were active in the 1970s but couldn't hold onto sales once the Japanese cars became more reliable. Triumph, MG, Lancia, Peugeot, Jensen--where did they go? I still see a TR-7 or TR-8 from time to time. They were great when it was dry.

In any case, my direct comparison with the Toyota Matrix and the Pontiac Vibe stemmed from the fact that they're basically the same car and couldn't be much more different in character.

Otherwise, I think most people have never been exposed to a European car, especially when they only talk Ford or Chevy. ;)

[minimax]

You don't get regular European cars over here for the most part. There is VW, maybe one or two other mainstream manufacturers, but for the most part they don't compete. VW does not have a stellar reputation either.

Sounds like an incredible gap in the market...why is no one jumping into it? do Americans have something against european cars?
Once you taste european you never wanna go-go back :D

I'd love to get my hands on a Volvo S40, just love EVERYTHING about this little sucker (especially the 5-cylinder 2.4 :cool: )

[quagmire]

Otherwise, I think most people have never been exposed to a European car, especially when they only talk Ford or Chevy. ;)

Hey, I will buy BMW if I could afford it, but then again for a 3 series, I could get a Corvette with the LS2 engine. :D :p

[bousozoku]

Hey, I will buy BMW if I could afford it, but then again for a 3 series, I could get a Corvette with the LS2 engine. :D :p

Neither appeals to me, so you're welcome to either, as long as you have the money...or a Playstation 2. :D

[aloofman]

Just a question: why are americans here only comparing american to japanese cars..? Do european cars not exist in the US? Are they too expensive?
Just curious :confused:


Bad management and reliability issues chased away several European brands (Fiat, Peugeot, Renault) a long time ago. Being imports, you paid more than you would for the American equivalent, so when a model proved to have poor quality, it basically couldn't recover. Volkswagen is probably the only non-luxury brand that's persisted here for decades, but even VW has been inconsistent quality-wise. For a while they'll be very good, then there will be low periods like the last few years, where they reliability issues.

The other European brands like BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, and Saab, are (more or less) luxury cars here. They tend to cost more to buy and often cost a LOT more to maintain and repair. All of them established their niche customers though, with BMW and Mercedes taking the performance sedan lovers, Volvo for the people who prize safety and shun style, and Saab for the eccentric hippies. (I generalize. :D )

There are a lot of regional factors at work though. Here in California and in the DC-to-Boston corridor, European cars are very common and the bulk of their US sales are concentrated there. But go to Wyoming or Kansas and you'll hardly see any. (The same goes for Japanese cars too, since "buy American" is a much stronger sentiment in rural areas.) Parts of the Midwest that have decades-long manufacturing ties to the Big Three (especially Detroit, obviously) will be especially pro-Big Three and many people there have strong biases against foreign cars in general. And of course, for many years European imports were smaller and were considered horsepower-challenged compared to American cars. For better or worse, European carmakers never really tried to compete with big American cars before the SUV craze, so their appeal was limited.

So there may be many Americans on MR that live in areas where European cars aren't popular. Memories are long, and some people that rolled the dice with a Renault or Triumph years ago got burned and would never go back to them even if they were on sale here. (Honestly, I can't think of a single British car model sold here that had a reputation for good build quality. I don't mean sold in the UK or Europe, just in the US. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) Historically, since most European cars cost more -- sometimes a lot more -- than American cars, they were often out of the average American's price range, whereas Japanese cars tended to be closer in price to American cars and Americans at least looked into buying Japanese. For a lot of us in the US, European brands seemed kind of snooty and elitist, but car enthusiasts here have long tracked the European brands and cool cars are still cool cars. And many of the cost differences have narrowed in the last 20 years, so these distinctions have become a bit watered down, but people still remember their early perceptions from years ago and it's hard to change their minds.

OK, that was kind of long-winded. :rolleyes:

[minimax]

OK, that was kind of long-winded. :rolleyes:

But thanks for the answer, much appreciated and it corresponds to my suspicions...a shame really for some first quality brands (VW, Audi, Volvo which I think deserve a much wider audience)

Oh and
Volvo for the people who prize safety and shun style

was certainly the case for a long long time, but have you seen their recent designs? Totally amazing, first class designers at work :eek:

[cheekyspanky]

Mark my words...this car is going to be a hit just like the 1986 Taurus was... True, this time it does not seem so radical, but imagine a domestic car that gets good fuel economy, looks nice, has a great price, has great driving dynamics and is built with quality materials. Ford is getting the idea with the Fusion.

The American Fusion looks like an updated Ford Mondeo (which is just about ready to be replaced!) Looks okay, but nothing particularly exciting about it.

[aloofman]

But thanks for the answer, much appreciated and it corresponds to my suspicions...a shame really for some first quality brands (VW, Audi, Volvo which I think deserve a much wider audience)

Oh and
was certainly the case for a long long time, but have you seen their recent designs? Totally amazing, first class designers at work :eek:

I think Volvo has really had an aesthetic turnaround and the cars they sell in the US have been transformed from boxy to conservative. :p

Audi has its fans here and is considered right below BMW and Mercedes among European luxury brands. I think recently its strong resemblance to VW models has hurt it some because quite a few people just buy the cheaper VW version instead.

VW had a bit of renaissance in the late 1990s with the Passat and Jetta, but the Passat has had reliability issues of late. I test-drove a Passat when I was car shopping in 2001-02 and really liked the handling, ride, and power. But the seat was uncomfortable, the instrument panel incomprehensible, and it cost $2000-3000 more than the comparable Camry and Accord models. There's just no way that a Passat is worth $2000 more than a Camry or Accord, unless you like the purple dash lights and air conditioning vent in the glove compartment.

[Monsanto-Man]

1.27 million-vehicle Toyota recall is Japan's largest1.27 million-vehicle Toyota recall is Japan's largest

Toyota's recall covers 17 car models, including its popular Corolla sedans and Vitz compact models, because of a defective headlight switch caused by a design problem, Toyota said on its Web site. All vehicles involved were produced between May 2000 and September 2002, the company said.

The recall exceeded the previous record in 1996, when Japan's second-largest automaker, Nissan Motor Co., recalled 1.04 million cars in Japan. (AP)

Foreign Products (cars) come from Foreign Companies which lead to ""Foreign"" Profits. When will we learn...

[quagmire]

You all know Volvo is now Ford owned?

[minimax]

You all know Volvo is now Ford owned?

Bloody yanks...buy all the good stuff :mad:

[Xtremehkr]

Sounds like an incredible gap in the market...why is no one jumping into it? do Americans have something against european cars?
Once you taste european you never wanna go-go back :D

I'd love to get my hands on a Volvo S40, just love EVERYTHING about this little sucker (especially the 5-cylinder 2.4 :cool: )

The price gap seems to be the main problem. Even though Lexus sells the most amount of luxury vehicles in the US, most other luxury brands are European.

When it comes to the daily driver though, VW is the only one that comes to mind.

Volvo is owned by Ford, which doesn't mean that they are bad. But the name seems to carry a premium. Same with Jaguar and RR.

European car manufacturers, for the most part, cater to the high end of the market. Which doesn't do much for me. I have a sporty small car, and a Limited 4x4 Toyota Tacoma.

As far as I know, there is no European car that directly competes with the Camry/Accord who have traded off as being the best selling car in America for over a decade. The Jetta and the Passat are good looking cars, but cannot compete when it comes to reliability.

To a certain extent, I think that American and European car manufacturers are just starting to take Asian manufacturers seriously.

1.27 million-vehicle Toyota recall is Japan's largest1.27 million-vehicle Toyota recall is Japan's largest

Toyota's recall covers 17 car models, including its popular Corolla sedans and Vitz compact models, because of a defective headlight switch caused by a design problem, Toyota said on its Web site. All vehicles involved were produced between May 2000 and September 2002, the company said.

The recall exceeded the previous record in 1996, when Japan's second-largest automaker, Nissan Motor Co., recalled 1.04 million cars in Japan. (AP)

Foreign Products (cars) come from Foreign Companies which lead to ""Foreign"" Profits. When will we learn...

In their favor, they do their recalls voluntarily, and average far fewer recalls than Ford or GM do. For every one Toyota recall, multiple GM or Ford recalls can be found, so it's not a good point to try and make.

[bousozoku]

Bloody yanks...buy all the good stuff :mad:

Volvo and Jaguar have both improved since Ford bought them. Pity Saab and Lotus hadn't improved after GM bought them. It's going to be interesting when everything is done and there are 2 or 3 car companies.

[SharksFan22]

There are a lot of regional factors at work though. Here in California and in the DC-to-Boston corridor, European cars are very common and the bulk of their US sales are concentrated there. But go to Wyoming or Kansas and you'll hardly see any.

More than you know. :-) When I had my BMW X5 4.4i, I drove it from California to Denver and it performed GREAT at 100+ mph. Of course, when I stopped in some town in Wyoming with a population around 65 people for gas, the attendent asked me "What the he** kind of car is that?!?!". He'd never seen a BMW, let alone an X5. We get spoiled here in California.

[cheekyspanky]

Volvo and Jaguar have both improved since Ford bought them. Pity Saab and Lotus hadn't improved after GM bought them. It's going to be interesting when everything is done and there are 2 or 3 car companies.

Doesn't Proton own Lotus?

[decksnap]

More than you know. :-) When I had my BMW X5 4.4i, I drove it from California to Denver and it performed GREAT at 100+ mph. Of course, when I stopped in some town in Wyoming with a population around 65 people for gas, the attendent asked me "What the he** kind of car is that?!?!". He'd never seen a BMW, let alone an X5. We get spoiled here in California.


Hmmm... I guess I'll believe you, but you'd pretty much have to not own a TV to have never seen a BMW. As far as I can tell, while more American cars and of course pick-up trucks are sold in rural areas, It's not like these people are ignorant of what's out there.

Volkwagon. Every twenty-something with a limited budget and a yearning for yuppie-dom buys a Jetta. They have clearly made the transition from hippie in the 80s to yuppie in the 90s, although they no longer have the same reliability, and are by no means luxury cars, meaning it's the would-be yuppies, (yuppies without money) that are buying them.

It's too bad, because they don't look bad, but I wouldn't be caught dead driving one.

[bousozoku]

Doesn't Proton own Lotus?

Yes, they do. Imagine that the largest car company in the world sold lovely Lotus to a small Malaysian company because they just didn't understand how things worked and couldn't stop meddling until things stopped working.

Thank goodness Lotus is still alive...and TVR...and Jaguar...and many car makers in England. British Leyland was almost the end for some of the most memorable names in automotive history...Maxi (no, not that one), Princess (no, not that one either)...sorry, I don't know what got into me. :p

[Xtremehkr]

Sounds like an incredible gap in the market...why is no one jumping into it? do Americans have something against european cars?
Once you taste european you never wanna go-go back :D

I'd love to get my hands on a Volvo S40, just love EVERYTHING about this little sucker (especially the 5-cylinder 2.4 :cool: )

I like European cars as well. The styling is great, and the performance usually matches.

I would really like to see them compete over here as well.

The more car companies that continue to exist the better. There are a lack of really good small cars in the market that can compete with the Civic or RSX when it comes to performance, or the Corolla when it comes to simple utility.

[stubeeef]

That's great. Buick has been touting that it has the best GM quality. My mum's friend and her new husband recently bought the new Buick SUV for $30,000+. They took a trip and about 1000 miles from home, the engine failed in such a way that it was going to take 3 weeks to repair it. After much discussion about wanting a brand new vehicle instead of repaired, they were given a loaner vehicle and drove home. They received their SUV once again and, in less than a week, the engine died.

You are the lucky one.

my 2 cents...

My company got me a buick Rendevous and at 2000 miles it sounds like the chipmunks under the hood are getting tired. The mirrors are so big I can't see in front or to the left or right.

I want quality cars built by americans, if that means a Honda badge (my personal fav) than so be it. It is a global economy, GM owns a lot of Toyota (or it did, not sure now) and many of the so called Japanese car companies and American car companies are really integrated. GM has been sending jobs to Canada and Mexico to the point that I think of them as an import more than domestic.

I want competition and I want some kickass cafe increases. I used to drive (still own it, have a new company car now) an '89 honda CRX HF. 16 yrs old, 260,000 miles (put a rebuilt engine in at 200,000 miles) and it gets 46-50 mpg. Heck that is a 16 yr old car, old tech, and it kicks tail!!

I don't like the plastic or material quality of most GM/Ford cars, I have eyed the Ford 500 a few times, but I get wised up fast and don't go look. I want the competition, I want GM/Ford to succeed, but will not buy one in the near future for the reasons I have stated.

ps The Unions ought to give concessions based on mgmt rif, and concessions. bloat is out of control on both fronts.

[bousozoku]

my 2 cents...
...
I don't like the plastic or material quality of most GM/Ford cars, I have eyed the Ford 500 a few times, but I get wised up fast and don't go look. I want the competition, I want GM/Ford to succeed, but will not buy one in the near future for the reasons I have stated.

ps The Unions ought to give concessions based on mgmt rif, and concessions. bloat is out of control on both fronts.

I agree with u.

There should be concessions and I thought GM got rid of a lot of the middle management years ago that was causing red tape. Of course, paying someone $25 per hour + benefits to sweep the floor isn't conducive to making money on an economy car, is it? I'd bet that the administration makes bonuses whether the company does well or not.

When I've been to the annual auto shows here, I've been impressed with how nice the Ford and Chrysler interiors look and feel and how poor the GM interiors look and feel. It's one thing to see cheaper work in a $16,000 car but for $30,000, it had better look and feel good.

[Xtremehkr]

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/23/A01-358226.htm

Ford Motor Co. has worked hard to improve the quality of its cars and trucks, but the ghosts of past mistakes continue to haunt the automaker's bottom line.
As Ford reported a $284 million third-quarter net loss last week, it disclosed that its quality-related costs have increased by $500 million this year over the first nine months of 2004.
Those costs climbed $200 million in the third quarter alone, and the number would have been higher if the automaker had not received a $240 million settlement from Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire LLC related to the recall of 20 million defective tires in 2000 and 2001.
The rising quality costs stem largely from increased warranty expenses for 2004 models, including a trouble-plagued diesel engine for heavy-duty trucks.
"Our costs are up this year," Ford Chief Financial Officer Don Leclair said in a conference call Thursday. "They are up in large part because of the issues we had with the 2004 models."
Leclair said other factors contributed to the increase as well. Ford set aside too much money to cover warranty costs last year and added some of those funds back to its balance sheet in 2004 -- making for a tough comparison with 2005 numbers.
Vehicle quality became a major issue for Ford in 2000 when it was plagued by recalls and rising warranty costs. Ford President and Chief Operating Officer Jim Padilla has since led a companywide effort to improve vehicle quality. But the costly problems associated with 2004 model vehicles show the company's efforts have not been completely successful, one analyst said.
"Ford's been inching up -- not down" in terms of warranty costs, said Ronald Tadross, auto analyst for Banc of America Securities.
"This doesn't gel with the quality initiatives and progress Ford claims to have made," he added in a research report late last week.
Tadross said he suspects poor supplier relations are to blame for many of the problems. He said Ford has outsourced too many of its parts, giving the automaker less control over quality.
Last month, Ford announced a major restructuring of its supply base aimed at dramatically reducing the number of suppliers that support its products and developing more collaborative relationships with those it keeps.
Under the plan, Ford will select suppliers that have demonstrated an ability to meet cost, quality and other targets.
Like other automakers, Ford requires that suppliers share warranty expenses in some instances.
Padilla expressed concern about warranty and other quality-related costs earlier this year.
In May, he addressed the issue in an online question-and-answer session with employees, according to a transcript obtained at the time by The Detroit News.
"Globally, our quality performance and improvement has not been satisfactory," Padilla said. "This applies to virtually all brands in all geographic regions. Our competitors are now moving faster than Ford to improve their quality and we need to TURN THIS AROUND NOW."
Padilla also addressed how lagging quality was hurting Ford's bottom line.
"The cost of poor quality is the single largest waste in our business," he stated.
"We need to make major strides in reducing our warranty repairs per thousand, cost per repair and things gone wrong."
Ford said it has now turned the corner and put its quality issues in the rearview mirror.
Leclair said quality costs are "headed in the right direction" and promised improvement in the fourth quarter and beyond.
"Our quality has been improving on our vehicles in the field, and our financial statements tend to lag that a little bit," Leclair said. "The issues are behind us now, in terms of current production. They have been for some time. The fixes are in place, and we've taken steps to help our customers along the way as we work through this."
At the beginning of this year, Ford set an internal goal of improving its showing in a key benchmark for quality -- J.D. Power & Associates' annual initial quality study. But the 2005 report out last spring showed the company's performance was essentially flat.
Ford's quality costs have been affected by problems involving the popular 6.0-liter Powerstroke diesel engine, which was introduced in 2003. It powers big trucks such as the Ford F-250 and F-550.
"The biggest issues we've had for 2004 were the diesel engines," said Jerry Reynolds, whose Prestige Ford in Garland, Texas, is one of the nation's highest volume Ford dealers. "We were spending a lot of money trying to fix them."
Reynolds said it took Ford some time to find the flaw, which turned out to be a problem with fuel injectors -- a component produced by an outside supplier. However, he said Ford took good care of customers whose trucks were affected by the glitch, giving some full-size pickups as loaners and covering some monthly payments.
"I was proud of how they stepped up," Reynolds said, adding that he has had no problems with the newer models.
While Ford does not publicly break down its quality costs by vehicle, it confirmed that the Powerstroke engine problems were a factor in its cost performance. Ford spokeswoman Angie Kozleski said that these problems, and other issues that took a toll on third-quarter earnings, are in the past.
"Bottom line: We have improved," Kozleski said. "(And) we will not be satisfied until we are No. 1."

Let's hope they mean it.

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

I really like what Ford has done with Mustang and Fusion.

Now, I don't want to sound insensitive to union members, but very few consumers, myself included, consider how well auto workers are being treated when we buy a vehicle. We're only end users, and all we care about is recieving a nice car.

Nobody cares about how high your union health costs are.

Now I must leave, before half of Chicago tackles me to the ground...

[Abercrombieboy]

Here is the best corporate ad I have seen in some time come out of Ford. If he projects this image and has the goods to back it up down the line Ford will be successful in the future. I like Bill Ford, he is one of my favorite CEO's right behind Steve Jobs. It should be playing on tv soon...but here is a sneak peek behind Ford's new commitment to innovation...

http://us.tnpv.net/2005/FRD200510/Ford_Commercial_01.mpg

[Xtremehkr]

Here is the best corporate ad I have seen in some time come out of Ford. If he projects this image and has the goods to back it up down the line Ford will be successful in the future. I like Bill Ford, he is one of my favorite CEO's right behind Steve Jobs. It should be playing on tv soon...but here is a sneak peek behind Ford's new commitment to innovation...

http://us.tnpv.net/2005/FRD200510/Ford_Commercial_01.mpg

It doesn't really mean a thing until they achieve what they are selling. If the image is not relevant to the product, consumers eventually learn better. That is the problem.

Introducing a Hybrid Escape years after Toyota introduced their hybrids is not innovation, it's reacting to the lead a more focused companying is pioneering, and has succeeded with.

The Mustang is still old technology, that rehashes old styling. While I like the styling, it is hardly innovative.

Bill Ford has a long way to go before he proves himself to be more clever than the original Ford who was truly an innovative pioneer.

Has Bill Ford surpassed the invention of the assembly line yet? That is an example of what great innovation is. And an example of what Ford was, which lead it to become a market leader.

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

Introducing a Hybrid Escape years after Toyota introduced their hybrids is not innovation, it's reacting to the lead a more focused companying is pioneering, and has succeeded with.

Failed analogy! Honda came out with the Insight hybrid first in 2000. Toyota then followed suit with the Prius in 2001. Toyota "followed" Honda, the real "pioneer," and became successful off of the innovation of another company! Hondas Insight continued to languish. Of course, Ford can take marketshare of this recently created market (hybrids) just as easily as Toyota did.

The Mustang is still old technology, that rehashes old styling. While I like the styling, it is hardly innovative.

Their innovation was sticking a ridiculously torquey motor into a near- economy car. The horsepower/dollar rating in that car is still unbeaten.

Has Bill Ford surpassed the invention of the assembly line yet? That is an example of what great innovation is. And an example of what Ford was, which lead it to become a market leader.

Sorry, bud, but there has been no "innovation" since the internal combustion engine was first created. Every single manufacturer touted as a "leader in technological innovation" has rehashed the same, exact principle - transferring heat into mechanical energy by burning fuel. This new fangled hybrid still runs on the same principle.

Yes, Mercedes, your the viscosity of the dampening fluid inside your shock absorbers is electromagnetically variable according to road imperfections measured every thousandth of a second. Yes, BMW, your steering ratio is variable according to speed. But you're both still running on the same (darn) internal combustion principle promulgated a hundred years ago.

And Ford is no different. Folks, we're selling cars not based upon superior innovation as the principle motivator, but upon brand equity. Let's be realistic.

[Xtremehkr]

Failed analogy! Honda came out with the Insight hybrid first in 2000. Toyota then followed suit with the Prius in 2001. Toyota "followed" Honda, the real "pioneer," and became successful off of the innovation of another company! Hondas Insight continued to languish. Of course, Ford can take marketshare of this recently created market (hybrids) just as easily as Toyota did.

Toyota introduced the Prius to Japan in 1997. It does not excuse Ford for not introducing the Hybrid first in any market. Toyota made the Hybrid product the succeeded, Honda followed with the Civic and the Accord. Toyota leads the Hybrid market. Ford, with a total of one late introduction to the Hybrid market, continues to follow. Ford could take share when they offer a better product, true enough.


Their innovation was sticking a ridiculously torquey motor into a near- economy car. The horsepower/dollar rating in that car is still unbeaten.

Sticking to something is innovative? While it may be that, it does not mean that it is the best product. What are you referring to anyway?


Sorry, bud, but there has been no "innovation" since the internal combustion engine was first created. Every single manufacturer touted as a "leader in technological innovation" has rehashed the same, exact principle - transferring heat into mechanical energy by burning fuel. This new fangled hybrid still runs on the same principle.

Yes, Mercedes, your the viscosity of the dampening fluid inside your shock absorbers is electromagnetically variable according to road imperfections measured every thousandth of a second. Yes, BMW, your steering ratio is variable according to speed. But you're both still running on the same (darn) internal combustion principle promulgated a hundred years ago.

And Ford is no different. Folks, we're selling cars not based upon superior innovation as the principle motivator, but upon brand equity. Let's be realistic.

Not every innovation is tied to the development of the combustion engine. Ford developing the assembly line was a great innovation that virtually every car company has since adapted. Every car company in fact, which don't use an assembly these days?

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

1. The Mustang led the way in 67, not today. 2. Not every innovation is tied to the internal combustion engine. Right. But that engine is the lynchpin of automotive design, and it hasn't changed in a century. Every other change in technology is completely peripheral. I'm really not an expert in the development of car manufacturing methods historically, but I hope you'd agree that a change in manufacturing philosophy and process is not a change substantively.

The point is, I don't see hybrids as useful innovation. They're really just change for the sake of change. Observed hybrid mileage isn't significantly better than diesel mileage. Yet hybrids require the installation of a parallel system of propulsion in addition to the gas engine. Why add an electric motor and battery when diesels get substantially the same mileage?

[Xtremehkr]

The point is, I don't see hybrids as useful innovation. They're really just change for the sake of change. Observed hybrid mileage isn't significantly better than diesel mileage. Yet hybrids require the installation of a parallel system of propulsion in addition to the gas engine. Why add an electric motor and battery when diesels get substantially the same mileage?

Many people disagree. Stretching limited resources cannot be a bad idea. Time will tell.

[Xtremehkr]

BTW, Hybrids have been selling like hot cakes for years. Check the numbers, it is a growth industry.

[Skareb]

Ok, time for GM and Ford to start making a comeback
That would imply that they had some desire to develop fuel efficient/hybrid cars (including small displacement turbo diesels, see the new VW Golf @ 4.5L/100km, but with 200bhp (147kW))

If only they would have turned the 4500GT into a production model
http://www.importdriver.com.au/IDimages/super%20sports.jpg
This 1990 concept car was powered by a 40valve 4.5L V8.

Cheers
Jordan

[aloofman]

Here is the best corporate ad I have seen in some time come out of Ford. If he projects this image and has the goods to back it up down the line Ford will be successful in the future. I like Bill Ford, he is one of my favorite CEO's right behind Steve Jobs. It should be playing on tv soon...but here is a sneak peek behind Ford's new commitment to innovation...

http://us.tnpv.net/2005/FRD200510/Ford_Commercial_01.mpg

It boggles my mind that someone would have a "favorite CEO."

[Abercrombieboy]

It boggles my mind that someone would have a "favorite CEO."

Why not? He seems like a good honest person and cares a lot about his company. Of course, most CEO's don't have their name on the building either.

I think that is one thing that is cool about the Ford Motor Company. It is the last large company that is still family controlled. The Ford family still owns a 40% share of the company. Henry Ford was a poor farmers son and built the whole company from nothing. It is a story of the "American Dream."

[aloofman]

Why not? He seems like a good honest person and cares a lot about his company. Of course, most CEO's don't have their name on the building either.

I think that is one thing that is cool about the Ford Motor Company. It is the last large company that is still family controlled. The Ford family still owns a 40% share of the company. Henry Ford was a poor farmers son and built the whole company from nothing. It is a story of the "American Dream."

That's true. But Henry Ford was also a vehement union-buster and a raging anti-Semite, so much so that he reprinted myths of Jewish conspiracies as fact and openly admired Adolf Hitler. And after the initial Model T heyday, his stubbornness about not diversifying Ford's model lineup nearly ran the company into the ground.

I suppose there are some CEOs that are worth admiring, but the vast majority of them only get to that post through ruthless profiteering and greedy gamesmanship. Kind of like becoming president.

[Abercrombieboy]

why the Highlander Hybrid and Lexus RX 400h are not even getting close to their EPA mileage. In fact, they are not doing any better on fuel economy then their gasoline only models in real road tests. If this vehicle does not do better on fuel, what is the point of it?

http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/attackads24e_20051024.htm

Just wanted to make sure that you are all aware that Toyota is not a perfect corporation either.

[jonomo]

American cars are of such lower quality.. I think even those Korean car makers like Hyundai or Kia have better overall quality than American cars... my dad was an American car loyalist... Oldsmobile, Ford, GM... but US just doesn't make cars like they use too... my dad's old Olds ran for several years before it finally died on us... but the Taurus wagon my dad owned was a lemon straight from the lot... we eventaully had to pay someone to haul it away...

I'm not going to buy an American car until I see some dramatic improvements in quality, efficiency, and performance....

[Xtremehkr]

why the Highlander Hybrid and Lexus RX 400h are not even getting close to their EPA mileage. In fact, they are not doing any better on fuel economy then their gasoline only models in real road tests. If this vehicle does not do better on fuel, what is the point of it?

http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/attackads24e_20051024.htm

Just wanted to make sure that you are all aware that Toyota is not a perfect corporation either.

The government EPA rating are done at 20-25 miles per hour with the air conditioning off and no passengers.

It is rare for any vehicles to meet the EPA mileage estimates.

I get the feeling that the EPA testing procedure was determined by the auto industry, it is so ridiculously unrealistic.

[ehurtley]

why the Highlander Hybrid and Lexus RX 400h are not even getting close to their EPA mileage. In fact, they are not doing any better on fuel economy then their gasoline only models in real road tests. If this vehicle does not do better on fuel, what is the point of it?

http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/attackads24e_20051024.htm

Just wanted to make sure that you are all aware that Toyota is not a perfect corporation either.

As a Prius owner who actually *DOES* get the EPA estimates, even I understand that the EPA estimates are usually horribly off.

And as a corporation owner, I also understand that corporations are evil. (I've had to make decisions I don't like 'for the sake of the company.')

The government EPA rating are done at 20-25 miles per hour with the air conditioning off and no passengers.

It is rare for any vehicles to meet the EPA mileage estimates.

I get the feeling that the EPA testing procedure was determined by the auto industry, it is so ridiculously unrealistic.

Both EPA tests are done on a dynamometer (a stationary device that you put the drive wheels on, and it simulates road friction, sort of like an exercise bike.) Both assume no A/C, very slow ('sunday driver grandma') acceleration, straight and level roads, and 300 pounds in the car (includes driver.) The 'city' test assumes an average speed of 20 miles per hour for 11 miles, with a max speed of 56 MPH; and the 'highway' test assumes an average speed of 48 MPH for 10 miles, with a max of 60 MPH! Both with ambient temperatures between 68 and 86 degrees F. The highway test also includes no stops, and starts with a warm engine.

Finally, the actual results of the test are figured out not by measuring the actual amount of fuel used, but by measuring the CO2 coming out of the exhaust, and calculating how much gasoline would be required to produce that much CO2. Then, the final results is actually REDUCED by a certain percentage, because their tests actually produce totally overblown numbers. (I can't find the actual percentage, but I seem to recall that it's about 25%.)

See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/why_differ.shtml for more.

The standards are very old, and the percentage reduction was added in the '80s. New standards are supposedly in the works, to be more representative (higher top speeds, A/C use, faster acceleration...) but I can't find any confirmation. (And I have a feeling the auto industry DOESN'T like the current ones, because people are constantly complaining about not getting the stated numbers. They'd probably rather have them be a little low, that way everyone is happy.)

[Xtremehkr]

Both EPA tests are done on a dynamometer (a stationary device that you put the drive wheels on, and it simulates road friction, sort of like an exercise bike.) Both assume no A/C, very slow ('sunday driver grandma') acceleration, straight and level roads, and 300 pounds in the car (includes driver.) The 'city' test assumes an average speed of 20 miles per hour for 11 miles, with a max speed of 56 MPH; and the 'highway' test assumes an average speed of 48 MPH for 10 miles, with a max of 60 MPH! Both with ambient temperatures between 68 and 86 degrees F. The highway test also includes no stops, and starts with a warm engine.

Finally, the actual results of the test are figured out not by measuring the actual amount of fuel used, but by measuring the CO2 coming out of the exhaust, and calculating how much gasoline would be required to produce that much CO2. Then, the final results is actually REDUCED by a certain percentage, because their tests actually produce totally overblown numbers. (I can't find the actual percentage, but I seem to recall that it's about 25%.)

See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/why_differ.shtml for more.

The standards are very old, and the percentage reduction was added in the '80s. New standards are supposedly in the works, to be more representative (higher top speeds, A/C use, faster acceleration...) but I can't find any confirmation. (And I have a feeling the auto industry DOESN'T like the current ones, because people are constantly complaining about not getting the stated numbers. They'd probably rather have them be a little low, that way everyone is happy.)

That's a much better explanation.

I rented a Prius once, for a long trip and averaged 55, which is close enough for me.

[Skareb]

That's a much better explanation.

I rented a Prius once, for a long trip and averaged 55Miles/gallon
The day my Celica GT4 (Alltrac for those in the USA) gets close to those figures... well lets jsut say it'd be a really long down hill.

Jordan

American cars are of such lower quality

I'm not going to buy an American car until I see some dramatic improvements in quality, efficiency, and performance....

Japan and all of the EU are commited to meeting the Kyoto protocol. And in most cases exceeding it's goals. The USA and AUS have not committed (except for LA and there exhaust emmissions) and as such car makers are yet to invest heavily in fuel saving, or alternate fuel technologies.

Cheers
Jordan

[aloofman]

Japan and all of the EU are commited to meeting the Kyoto protocol. And in most cases exceeding it's goals. The USA and AUS have not committed (except for LA and there exhaust emmissions) and as such car makers are yet to invest heavily in fuel saving, or alternate fuel technologies.

Cheers
Jordan

California's auto emissions regulations -- which are the toughest in the world -- are not related to greenhouse gases. They address things like ozone, carbon monoxide, NOx, particulates, etc. The state's Air Resources Board has been instructed to study them and come up with measures to reduce them, but that's a few years away and they could be stopped by new laws or court order.

California is allowed to set emissions rules tougher than the federal government because it started regulating them before the federal government did. Other states have the option of adopting California's rules and several have, mostly New York, Massachusetts, and a few other northeastern states.

[jeffy.dee-lux]

it really makes no sense to say hybrid's aren't worth the trouble and diesels are the way to go. there's no reason you couldn't have a hybrid diesel.

Regardless of who put the first hybrid car on the road, its still a totally new technology that has tons of problems to solve. There's tons of room for innovation after the initial concept is developed. Ford is being innovative on the hybrid front because they're not just buying the liscense to toyota's technology like nissan is. They're adapting their own drive train to their own cars, figuring out where to put in the motor, what kind of bateries are best, where to put them, how to cool the electric components.
They're also really at the front of the pack on the hydrogen front. They've got 30 hydrogen fuel cell ford focus models heading out around the world for rear world testing in various countries. They also just started delivering the first of 100 hydrogen fueled IC engine shuttle vans.

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

The Germans don't agree with you. Mercedes stated at the Frankfurt auto show that they percieved a showdown between diesel and hybrids as two discrete technologies in the US marketplace. They're pissed that hybrids won, given the profligation of diesels everywhere else. The cost of adding in that electric motor, at least for now, is so high that it would take loads and loads of trips to the gas station to recoup those costs.

Why not just diesel?

[aloofman]

Why not just diesel?

I think we've gone round and round on these boards about diesel before. In a nutshell, in some ways diesel is cleaner, but in other ways its dirtier. US diesel fuel has a fairly high sulfur content that prevents it from burning cleaner. Both diesel engines and fuel will have to burn far cleaner in the next couple years, which will make diesel a real green alternative here. (Here being California, where emissions rules prevent most diesel cars from being sold.) On the other hand, some expect these new regs to raise the cost of diesel fuel and cars significantly, so I'm not sure there will be much of an advantage even with the better mileage.

But there's a lot of bad feeling toward diesel here left over from the days when diesel cars were noisy, smelly, and dirty. Those issues have been almost completely eliminated now, but most Americans still associate diesel with big trucks and not cars. On the one hand, Americans are behind the times on that issue, but there also aren't many diesel cars available here so it kind of fell off our radar. It will be an uphill climb to get Americans interested in diesel again.

[takao]

Regardless of who put the first hybrid car on the road, its still a totally new technology that has tons of problems to solve..

well that is simply not true.. i've got a magazine from 1968 (that's 37 years) about hybrid drive trains including prototypes from even GM .. it was eve na 2 seated small city car resembling the Smart... that aside the concept of hybrid cars is older than that ... a lot ...
in fact the first hybrid car was constructed in 1902.. by Ferdinand Porsche
even his proposed design for the WWII PzKw IV ("Tiger") drive train was actually a hybrid ... and he lost to much simpler diesel engine ;)

[Zigster]

When the new sulfur diesel fuel becomes mandatory in the US, there will be a fortune being made by people who buy diesels in states outside California, driving them 7500 miles, then selling them on ebay to Californians who can't buy diesels directly...

Ooops. Too late. It's on already!

[jeffy.dee-lux]

The Germans don't agree with you. Mercedes stated at the Frankfurt auto show that they percieved a showdown between diesel and hybrids as two discrete technologies in the US marketplace. They're pissed that hybrids won, given the profligation of diesels everywhere else. The cost of adding in that electric motor, at least for now, is so high that it would take loads and loads of trips to the gas station to recoup those costs.

Why not just diesel?

I know the germans don't agree with me, nobody understands, but its so simple. Everybody, including automakers, keeps comparing them as two competing technologies, while really, a hybrid drive train could be applied to any kind of engine. Why does everybody immediately assume that a hybrid can't be a diesel. There are plenty of examples already. The hybrid busses in Seatle and NY and many other cities by now i believe (hopefully montreal soon too, i just spoke to the guy heading that project...). Ford also put out a concept which was basically just the upcoming mercury version of the freestyle, and it was powered by a PZEV turbo-diesel engine coupled with an electric motor.

Sure a plain diesel engine would be cheaper. A plain gas engine would also be cheaper. We add the expensive electric components because it'll make the car more energy efficient. A hybrid diesel would be more expensive than a regular diesel, but it would also be more efficient. Pop a hybrid drive train into a Jetta TDI and i bet you'd be pulling like... 200mpg or something... :D

Seriously though, just cause diesels are sweet and have higher compression ratios and run more efficiently doesn't mean that the car doesn't throw all its kinetic energy away every time it stops. Diesels being noisy and all, i'd appreciate the automatic shut off at idle too.

[rwagoner]

I cut my cost of ownership WAY WAY down since my wife dumped her Acuras and instead bought a Chrysler. My Chevys never go fewer than 200,000 miles before I sell them. These arguments always piss me off ... domestics last fine with proper maintenance, yet most owners don't do it. Imports, on the other hand, get ALL wear parts replaced as part of the amazingly expensive services throughout the life of the car.

Hmm ... maintain one and it lasts longer. What a surprise.

I find that the less people know about cars (and mechanics in general) the more they like imports. Personally, I cannot stand the designs of Toyota and Honda. I have been stuck by a breakdown in my wife's Integra due to an extremely bad clutch design that wasn't made to withstand the heat generated by its own use. But gosh, if Honda does that, it's a fluke. If Chevy had done that, it would have been an indication of poor quality in the domestic industry. What a double standard!


Fact is, Chevy and Ford get better mileage for similar sized cars than Toyota and Honda, and Chevy trucks get WAY better mileage than Toyota and Nissan.

And don't forget what started this whole thread ... Toyota increased market share only after the domestics dramatically increased their share with the incentives. Year to year, it's a wash: Toyota is NOT leading GM except for ONE MONTH OF SALES.

Keep your Hondas and Toyotas. I'll keep my extra spending money that YOU spend on repairs desguised as "maintenance."

[displaced]

GM and Ford are now dropping hints that the U.S. government needs to start working toward a national healthcare system. No joke.

:eek: .... but.... but... that's SOCIALIST! Pinko, commie corporate scum!

Heheh :)



If only hydrogen were an energy source instead of a white elephant. Increasing gas mileage improves efficiency and reduces oil consumption and pollution now. The hydrogen thing is a show to make them look like a responsible company.

... and electric cars are simply a way to nearly get me killed at blind crossings... you can't hear the damn things coming!


And yet every Subaru owner I've ever met is in the shop all the time. So much for anecdotal evidence, right?

Heh. The only people who drive Subarus round here have metallic blue Imprezas, and think somehow that means they can drive just like they're playing Gran Turismo. Idiots. Still, it's always just a matter of time before they manage to wrap the thing round a tree and remove themselves from the gene pool.


This is true, but the Big Three were also very complacent because they had the American market pretty much to themselves (the smalll trickle of European cars notwithstanding). Until the late 1960s, no foreign carmaker was strong enough to penetrate the American market because the other automaking nations needed years to recover from World War II. The Big Three were in denial about their vulnerability for a very long time, and this is one of the causes of their lack of long-term planning and overly generous labor agreements over the years.


Ironically (from a UK'ers POV), GM and Ford at least seem to have spent more time buying global competitors than actually thinking about how to make their domestics better. At least the local GM brand (Vauxhall in the UK, Opel on the continent) seem to have dragged themselves out of the mundane. New Vectras actually look half decent and have something resembling Vauxhall's build quality of old.

Meanwhile, I have no idea what Ford are thinking about their interiors. Their cars look a little bland from the outside anyway (although the new Focus are relatively interesting to look at). Sure, on a Ford Fiesta or a Ford Ka, at the lower end of things, you might be willing to forgive the vast expanses of plain, black plastic on the dash, and "we really can't be arsed to put any effort in" trim, fit and finish.

But even the high-end Fords... new Focus's, Pumas, whatevers.... the interiors are just ... plain. Not even an 'elegant' plain... just plain boring.

Check out ford.co.uk's 'entire range' page (http://ford.co.uk:80/static/all_cars). Try to stifle any yawns! (By the way, I'm astonished such a huge company can have such a crappy website).

Meh.. rant over.

I don't even own a car :-)

I get a chauffeur-driven double-decker bus into work

[xli_ne]

It boggles my mind that someone would have a "favorite CEO."

hahah... ya, that is kinda funny

[kuyu]

You all are spot on regarding Toyota. They are made in the US. My mom works at the plant in Georgetown where they make the Camry, Avalon, and Sienna. Starting in the spring they are going to start making the Camry Hybrid.

They don't have any inventory at the plant. None. The parts come off a truck and are on a new car almost immediatly. Also, they build Camry's and Avalon's on the same line. No other company does this. That means 2 camry's, 1 avalon, 3 camry's, 2 avalon's, and so on. Every employee does something different to each one.

Also, they don't build a car unless it's already sold. There are three lines in Georgetown, so that means that they produce 3 brand new cars every 52 seconds, 18 hours a day!!!

And the reason Toyota's are so high in quality... There are two ways to get fired from Toyota. Show up late 3 times, you're fired. Let your quality slip, you're fired. Buy one, I promise you'll be happy with it. ;)