Toyota sales top GM, Ford.

[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.

 

[DakotaGuy]

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.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

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 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

 

[DakotaGuy]

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.
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]

Brand Recognition

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]

European cars?

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

 

[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

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

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

Oh, you noticed that. 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

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

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

 

[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

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. )

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.