Ford,GM,Chrysler

[iGav]

I'll blame the cheesy materials and awful designs.

The Focus redefined the sector, that's why Honda ripped off the new edge styling. heh. Though sadly... they didn't rip off what's underneath, and what makes the Focus a million times better drivers car.

 

[decksnap]

mmm. OK. I really believe the one you have over there is completely diffferent than the one over here. The American Focus is the bottom of the barrel car. The civic here is ten times better.

 

[blitzkrieg79]

I have to respectfully disagree. I recently was car shopping for about 3 months for a car around 20k. I live in Youngstown so I wanted to support our local labor force and buy a Cobalt. I tested the Cobalt, Focus, Mazda 3, Ion, Corolla, Vibe, G6, Civic, Eclipse, Scion TC, Kia Rio and Spectra. I did ALLOT of research!

Anyway, to get to my point, the Civic beat them all hands down. Personally I love the looks, but looks are objective. What I take issue with is your comment about their engineering. Honda has some of the best engineered cars on the road, and hands down the best engineered for the price. I have a couple friends with Civics from the late 80s - early 90s that have over 150K miles that still run perfectly. If Honda fails at engineering, and the Civic is not the best in that market segment, then why would it win both the Motor Trend's car of the year AND win best car at the Detriot Auto Show? Mind you Motor Trend had over 25 competitors for that title, including Fords, and the Civic sweeped the votes.

Thats why I bought one and love it like crazy. It is a solid quality car and is sporty compared to the others I mentioned above. I love it and consider it the best value, quality, preformance and enjoyment of any small econ car.

Just my $.02

Hmmmm, of the mentioned cars all but the Eclipse are small sedans (you can't really compare Eclipse with the Civic because Eclipse's engine has about twice the displacement of the Civic, it's just a different category of a car, performance wise it's not even close). Anyway, Civic did win Motor Trend Car Of The Year but when I got inside one of these in the dealership the car was just too small for me inside. Mazda 3 is a little better choice in my opinion and Civic looks like a shrinked USA Accord.

Anyway, everyone has different tastes. Talking about awards, Mitsubishi also won a couple in Japan most recently the new 2006 Outlander (2007 Outlander in USA) and so what... Lancer Evo won it in 2004 and so what... My uncle has Mitsubishi Mighty Max (old ass pickup truck with over 175K miles on it) and it still drives good... My sister has a Galant 99 (which was built in Normal, IL), over 100K and never had any problems...

Also, why the hell people buy SUVs? Wasn't the original idea of an SUV to be an off-road vehicle first? If I want to carry a lot of baggage or have a large family I may as well buy a van and SUVs safety is also deceptive as statistics show that people have more accidents in them...

And one last thing, the Montero thing, I guess I am just a true rally/offroad fanatic, most people buy cars for the looks I guess. I buy them for the excitement of motor sports. What is a good design? The new Infiniti M35, the inside layout dashboard, it's probably one of the coolest looking dashboards I have ever seen in a car (thing has like 50 buttons all over), but so what, it lacks two major things, simplicity and functionality. And simplicity and functionality is getting lost in the automotive world. Infiniti and their line of high-end SUVs the QX-56 is one of the most unreliable vehicles in USA, all because of the electronic gadetry they put inside...

 

[aloofman]

mmm. OK. I really believe the one you have over there is completely diffferent than the one over here. The American Focus is the bottom of the barrel car. The civic here is ten times better.

I agree, although I wouldn't say ten times better.

Styling I could see. Honda has always been a conservative exterior designer, after all. But I can't think of a single review by a nominally objective observer here in the U.S. that thought the Focus had better build quality or reliability than a Civic. So I can only assume that we're getting a different Civic and Focus than Europe does.

Either that or iGav is completely crazy and/or works for Ford.

 

[takao]

I agree, although I wouldn't say ten times better.

Styling I could see. Honda has always been a conservative exterior designer, after all. But I can't think of a single review by a nominally objective observer here in the U.S. that thought the Focus had better build quality or reliability than a Civic. So I can only assume that we're getting a different Civic and Focus than Europe does.

german ADAC breakdown statistic from 2004: (breakdown rates per 1000 cars afaik)
Lower Mid Class:
Pos. Year: 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2. Ford Focus 13.8 13.5 11.1 8.1 4.9 0.7
7. Honda Civic 16.0 13.0 8.5 10.5 9.6 7.7

winner in this class was the Mercedes A class.. if anyone wants the (german) link:
http://www.autokiste.de/start.htm?site=/psg/index/show.htm?month=0504&id=4207

edit: looks like buying any nissan is a bad idea

 

[Black&Tan]

Also, why the hell people buy SUVs? Wasn't the original idea of an SUV to be an off-road vehicle first? If I want to carry a lot of baggage or have a large family I may as well buy a van and SUVs safety is also deceptive as statistics show that people have more accidents in them...

I've been lurking in this thread and have to pipe up. I've been an SUV hater for so long, the headlights are high up and they just seem to dominate the roads. I've long been a Mustang driver, and you tend to ride low. Add to that the rear wheel drive and you have an interesting combination in snow and ice. When we bought our house, it was a true fixer-upper. No way was I going to put drywall and plywood on top of the Mustang and it certainly wouldn't fit in the back! I didn't want a pick-up truck, so my only other option was an SUV. I bought a cheap used Jeep Cherokee to see if it would suit my needs, to test the water so to speak. I was able to carry building materials with ease, and able to handle New England winters with ease. After an accident, I didn't hesitate to buy another used Cherokee, this time with a standard transmission (I gotta have some fun!).

Now that we've got a 2 year old, he loves riding in the Jeep, he's able to see everything going on around him. Its easy to get him in an out of his car seat (try that with an 89 Mustang GT!), and we're able to lug his junk with ease on trips to Maine. Yes, I wish the mileage was better, and I could carry more junk, but for sheer versatility, I love it.

And yes, he loves riding in daddy's "Vroom vroom" too! That's our nice weather car (no snow, ice, salt)

And in regards to the lack of excitement in Detroit lately, I LOVE the Ford GT supercar, and I lust for the new Shelby GT500 Cobra.

 

[~Shard~]

And in regards to the lack of excitement in Detroit lately, I LOVE the Ford GT supercar, and I lust for the new Shelby GT500 Cobra.

Yeah, the new Cobra looks pretty slick. My manager has a factory replica (as it came off the line back then, i.e. not a kit car ) 1966 Shelby Cobra and riding in that with her is a blast - she even sourced an original 1966 428 from a Cobra Interceptor for it (the classic 427s are hard to come by these days... )

 

[danny_w]

I know many consider them outdated, but to me it seems like a minivan is a good alternative for carrying a lot of cargo (like the Jeep Cherokee above) but with a much better ride and gas mileage, and it also drives much more like a car. I don't own a minivan, but I recently rented a Chrysler T&C to take my son to college 2000 miles away, and it proved very versatile and got well over 20MPG on the trip. The 2nd and 3rd row seats fold into the floor to make a flat floor, which was very cool. Somebody said that Chrysler invented the minivan but has let it go stagnant; AFAIK they are the only manufacturer with the 2nd/3rd row seats in the floor feature. If I had to carry cargo, I would choose this over an SUV any day of the week.

 

[Black&Tan]

I know many consider them outdated, but to me it seems like a minivan is a good alternative for carrying a lot of cargo (like the Jeep Cherokee above) but with a much better ride and gas mileage, and it also drives much more like a car.

I suppose my main question would be capacity, would it be able to carry 4x8 sheets of plywood and drywall? The additional mileage would be nice, but the last time I checked, the minivans were rather pricy, especially if you want the safety rated ones. The early models had abysmal crash tests.

 

[blitzkrieg79]

I suppose my main question would be capacity, would it be able to carry 4x8 sheets of plywood and drywall? The additional mileage would be nice, but the last time I checked, the minivans were rather pricy, especially if you want the safety rated ones. The early models had abysmal crash tests.

Minivans are as capable in cargo space as SUVs, I know different people have different needs but when I want to carry plywood from Home Depot I just rent a pick-up truck at UHAUL for $24 bucks and I am set.

SUVs make sense in some remote areas where its snowy or there are no pavement roads. But then again most modern SUVs are actually mediocre off-road vehicles, thats why I mentioned Montero in my posts before because everyone is in love with big engines but a good off-road vehicle is more than just a big engine, its all about suspension, rigid body structure, and handling (overall enginnering of the car).

 

[danny_w]

I don't know for a fact since I didn't measure it, but I would think from my short time with it that it would carry 4x8 sheets at elast as well as a Jeep. The load floor is totally flat, is plenty long, and I think is wide enough between the wheel wells. And the prices I have seen, although high (about $27k for a T&C LX), are significantly below a comparable SUV (those 3 little letters add a LOT to the price!).

 

[iGav]

mmm. OK. I really believe the one you have over there is completely diffferent than the one over here.

It is now... we're on the new 2nd generation Focus though the first one was superb as well, and was itself THE class leader, but it also redefined the whole sector, focusing (ahem) on design, engineering and driving dynamics. It's impact really cannot be underestimated. Ford has a habit of doing this though... we should consider the Sierra of '82 for example... a car that could be considered the most influential of the last 3 decades.

As far as I'm aware the problems that the U.S. version of the Focus encountered were down to poor build quality, courtesy of a poor workforce, not the actual design of the car itself, though having never driven a U.S. spec one, I don't know what modifications have been done to the car for the U.S. market, though I suspect the suspension was f**k'd about with for a start, to satisfy the U.S. consumers penchant for super-soft suspension. heh.

Either that or iGav is completely crazy and/or works for Ford.

I am crazy, that's without a doubt. Though I don't work for Ford. heh.

I just had to raise issue with Don't Hurt Me's original point that Honda's etc are seemingly vastly superior in seemingly ever area, and that Ford etc cannot produce cars that are competitive with them. When I feel this is incorrect.

It's not that Ford can't, they can, they do... Ford make cars that are just as economical, and just as reliable as anything Honda or Toyota can produce, and are far more dynamic and rewarding to drive, and in this respect the new Civic doesn't even deserve to be uttered in the same sentence as the new Focus.

We have the Ford models that people like Don't Hurt Me obviously want to buy, e.g. ones that are economical, well built, reliable, dynamic and innovative, but the blame cannot be laid solely at the feet of Ford, when the seemingly prevalent attitude amongst the U.S. motor buying public is that 'bigger is better'... and that other issues need consideration as to why Ford's U.S. products aren't as competitive as they should be.

 

[decksnap]

As far as I'm aware the problems that the U.S. version of the Focus encountered were down to poor build quality, courtesy of a poor workforce,

The mexican workforce?

I find it hard to believe that that is the problem. There's no mistaking, looking at an American Focus, that the materials are really awful.

Again, two comlpetely different cars I'm guessing.

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

Again, two comlpetely different cars I'm guessing.

Nope - same car (do a bit of Googling) - different execution.

 

[aloofman]

Nope - same car (do a bit of Googling) - different execution.

In that case, chalk this up to a drastic difference in opinion. In late 2001 I test-drove both a Focus and a Civic on the same day. While the Civic wasn't perfect, I thought the Focus came up short in several ways. The engine sounded buzzy and wheezy even when it wasn't working that hard. The interior wasn't as ergonomic. The shifter was clunky and needed deliberate pushing instead of the little flicks that the Civic asked for.

The Focus was more spacious, especially the headroom, and I give credit to Ford for spearheading the movement of compact cars that are taller. (I'm 6'2", so maybe I'm biased that way.) And the Focus was a gigantic improvement over the old Escort, so much so that I didn't dismiss the Focus out of hand. (I ended up not buying either car.)

Both cars have been redesigned since then, but my point is that Ford has little reputation in the U.S. for building "driver's cars" and Honda does. In the U.S. the tuners who like to mod their compact cars almost always pick Hondas and Toyotas. I suspect that the performance differences are much smaller than most observers can admit and that both iGav and I are at least partly swayed by the carmakers' differing reputations.

 

[Counterfit]

though I suspect the suspension was f**k'd about with for a start, to satisfy the U.S. consumers penchant for super-soft suspension. heh.

I can say for certain that the suspension of a '04 Focus hatch is much stiffer (and harsher) than that of an '04 Impreza Wagon (not the WRX). I rode in the back of the Focus when my brother test drove it, and he ended up buying the Impreza, which handles better than any car I've ever driven (which isn't saying much )

I suppose my main question would be capacity, would it be able to carry 4x8 sheets of plywood and drywall? The additional mileage would be nice, but the last time I checked, the minivans were rather pricy, especially if you want the safety rated ones. The early models had abysmal crash tests.

Well, the first minivans from Chrysler were basically rebodied K-cars...
As for capacity, on several occasions, I put a complete set of 4 timpani in the back of our (well, not ours anymore) '93 Caravan. How many SUVs could you do that in? And keep in mind, this wasn't the long-wheelbase Grand Caravan. And for reliability, if you kept up with maintenance, they would have a decent lifespan. The weak link of that generation was the transmission, which failed for some people at 30k. Ours went at 120k in April of 2000. It was replaced and went a further 4 years and 60k-ish miles before we replaced it.

 

[oingoboingo]

I agree, although I wouldn't say ten times better.

Styling I could see. Honda has always been a conservative exterior designer, after all. But I can't think of a single review by a nominally objective observer here in the U.S. that thought the Focus had better build quality or reliability than a Civic. So I can only assume that we're getting a different Civic and Focus than Europe does.

Either that or iGav is completely crazy and/or works for Ford.

This has been discussed many, many times before on many, many different discussion boards. The European (and Australian, for that matter) Focus is a different beast to the US Focus. The Ford Europe version has been widely praised as one of the best cars in its class, and the new Focus (based on a shared platform with the Mazda3, also well regarded in its class) is receiving similar accolades.

So iGav isn't crazy, and probably doesn't work for Ford. His comments are right in line with what people have been saying about the Euro Focus for years. US Focus != Euro Focus.

 

[Counterfit]

This has been discussed many, many times before on many, many different discussion boards. The European (and Australian, for that matter) Focus is a different beast to the US Focus. The Ford Europe version has been widely praised as one of the best cars in its class, and the new Focus (based on a shared platform with the Mazda3, also well regarded in its class) is receiving similar accolades.

So iGav isn't crazy, and probably doesn't work for Ford. His comments are right in line with what people have been saying about the Euro Focus for years. US Focus != Euro Focus.

Well, the current models of the Mazda 3, Focus, and S40 all share the same platform. So do the Five Hundred/S60/V70/S80/XC90

 

[oingoboingo]

Well, the current models of the Mazda 3, Focus, and S40 all share the same platform. So do the Five Hundred/S60/V70/S80/XC90

Yes. Yes they do. Platform, engine and component sharing is very widespread not only between marques of the same parent company (like Mazda, Ford and Volvo), but increasingly also between unrelated companies.

 

[rdowns]

I just had to raise issue with Don't Hurt Me's original point that Honda's etc are seemingly vastly superior in seemingly ever area, and that Ford etc cannot produce cars that are competitive with them. When I feel this is incorrect.

It's not that Ford can't, they can, they do... Ford make cars that are just as economical, and just as reliable as anything Honda or Toyota can produce, and are far more dynamic and rewarding to drive, and in this respect the new Civic doesn't even deserve to be uttered in the same sentence as the new Focus.

As VP at an automobile service contract company, I disagree. We have about 650,000 active contracts (we are the 5h largest company in the industry) and use repair date from those as well as actuarial data from 2 outside forms to rate vehicles. Fords suck, plain and simple. Highest claim rate and highest average claim of any American manufacturer except GM SUVs and pickups.

Compared to Honda, Fords make 2.3 more claims per contract than Honda's do and the average claim is about $212 more than a Honda claim. Honda and other Japanese cars claims are mostly electronic items while Fords add many powertrain claims to the mix, which are more expensive.

We rate vehicles on a scale of 0-9 to set rates. Hondas range from 0 to 2 for their line with the Pilot a 3. Fords range from 3-5 with a few models rating a 2 (Ranger, Escape). We reserve a certain amount of money that we expect to pay out in claims. For Honda, we pay out $0.90 of every dollar we reserve in claims. In other words, we make some more money on the back end. For Fords, we pay out $1.12 for every dollar we reserve for claims. We have had to raise Ford (and GM) rates considerably in the past 3 years while lowering Honda rates in 2 of the past 3 years. We just can't seem to stay ahead of the curve with Ford.

There are some good Ford models made (Mustang, Ranger and Escape) but the Focus is hardly one of them.

 

[oingoboingo]

RDowns, do you have access to any kind of data for any international (ie: non-US) markets, or only for the contracts your company deals with?

 

[rdowns]

RDowns, do you have access to any kind of data for any international (ie: non-US) markets, or only for the contracts your company deals with?

I only have access to US data as we only operate there.

We do have an affiliated company in the UK that publishes a reliability index. To my knowledge, it's based on a small sample. For what it's worth...

http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/

 

[iGav]

I find it hard to believe that that is the problem.

It IS the problem, and a well documented one at that. The Euro models are not affected by the same issues as the U.S. versions, and the cars are essentially the same.

I suspect that the performance differences are much smaller than most observers admit.

I think the differences will be greatly exaggerated now that the new Civic has reverted to a torsion beam. And there is a noticable difference between a torsion beam and IRS layouts, especially on challenging, undulating roads.

I can say for certain that the suspension of a '04 Focus hatch is much stiffer (and harsher)

That's interesting... though I doubt they're as stiffly sprung and set up as Euro models (which incidentally is what makes it such an insanely great drivers car).

Though I'd still go with that the U.S. models dynamics having been sacrificed in trying to attain a degree of comfort to suit the tastes of the average american joe.

There are some good Ford models made (Mustang, Ranger and Escape) but the Focus is hardly one of them.

All of the Ford models here are at the very least, very good, with a couple of models being class leaders... the Focus being one of them. The Mondeo the other.

But that's here nor there... the original point of this thread was that why can't Ford make models that are competitive with their Japanese counterparts, I merely raised the point that they do, and in many cases exceed those of their Japanese counterparts in some areas.

The fact that their U.S. models do not, suggest that there are other issues of concern, one of which is poor quality workmanship courtesy of a poor workforce, the second is not releasing the cars that they have in their other markets that by the sounds of it tick all the right boxes, the reason for this though remains clouded... though I suspect a lot of it is down to the attitude of the average american buyer, we've seen comments regarding diesels in this thread and the american publics antiquated and irrational fear of them hinting that the U.S. public is at least resonsible for Ford U.S.'s decision to field the range of cars that it does in that market.

We do have an affiliated company in the UK that publishes a reliability index. To my knowledge, it's based on a small sample. For what it's worth...

So Honda is 3rd and Ford come in at 5th, I'd say that's pretty close myself and certainly not a night and day difference, even more impressive considering Ford sold a few hundred thousand more cars, thus raising the likely hood of reliability issues. heh.

That... and Honda's aren't driven as hard because they're bought by the blue rinse brigade. heehee.

 

[decksnap]

I don't understand this 'poor quality workforce' stuff. What country are you talking about? Most Focuses up until this year were made in Mexico, a place where a lot of other cars are made without the same issues. If you're talking about the US, well that doesn't make sense either because companies like Toyota build their cars here also.

 

[decksnap]

BTW, in the US, old people don't buy hondas, young people do. Old people are the ones buying big American cars, like Buick. The older the person, the bigger the Buick.