Ford,GM,Chrysler

[Black&Tan]

...and if you're REALLY old, you buy a Cadillac!

 

[oingoboingo]

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.

I have to agree. The 'elderly Honda buyer' stereotype seems to be a UK thing. I watched an episode of Top Gear a while back where James May (humourously) took a new Honda model aimed at the youth market to a lawn bowling club, and asked the elderly players there what they thought of it. None of them liked it, so James declared Honda's youth-targeting design a success

Umm...but semi-seriously...in Australia the Honda brand seems to be a wide appeal one. The Jazz is ubiquitous...driven by young, middle aged and elderly. There's the Civic, which is your Corolla competitor and seems to be driven by just about everyone too. The Accord Euro (Acura TSX in the US, I think) continues to gather extremely positive reviews and seems to be driven by a slightly older, but by no means geriatric crowd. The truly geriatric crowd prefers the flabbier US-spec and Thai-built Accord (with the V6 engine). However, Honda acquits itself with the CR-V and Integra, which definitely have youth appeal (how many retirees are going to be getting abou in an Integra?)

Ummm...let's see...an old-man car here might be a Ford Fairlane? The ultimate 'whitegood on wheels' car in Australia might well be the Toyota Camry. Plenty of grandparents getting around in those too.

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

... 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...

Drill down, and you will note that the Civic and Focus reliability index scores are almost identical (but with a higher cost per repair for the Civic).
This is indeed quite a different story from the US experiences we are hearing about.

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

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.

Car manufacturing quality varies from factory to factory and from company to company and - yes - even from country to country. There are plenty of well-documented studies of the Japanese manufacturers' efforts (and successes!) in training their US, UK, Australian, and other workforces to build cars with fewer defects. The research indicates that it is the manufacturers' systems and training that make the difference, rather than the location.
So yes - it is entirely possible that Ford does not train its workforce as well in US or Mexico. Which means Ford's workforces in those countries would be poor quality. Equally - as you point out - other manufacturers (notably Toyota) manage to achieve high quality regardless of the factory domicile.

 

[oingoboingo]

Car manufacturing quality varies from factory to factory and from company to company and - yes - even from country to country. There are plenty of well-documented studies of the Japanese manufacturers' efforts (and successes!) in training their US, UK, Australian, and other workforces to build cars with fewer defects. The research indicates that it is the manufacturers' systems and training that make the difference, rather than the location.
So yes - it is entirely possible that Ford does not train its workforce as well in US or Mexico. Which means Ford's workforces in those countries would be poor quality. Equally - as you point out - other manufacturers (notably Toyota) manage to achieve high quality regardless of the factory domicile.

You should chat to some angry VW and BMW owners in Australia about the workmanship issues with their South African built 'European' cars

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

You should chat to some angry VW and BMW owners in Australia about the workmanship issues with their South African built 'European' cars

Yeah - I did, before I bought my last (German built) VW.

 

[iGav]

I don't understand this 'poor quality workforce' stuff. What country are you talking about?

Just to clarify... I'm not talking about the workforce of a country, so I'm not implying that the whole American, or Mexican or whatever countries workforce are poor, I'm suggesting that the workforce related to a particular factory or indeed company are.

For example, the model prior to the Focus was the Escort (in the UK) and that model was hampered by poor quality from it's original release back in 1990. however, the later models production was moved to another factory, and ex-Jaguar workforce began building the car. The later versions are highly regarded for being some of the best screwed together cars on the planet, even though originally the model was itself flawed.

I think kiwi-in-uk better explains it.

Old people are the ones buying big American cars, like Buick. The older the person, the bigger the Buick.

heheheheheheh.

Though I thought Buick had gone the way of Oldsmobile, Plymouth etc?

I watched an episode of Top Gear a while back where James May (humourously) took a new Honda model aimed at the youth market to a lawn bowling club, and asked the elderly players there what they thought of it. None of them liked it, so James declared Honda's youth-targeting design a succes

The blue rinse brigade were never going to like the Element though were they.

I quite like the Element though, Honda UK are stupid not to officially sell it here... it'd liven up, what with the exception of the Accord is a dull range of cars.

 

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

Yeah - I did, before I bought my last (German built) VW.

What have you heard about south african built VWs and BMWs?

 

[aloofman]

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.

Part of the reason that U.S. cars have softer rides is that our roads are in much worse condition. If the Germans nickel-and-dimed their road maintenance like our crappy governments do, even BMW would be loosening their suspensions. I know that sounds like blasphemy.

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.

I'm one of those who has mentioned that Americans dislike diesels, but there are two completely rational reasons that diesel cars don't sell well here: (1) for now, they can't pass exhaust emissions laws, and (2) unlike in many European countries, there are no tax incentives to choose a diesel over a gasoline car.

 

[Counterfit]

but increasingly also between unrelated companies.

Nissan Villager and Mercury Quest anyone?

 

[iGav]

Part of the reason that U.S. cars have softer rides is that our roads are in much worse condition. If the Germans nickel-and-dimed their road maintenance like our crappy governments do, even BMW would be loosening their suspensions. I know that sounds like blasphemy.

From what I've seen and driven on (though obviously there's a lot of roads in the U.S. heh) U.S. roads are generally better surfaced than our roads (possibly why the population is more apathetic to solid rear axles perhaps?) it's just a difference in preference that's all.

I'm one of those who has mentioned that Americans dislike diesels, but there are two completely rational reasons that diesel cars don't sell well here: (1) for now, they can't pass exhaust emissions laws, and (2) unlike in many European countries, there are no tax incentives to choose a diesel over a gasoline car.

Oh I agree there are rational reasons (though I don't think tax incentives are a rational reason for disliking diesels themselves) but from what you said earlier in the thread, there appears to be a totally irrational fear of diesels based on a half arsed approach 3 decades ago... a fear which is completely ignorant of the benefits of contemporary diesel engines which offer massively improved fuel economy that saves serious £$€ at the pumps over the duration of a year for example, saying nothing of the torque and performance increases over the equivalent petrol versions.

Regarding emissions tests, doing a little reading has thrown up some interesting points and issues regarding diesels in the U.S. but it begs the question... would the U.S. population take to diesels if they were widely available?

 

[danny_w]

I'm one of those who has mentioned that Americans dislike diesels, but there are two completely rational reasons that diesel cars don't sell well here: (1) for now, they can't pass exhaust emissions laws, and (2) unlike in many European countries, there are no tax incentives to choose a diesel over a gasoline car.

And don't forget (3): Diesel is more expensive than even the highest octane gasoline (spot check last night: Gasoline $2.19/$2.29/$2.39 Diesel $2.45).

 

[iGav]

And don't forget (3): Diesel is more expensive than even the highest octane gasoline (spot check last night: Gasoline $2.19/$2.29/$2.39 Diesel $2.45).

Don't forget though that diesels can often attain 15-20mpg more than their petrol equivalents. That and they offer massively increased torque and offer better in-gear flexibility over their equivalent petrol models too.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I think diesels will gain in popularity here, but it will take time. The new ultra-low sulfur diesel (which is the same stuff Europeans have had for years), which is should become the norm here in the next year or two will make existing Japanese and European diesels saleable here.

I know someone who owned one of those early 80's Oldsmobile diesels - P.O.S! It was completely horrible. So I can understand the stigma somewhat. I think that the foreign cars will lead the way with diesels in the US market, and the domestics will follow (as usual).

Re: Ford USA v.s. Ford Europe...For one thing, I'm curious to see what kinds of build-quality differences we'd see if we could park a Euro-spec Focus next to a U.S. spec Focus. Maybe there IS a big difference. In my personal experience the Focus is a fun to drive car, but I suspect that the Euro Focus must be better built - why else would there be so much raving across the pond yet silence here in the states?

The US is still enamored with big swoopy coupes, large sedans and <gag> large SUVs. And full-size pickups, which adopt new tech at a rate roughly equal to that of continental drift. Fuel is still cheap, big, flashy American sedans are relatively cheap - why get a frugal-looking little 5-door with a four-banger when you can buy a big V6 sedan? I don't subscribe to this opinion, but it is what I see and hear around me. How else can we explain the success of the Escalade and Hummer? Size and content over quality.

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

What have you heard about south african built VWs and BMWs?

Poorly put together. Akin to the legendary "Friday car". Bits falling off. Stuff not screwed together properly. Trim not fitted properly. Electrical problems. Sealing problems.

Not design faults, but assembly defects.

 

[Xtremehkr]

I tend to think of it as being the proof is in the sales. When Ford and GM have regained their credibility, it will show in their sales.

Just as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan made great products long before it represented their market share, Ford and GM will have to establish a consistent track record of making good products to regain the market share they are losing.

GM and Ford have, for more that two decades, survived on the reputation they established before making substandard products. GM, and Ford, are going to have to rebuild the consumer confidence they let slide away by coming back with superior products, hopefully indefinitely. Inferior products should never be supported by savvy consumers.

In the meantime, they are left playing catchup, can they do it?

Marketing to manipulate consumer perspective has been a failing policy. They need to deliver the good products in order to survive and retain/reacquire the positions they held for so long.

It comes down to sales, not spin. The devotion of the loyalists is not going to convince consumers in the long run.

As soon as they start producing the better product, I'm with GM and Ford again. My first loyalty is to getting to most I can out of my dollars. All manufacturers start out equally in that regard, I'll stick with a company as long as it can offer me that advantage.

 

[danny_w]

I would like to see some of the new diesel technology. All that I have to go on is the smelly, smokey, noisy Mercedes and VW's of the 70's and 80's (that turned off plenty of people), and the current Ford and Dodge pickup diesels (smelly & noisy, but at least no more black smoke). Most people I know would have to get a LOT of advantage from a diesel in order to put up with the smell & noise as we know it here. Are the diesels you have over there really that much better? I would really like to know.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Most people I know would have to get a LOT of advantage from a diesel in order to put up with the smell & noise as we know it here. Are the diesels you have over there really that much better? I would really like to know.

One of the problems is the fuel - here in the USA we are still using high-sulfur diesel like other third world countries . In Europe they've switched (a long time ago) to an ultra-low sulfur diesel that burns cleaner, producing less pollution, odor and smoke. Diesel's only current downside from an emissions standpoint is that it produces (I think) more CO than a gasoline engine.

 

[aloofman]

One of the problems is the fuel - here in the USA we are still using high-sulfur diesel like other third world countries . In Europe they've switched (a long time ago) to an ultra-low sulfur diesel that burns cleaner, producing less pollution, odor and smoke. Diesel's only current downside from an emissions standpoint is that it produces (I think) more CO than a gasoline engine.

Low-sulfur diesel fuel is supposedly arriving this year in the U.S.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Low-sulfur diesel fuel is supposedly arriving this year in the U.S.

I've actually heard that ultra-low sulfur diesel will totally replace the current diesel by year's end, though I'm not sure if things have changed since I read that. If it's true that means we could be seeing lots of new diesel-engined cars for the 2007.5-2008 model year.

 

[iGav]

One of the problems is the fuel - here in the USA we are still using high-sulfur diesel like other third world countries . In Europe they've switched (a long time ago) to an ultra-low sulfur diesel that burns cleaner, producing less pollution, odor and smoke. Diesel's only current downside from an emissions standpoint is that it produces (I think) more CO than a gasoline engine.

According to the article I linked to above...

diesels put out less of nearly everything except particulate matter (unburnt hydrocarbons) and NOx. Diesels naturally emit less carbon dioxide (which theorists blame for most upper-atmosphere and ozone layer damage) and carbon monoxide (a hazard to people), along with less of other hazardous toxins such as toluene and benzene.

And particle matter can be dealt with with further improvements to the fuel and better cats and filters.

Are the diesels you have over there really that much better? I would really like to know.

The torque thwack of a modern TDi really is quite an experience, the only downside is that they're relatively low revving, usually no higher than 4000-4500rpm... so they have similar charateristics as a low revving V8 for example e.g. a lot of low end torque.

But they're usually much quicker in the real world than their petrol equivalents because all that torque is available from around 1200-1500rpm, so they're deceptively swift and relaxed.

 

[danny_w]

But they're usually much quicker in the real world than their petrol equivalents because all that torque is available from around 1200-1500rpm, so they're deceptively swift and relaxed.

Interesting, because the only diesels I have been familiar with were dog slow. The early Mercedes and VW diesels were horrible for performance; the Mercedes turbo diesel was somewhat better, but still a sled compared to a gasoline engined car. Convincing people over here that a diesel can be fast is going to be a tough sell.

 

[takao]

I've actually heard that ultra-low sulfur diesel will totally replace the current diesel by year's end, though I'm not sure if things have changed since I read that. If it's true that means we could be seeing lots of new diesel-engined cars for the 2007.5-2008 model year.

the problem is that since 1.1.2006 (or was it 2005 even ?) diesel in the EU is already no sulfur _at all_ so even when the US switches to low sulfur they are already further behind so you will not get new models

and yeah there are enough powerful (turbo)diesels out there...with lots of torque... i don't want to know how much the VW V10 from the toureg has...

 

[aloofman]

the problem is that since 1.1.2006 (or was it 2005 even ?) diesel in the EU is already no sulfur _at all_ so even when the US switches to low sulfur they are already further behind so you will not get new models

According to this the new EU standard of 10ppm is called "sulfur-free." I'm going to guess that at some point it becomes cost-ineffective to get every single sulfur molecule out in the refining process.

Since the new US standard will soon be 15ppm, I would think that Euro-built diesel engines would meet the sulfur standards here. How many other modifications will be needed to meet NOx and particulate standards is another issue.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

According to the article I linked to above...

I stand corrected, and a good thing too, since the environmental issues are less than I thought.

But they're usually much quicker in the real world than their petrol equivalents because all that torque is available from around 1200-1500rpm, so they're deceptively swift and relaxed.

The Golf IV TDI I drove was rated at something like 90 bhp, and it had as much felt torque at 1200RPM as my Nissan KA24DE 2.4L 4cyl has at 3500RPM, although it ran out of revs before a "gas" engine would. Still, for city driving it feels very powerful and the extra mileage is just gravy.

the problem is that since 1.1.2006 (or was it 2005 even ?) diesel in the EU is already no sulfur _at all_ so even when the US switches to low sulfur they are already further behind so you will not get new models

I doubt that a few ppm will make a difference - all the eurodiesels up until now have run on what we're about to start using so I imagine they'll continue to run fine on the new stuff.