Concept cars are great for auto shows - but Ford hasn't done much bold. What, the Fusion? That's it? Not enough. Ford is quickly becoming a toxic brand associated with small town America and a bygone era. They really need to change their image - but it's too late. It's too engrained in the American psyche. I think they need to rebrand themselves as something else. Move away from the word Ford. Build a new identity to reach those people not interested in Ford anymore - it's too late.
I don't disagree. It will take awhile to turn things around. But recognizing that the so called reliability gap isn't what it was before is the first step in that process.
I'm thinking of buying an American car in the next couple of months.. Is there any proof that the reliability gap has closed? What American car would I match up with a Camry?
I just bought a car and did some research on consumereports.org I don't think the reliability gap has completely closed. If you're thinking about getting a Camry-type car - just get the Camry. Or maybe a Hyundai Sonata. The Camry's reliability ratings were through the roof. The Sonata was very good quality too but not quite at the Camry level - but it is a few grand cheaper. Both come with the 10 year/100k mile warranty. If an American car does come with a similar warranty and you want to buy American then it is probably a safe bet.
Consumer Report measures average number of problems per 100 new vehicles. US autos have gone from 105 in 1980 to 23 in 2000. That's a pretty large improvement and in line with foreign automakers. Part of the perception problem is that you can't say "japanese this" or "american that" because it all depends on the specific model and class that you are looking at. And keep in mind that CR has at times shown some bias: " For example, in a one page review, they said five times that the Volvo had unacceptably tight rear legroom. This despite the fact that in the objective measurements published on the next page, the Volvo had as much legroom as any other car in the comparo (there were four) and more than most...They also call the Acura's gas mileage "good," while they call the Volvo's "acceptable." That's interesting, since they get the exact same mileage and the Volvo gets it on regular gas rather than premium like the Acura. They also ding the Volvo a couple of times for sluggish acceleration, despite the fact that it's only two-tenths slower to 60 than the Acura (which was "good" and "peppy"). Two-tenths falls well within the range of measurement error." John Phillips wrote: "A few years ago, they had the [2 domestic nameplates and one foreign nameplate all of the same car] owner's satisfaction. The [domestic nameplate] had the least owner satisfaction of these three. Next was the [other domestic nameplate]. The best owner support was for the [foreign nameplate]. There was a fair spread between them. Funny thing: all of these are built at the same American plant, only varying, primarily, in "hood ornaments." http://www.allpar.com/cr.html "In its newly released 2006 Annual Car Reliability Survey, Consumer Reports discovered that the Fusion and Milan actually scored higher in predicted reliability than the Honda Accord V6 and Toyota Camry V6. The Zephyr also did will in the upscale cars category, scoring slightly behind the Lexus ES350. Other domestic models did well too, including the Buick Lucerne and Cadillac DTS, both of which were above average in predicted reliability." http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/10/domestic-models-gain-major-ground-in-consumer-reports/ Mid-size Buicks have the best initial quality and the best long-term (3 years measured by Consumer Reports) dependability of any mid-size sedans in the world. And that includes Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. Not to mention Mercedes, which is not stellar. It is relative. Some American cars are better than some Japanese, some Japanese are better than some American. Some excerpts from an interesting article from Wizkid83 in an thread from last year: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business.../printstory.jsp "It is unfair for us to complain about American jobs in the automotive industry being outsourced to other countries when Japanese, German and Korean automakers are outsourcing their formerly home-done jobs to the United States. There are now 23 foreign-owned car and parts plants operating in North America, and more are coming." Of course, GM posted a $1.1 billion loss in the first quarter. So something else is obviously eating at their profits. Daimler lost about the same amount of money during that period, but I have yet to see anyone claiming that Mercedes could possibly go out of business. No, in the American press, possible Armageddon scenarios are published daily only because Kirk Kerkorian offered to buy 28 million shares of GM’s outstanding stock. But, when Daimler CDO Bodo Uebber admitted a week ago Saturday that outside and possibly unfriendly hedge fund operators have managed to acquire up to 15% of Daimler’s outstanding shares, not a word was said, no punditry quoted. Now, let’s talk reality. Many of the Japanese importers of automobiles have sold their cars for years without ever once posting a profit on their North American operations. In Mitsubishi’s case, for the period of 1982 to 1997, the company accumulated losses from North American operations totaling $1.7 billion for having had the pleasure of selling their automobiles to you and your neighbors. Acura went over a decade with once turning a net profit here. In fairness, neither of these two firms had but few legacy costs — such as employment benefits — factored into their bottom line. And certainly both companies had huge automotive hits during this period; but selling in North America didn’t make them any money. Also hurting automakers are a couple of other factors, which have apparently escaped those discussing Detroit’s current financial problems. One is the loss of America’s blue-collar middle class; the other is the wage structure of entry-level jobs against the price of new cars today. Over the last 25 years, the United Autoworkers have lost right at one million well-paid members. It’s no stretch of the imagination to believe that most of those members purchased GM, Ford or Chrysler products, which today likely loses those companies at least 200,000 – 250,000 sales a year. Throw in the loss of jobs in the American parts industry, and in steel or glass manufacturing, and one could easily claim that Detroit, while saving billions in labor costs, has also intentionally eliminated the careers of well over a million former loyal customers. Finally, for those of us in the Baby Boom generation, let’s take a walk back to 1969, when we were listening to KFJZ’s Larry Shannon spinning the Youngbloods’ “Get Together,” while our younger siblings were driving us nuts with “Sugar, Sugar” by the Archies. We worked at local businesses after school at minimum-wage jobs that earned us $3,380 that year. If that sounds horrible today, one should also remember that a brand-new 1969 Ford Mustang convertible listed for just $2,832. Yes, with no overtime whatsoever, if you worked at a minimum-wage job for 12 months in 1969, you could pay cash for a brand-new car — a Mustang convertible, no less. Today, working the same 40-hour week at minimum wage, one would earn $10,712 — or about $13,853 short of what you’d need to cruise Camp Bowie in your new ragtop Mustang. (As a point of reference, in 1969 a minimum-wage job amounted to 34.02% of the average family’s income; today a minimum-wage job is just 20.6%.) This alone explains the success of low-cost imports such as Hyundai and Kia. At the same time, no one has considered the fact that as minimum-wage workers in the sixties, our purchasing power was infinitely better than that of those bottom wage earners today, which was the biggest incentive for us to become another generation of car lovers. In the end, we still purchase more cars and trucks today, per family, than we have at any time in American history, save the period of 1973 – 1977."
Also, one other thing to note about Japanese v. American cars is that a lot of companies co-operate on car design now and actually share chasis designs. For example, my mazda3 has the same chasis as some Ford car (Ford Fusion?) It's really helped out both countries' car companies.
Still not gonna buy an American car till that perception has changed in the broad sense. For me, if I buy a car, I want maxium value when I sell. Like it or not the perception hurts the resale values. It will take a while to overcome that. In the mean time, just like you wont buy stocks of a company that had decent earnings but for whatever reason is not reflected in the stock price, you wont buy American till they prove that they can hold their value.
Poor example. Mazda is a division of Ford, so there is no "co-operation". Better example: Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe.
The problem with that is, of course, that you fulfill your own prophecy. You don't buy American because of perception and as a result the perception stays intact. It's a vicious circle. Also, you seem to be focused in only on one factor - resale value. Yet other factors affect the economic evaluation - for instance generally you pay higher insurance for a foreign car.
Seriously, why is this discussion - as far as it is not addressing the economic question asked by HayesStreet, but the quality of cars - only between American and Japanese cars? Are cars made in Germany so much out of the picture for Americans?
German cars now have the same perception of unreliability as American cars, with a much higher price tag.
German cars are somewhere in the middle. They are thought to be somewhat unreliable, but they are of much higher craftsmanship than American cars. People here definitely see BMW and VW as much better brands than Ford and GM. But I guess it's just easier to compare American cars to the highly reliable Japanese brands.
They also have the perception of being much better cars in terms of design and quality, even if they have some reliability problems.
They are only for the rich, not for noraml average pay joes, very few people bother looking at that type of cars when they are shopping for a car.
Except for Volkswagen, German companies don't sell their entry-level cars in the US. We don't get the BMW 1-series, Audi A3, and M-B's equivalent.
Pretty much same as BMW. Very nice cars. But not always reliable. Both BMW and Mercedes are very much "status" cars as well. For rich people, like pric1 said, or for people who want to look rich.
Well, I guess we each can have our opinion. I don't think they are perceived as better quality at all. When the perception is, IMO, that you have to be rich to buy one so you can pay for the servicing (not just the purchase) I don't think that is a testament to quality.
