The perception that GM and Ford and Chrysler build crappy cars is just another obstacle to recovery. And of course it's a perception that, even if out of date, is predicated upon the bitter memories of the crap cars they really did build. Turns out it takes a while for that perception to fade. One more reason why you shouldn't crap on your own brand. So the current crisis, driven by poor management and stupid unions, is also built upon the junk they spent years selling to gullible consumers taken in by the faux-patriotism of "Buying American".
That's one thing the "Car Czar" can't fix: the perception that the company apparently needs nearly unlimited access to government funds in order to prop up its failing operations is hardly going to restore America's faith that its automakers make good cars.
On the other hand, maybe people will buy them just to stop the tax drain. If they're going to take the money one way or another, you might as well get a car out of it.
It is something that could be fixed if someone with a reputable brand bought the companies and changed their names and appearance.
I don't know about the perception that the Big 3 build crappy cars as being out of step with reality.
If you look at non cheerleader review sites, like Consumer Reports, jalopnik.com, or thetruthaboutcars.com, they will tell you that many Big 3 vehicles are very much inferior to their German and/or Japanese manufactured competitors, but about on-par with the Koreans.
Reliability at Consumer Reports and truedelta.com also indicate that the quality of the Big 3 still leave something to be desired.
In actuality, the Big 3 cars (as opposed to SUVS or light trucks) are usually inferior to the competition (with some exceptions). And with the demand for the SUVs and light trucks going out the window, they have no leg to stand on.
This whole idea about a "perception gap" is about as real as the cold war "missile gap." The cars are still for the most part inferior.
It is something that could be fixed if someone with a reputable brand bought the companies and changed their names and appearance.
They tried that. It was called Daimler-Chrysler. It didn't work out so well as hoped, to put it mildly.
Jonathan Locker writes:
"And with the demand for the SUVs and light trucks going out the window, they have no leg to stand on."
Filled up my SUV just yesterday in PA. Paid $1.75 a gallon. Glad I recognized that $150-a-barrel oil was the result of a speculative bubble despite what all those brilliant economists and free marketers at the WSJ were telling us. My SUV is looking like a bargain after all the factory rebates and incentives, and I love the jealous look that the once oh-so-smug Prius owners give me at the pump.
Out: hybrids, Whole Foods, and the Pottery Barn
In: SUVs, MacDonald's, and Wal-Mart
Recessions are beautiful yuppie killers.
Would even consumers rushing out to buy american cars work? I thought they lost money on every car they sold. Of course if there was a massive swelling of demand, the price would go up, but I am excluding that effect.
"That's one thing the "Car Czar" can't fix"
Let's hope the "car czar" can fix more things than he/she breaks. My guess the CC will be as useful as a gargoyle on the side of a building.
I shudder at the thought of directives being delivered to Detroit from the Ministry of Automobiles.
Just bought a minivan. Would have happily bought an American minvan, save the fact that all the research said that, even at the lower price, the American made car would have been a poor choice. Same thing happened the last time I bought a car, a Honda, back in 1992. I didn't make enough money then, and I don't make enough money now to buy a maintenance headache.
My GM cars and trucks have always performed well.
Others swear by their Fords, Toyota etc.
Every car brand has had quality problems.
The problem is, is that too many think the health of the country should be predicated on people buy new cars constantly. Its just not sustainable, nor necessary.
My current Sierra is 5 years old. It replaced one that was 14.
Simply put, too many have spoiled themselves into new vehicles every year or 2 or 3, and the economy is too tightly linked to this unsustainable pace. Time to nip it now Andy, nip it in the bud...
On the other hand, maybe people will buy them just to stop the tax drain. If they're going to take the money one way or another, you might as well get a car out of it.
See I'm of the opposite mind.
I figure no matter what, we're in for another bail out or two.
But if between now and then *no* more Big 3 cars were sold, I think it would be really hard to justify continued bail outs.
In Germany, Opel (which BTW belongs to GM) has the image of building crappy cars. (Although I guess, "crappy German cars" are still better than the crappy cars you talk about.)
It's been like this for years, and although they desperately tried to change it, they still have this image today.
So I think the US government (and the US taxpayer) needs to be in for the long run until this perception changes.
For many Americans, buying a car is both a major financial decision and a major safety decision. This is about as "free" as "free markets" get, and the judgment of Americans on the Detroit companies is loud and clear. I can't imagine any good coming from the government bailout.
I remember the day I realized the American automakers were doomed.
I was a post doc student at Emory University in 1994 and was walking back to my lab to call a tow truck after I found that my Ford Escort would not start once again. As I was walking through the student parking lot I looked at the cars that all the students were driving, and I saw that over 3 quarters of them were Toyotas, Hondas, and Nissans. Here were the future autobuyers, and their first cars were mostly Japanese brands. I am willing to bet that you walk through a college student lot today and you will find the percentage is even more lopsided.
My marketing director says the only way to resurrect a product perceived as crap is to offer a high quality replacment at a price lower than comparable competition. Then it takes years for the value for money to sink in. So GM better be able to get by on lower margins than the Japanese et al.
Ford is ok quality wise atm. Not great, not bad.
But yeah, it takes FOREVER to recover a brand image once its tarnished.
Kia is still stuck in bargain basement hell 10 years after their rocky launch, even though they offer some badass warranties and their cars are technically fairly solid. I don't know how long it would take for GM to fix its rep after a few decades of negligence.
What the auto execs and those touting the Big 3's new 'increase' in quality always seem to forget is that for most of the United States, a car is not just another purchase, like a Coke or bar of soap. For people like myself and my household, a new car is the single largest expenditure I have. If New Coke comes out and tastes bad/is tainted/is otherwise unsatisfactory, I can easily go down to the store and buy something else. If I buy a poorly-built car, I'm stuck with that car (and maintenance bills) for the next decade.
And /that/ is why the American automakers continue to have such a stigma for their historically poor quality. I don't care if Rick Wagoner or Jennifer Granholm comes out tomorrow and promises me that a GM car is twice as good as a Toyota; I simply cannot afford to take that risk. All I have to go off of is track record, and that's one thing American automakers just ain't got.
This current postdoc and former graduate student owns a Hyundai Accent, which is a cheap Honda Civic knockoff. I know very few grad students who own American cars, with the exception of those from the Michigan area.
IIRC it cost an American car company ~$2400 more to produce a car than the foreign car companies and the profit margin on a small car is ~$500. That $1900 either has to come out of materials (cheaper plastic, steel, etc.) which will either affect appearance or reliability and likely a little of both or be made up for in design simplicity which usually results in less performance (not just engine -- suspension, amenities, etc.). It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE to achieve parity until the costs come in line.
The Big 3 have been selling small cars as loss leaders and making up for it by profit margins on SUVs and trucks and the one thing EVERYONE in the bailout seems to agree on is forcing them to stop that. This is insanity.
Megan: "That's one thing the "Car Czar" can't fix: the perception that the company apparently needs nearly unlimited access to government funds in order to prop up its failing operations is hardly going to restore America's faith that its automakers make good cars."
Wow. That's bad for Detroit. I can imagine your smugness, having worked (for one year, or was it 18 months?) in NYC, with your MBA. It's certainly good for the USA that we have still Wall St, where they don't need no stinkin' government subsidies, 'cause they be so efficient and whatnot.
Last year, GM sold 9.7 million vehicles worldwide - their second largest single-year sales ever.
Toyota sold 9.7 million vehicles worldwide as well.
GM lost 36 BILLION dollars last year.
Toyota made 17 BILLION dollars last year.
These numbers mean that GM lost around $4K per vehicle sold.
In all, last year, GM lost more than twice the amount Congress is about to authorize to bailout the entire industry and more than the TOTAL amount all three were asking for.
It should be readily obvious that $15 billion isn't going to come close - So how far are we willing to go?
Anyone else despise the term "czar" for an American government official? We're not Russia. We did not lose the cold war.
Anyone else despise the term "czar" for an American government official?
Better than "commissar."
Nelson writes: "Anyone else despise the term "czar" for an American government official? We're not Russia. We did not lose the cold war."
Steve Sailer has suggested some more creative alternatives. Just substitute "Health" for "Car":
Health Shogun
Health Generalissimo
Health Pharaoh
Health Duce
Health Shahinshah
Health Mikado
Health Grand Vizier
Health Master and Commander
Health Nabob
Health Warlord
Health Fuhrer
Health Khan
Health Big Brother
Health Doge
Health Galactic Overlord
Health Potentate
Health Übermensch
Health Grand Turk
Health Humongous
Health Rajah
Health Paterfamilias
Health Kaiser
Health Kahuna
Health Kommandant
Health Big Man
Health Ayatollah of Rockandrollah
Health Cacique
Health Imperator
Health Poobah
Health El Supremo
Health Commissar
Health Patroon
Health Capo di Tutti Capi
lol Sailerite_Staash, I like "Health Shogun". In fact, Obama should actually have a Japanese CEO run the healthcare department, since they're expected to kill themselves if they fail, which is a pretty strong incentive.
Barack Obama: Change we can bereave in!
(Get it? Because the Japanese pronounce "believe" as ... and if he killed himself, we'd ... okay, forget it...)
I gotta believe that the hostility to the auto rescue is not only the crappy-car reputation "overhang" but also the memory every decent human being and car buyer who was subjected to the "deal room" practices of the car dealers-- the $500 floor mats, the special financing five points higher than a credit union loan, the mirage of a sticker price.
The level of bullshit in car sales, like the level of bullshit in a credit card or cell phone contract, only comes back to haunt them.
I agree KM. I own a 1996 Plymouth Neon and it runs fine. People are always amazed and look at me increduously. But when I drive I see a prevalence of older Amerian cars.
Maybe it's because I live in the Midwest, who knows. But I find the notion that all American cars are and have been fundamentally bad cars a misnomer. It might be anecdotal, but most of the people I know with them have had few if any problems.
And I couldn't agree more that too many Americans have spoiled themselves with new cars. Those who do so, correctly point out that it is their choice.
They then, in turn, whine when you choose to buy an American car, kvetching about all of the things they don't like about American companies and how you're screwing them over by buying into companies they believe fundamentally need to fail.
That's always been my sole problem with libertarians; they apply their ideology to everyone BUT themselves.
Didn't Carlos Ghosn completely overhaul Nissan? It can be done at GM as well especially if GM loses some of its clunky management, (legacy) liabilities, and models. While I agree that the Japanese cars on average provide better quality wise, they are not getting any cheaper. If GM/Ford can offer a comparable product at a cheaper price, why wouldn't people buy it? It gets me when people say GM and Ford are finished (Chrysler is I think officially finished – that one is not salvageable). Toyota and Honda did not become the giants they are today without a lot of help along the way from the Japanese government.
people are reminded of their crappyness everytime they rent one.
Euro cars traditionally are no better quality/reliability wise than American ones and they cost a lot more to fix. People buy euro cars for style and status and all those other intangible things.
Many people who buy Euro cars would rather be dead than be seen in an American car.
Japanese cars have traditionally be the best in quality and reliability but not much for style. People select them on value basis. Japanese cars have had a stupendous tailwind in competition with American cars because of the 20 years of currency intervention and Yen debasement. Japans zero interest rate policy and the resulting Yen carry trade was an important element of the financial/debt orgy that is now deflating.
The persistence of the cheap yen which was a policy of of both the US and Japanese governments and central banks working in full partnership was an economic crime against US manufacturers and workers but a huge boon to the leveraged speculating community. Those who have now wrecked the financial system because of their manipulation of the markets.
There is plenty of blame to go around in the Auto company mess, much of it having to do with American corporate culture but when the epitaph is written you will probably never hear about how the Government and the financial class played crucial roll.
Now that the deal is done it is nice to see the GOP dancing on the grave. Celebrating the death of the UAW. A dream 70 years old now realized.
I don't know. The perception that you know what you're talking about when it comes to money, finance, management, and economics has kept you employed at The Atlantic. In other words, perceptions can make up a lot of ground.
Staash wrote:
Hate to bum your high Staash but your SUV isn't a bargain. See here's how Detroit builds SUVs. They take a pick-up truck, a vehicle which is about as basic as it gets, an engine, a frame and a cab, a vehicle which is great for hauling 4x8 sheets of plywood but sucks at everything else (Ever drive a 2 wheel drive pickup in the winter? Plan on putting a few hundred pounds of sand in the back), basically a "front porch on wheels" as P.J. O'Rourke puts it, a vehicle not known for ride quality, safety, performance or handling. Anyways take this vehicle, extend the cab all the way to the back of the bed, put a couch in the back and put a set of rear doors on the beast and you have an SUV. Oh, and while you're at it jack the price way, way up and sell them to soccer moms and guys who have issues with penis size. But despite the leather seats, dual DVD players in the head rests and the plethora of cup holders you're still driving a vehicle that steers, brakes and handles like a pick-up truck.
The reason that Detroit has such great margins on SUVs because SUVs are pieces of crap, there is no brilliant engineering in any American made SUV, again they're just very expensive pickup trucks. Compare and contrast this to the Toyota Prius which contains some absolutely brilliant automotive engineering. The Prius drivetrain is more innovative than anything Detroit has produced since the 1960s. While Detroit was building gas-guzzling pieces of crap like the Expedition and ugly pieces of crap like the Pontiac Aztek the Japanese were figuring out how to make more efficient cars. Who's going to be a better bet in the long run, a company that knows how to build efficient cars using innovative technology or a company that knows how to pimp out pick-up trucks and sell them to undiscriminating morons?
Now, I'm sure that a lot of SUV owners are feeling stupidly smug now that the price of gasoline is under 2 bucks a gallon, but if those SUV owners think that the price of gasoline is going to stay that way they're going to be in for a rude surprise. The price of gasoline is going to go back up and those stupidly smug SUV owners won't be smug (but will still be stupid) when they're spending 70 or 80 dollars to fill the gas tanks on their Canyoneros and 6000 SUX's. At that point the stupid SUV owners will be whining to their politicians that someone ought to do something about those nasty oil companies so that they don't have to pay so much money to fuel up their gas guzzling dinosaurs.
So Staash, as a big three booster you really ought to put your money where your mouth is. Take out a second mortgage on your house, cash in your 401k and IRAs, sell a kidney and put all of the money you raise by doing this into stock in the big three. If you're right about the viability of these companies then you'll make lots and lots of money and get to sneer at all of the Prius driving yuppies out there (As opposed to all of the Expedition, Escalade, Explorer and Suburban driving yuppies out there). If you're wrong, well, you'll still have one kidney. C'mon Staash, it's time for you and the other supporters of a bailout for the big three to stop being punks, step up to the plate and hand them your cash.
Er, it's not just perception. Japanese cars are better than American cars and more fuel efficient. That's why Toyota and Honda models always wind up ahead of American-made cars in the annual auto ratings Consumer Reports does. Just opening and closing the door on a Toyota or Honda you can tell their better made.
John T. and Barry, did either one of you have a coherent point? Again, I'll ask you the same question I ask Staash: if you guys believe in the Big Three are you willing to step up to the plate and give them your money or are you just a couple of punks who expect everyone else to do the heavy lifting?
Worth reading Holman Jenkins's column on the bailout in today's WSJ, "A Bailout that Won't". Excerpt:
Jenkins puts his finger on a key problem here. If the government's goal is to get Americans to drive more fuel efficient cars, the way to do that would be to raise federal gas taxes steeply. Then, Americans would effectively be forced to buy smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, and the domestic automakers would be able to sell them the sort of more expensive, higher-margin small cars they successfully sell in Europe. Politically, of course, it's easier for Congress to raise CAFE standards than raise gas taxes.
I too hate the proliferation of the term "czar" for various government functionaries. Firstly because these guys never deliver on anything, despite 20 years of drug czars starting with Bill "Do as I say, not as I do" Bennett we still have plenty of illegal drugs, indeed we even have drugs that nobody had heard of 20 years ago such as Meth and Ecstasy and Heroin use has actually increased since the 1980s. So our various and sundry American czars are just as incompetent and useless as the Russian ones (although presumably less inbred). Secondly because the whole idea of a czar is antithetical to American democratic values.
Instead of having a "car czar" I propose that if we're going to have this, and it looks as if we are because BOHICA, here comes another bailout for a bunch of useless, incompetent and undeserving wankers, that we either have a "car HMFIC" or a "car daddy". If we have a "car daddy" I want a real car daddy, he should have to dress like someone in a Tom of Finland painting, leather, boots, chrome studs and tight jeans and a nice big whip that he will be allowed to use at any time on anyone who works for one of the Big Three. Also there will be no more division between blue collar and white collar workers at the Big Three, instead there will only be workers who wear leather shock collars.
OK, this is an insane idea, but no more insane than loaning 15 billion dollars to a company that's only worth three billion or bailing out another company because the private venture capital firm that owns a majority stake in it isn't willing to spend any of their own cash to do so.
You can buy a well made car with good fuel efficiency now. It's called a Toyota. Many of them are manufactured here. Thirty-three years ago CAFE standards were introduced. Detroit just complained to congress that it couldn't be done and demanded waivers. Instead of complaining, Honda invented the stratified charge engine (CVCC), and introduced it with the Civic. The rest is history. I own a number of American cars. I always buy the seven year warranty. My first American car, a '95 model, was on its third engine, second transmission, second transfer case, and second master cylinder before the warranty ran out. Thank god for warranties. If you want a fuel efficient SUV, you can buy a Highlander Hybrid.
I'll buy a Ford, GM, or Chrysler car only when the management of that car's company is entirely replaced by Japanese.
This world could do with fewer Bob Lutzes.
I look forward to the car czar getting involved in styling decisions (with congressional input, of course). We'll have eco-friendly versions of soviet classics like the lada and the volga.
A car that will have to be registered, insured, fuel, and repaired.
This shit isn't new. Detroit has had decades to get their shit together, and failed. Is there any reason to think that this time they'll "learn their lesson?" If they're going to take our money one way or the other, how about we pay them to go away.
Dave high gas prices do the same thing for fuel efficiency as CAFE, but less efficiently. High gas prices put pressure on manufatures by reducing productivity. They are probably about the same, but with a gas tax there's less economic activity going on in broader economy in the time between implementation and the achievement of higher efficiency.
The CBO comparison that people site showing CAFE as more expensive than gas tax for reducing consumption is bullshit. Consumption reduction isn't the goal, fuel efficiency is. You get lesss fuel consumption reduction from CAFE because the increased fuel efficiency effectively increases the fuel supply, lowers prices, and incuces demand (ie, stimulates economic acivity).
A European perspective from John Lambshead, a British SF writer.
The Prius has been a failure in Europe because European cars are (a) better and (b) have better fuel economy.
I drive a Ford Focus (European Ford) with a 2Litre Turbodiesel engine. It is a high-tech motorway cruiser that returns about 45MPG (British gallons) on a south-east Motorway, i.e. cruising at 90MPH but frequent brakes right down to zero.
It is a better car than a Prius in every way. The power plant delivers 135BHP when the turbo cuts in and the car is light. It has six forward gears (manual) giving maximum efficiency. It has excelent handling for twisting European roads (stiff body-shell and suspension) and computer controlled brakes.
My previous car was a Vauxhall (GM) Astra SRI, a 'hot hatch', with a twin overhead-cam 16 valve, high-tech petrol engine: 135 BHP in an even lighter car. It only returned 28-38 MPG but was a sports car with traction control and rock-hard, sports car suspension.
Both these cars are made by an American owned company but are 'European', more exactly German, in design and manufacturing.
'European' cars are expensive and make good profits for the car companies. Our experience is that people will pay for quality.
So why have Ford and GM in America persisted in selling cheap, obsolete motors to the point of bankruptcy?
http://bar.baen.com/Default.aspx
I echo his question. Why can't I buy a car like that here?
For a follow up, see this article in Motor Trend which makes the same points.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/hatchbacks/112_0711_european_2008_ford_focus/index.html
Their last paragraph is perticularly appropriate.
So how come the U.S. gets such a poor Focus instead? Because Ford decided the great American was too dumb to notice the sophistication of the Euro version and wouldn't pay the slight extra. HL Mencken said, "No one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses." Ford USA is busy proving him wrong.
Not the only reason. CAFE has a "two fleets" rule (originally argued for by the Detroit Three, of course.) A Ford Focus produced in Europe and imported wouldn't improve Ford's CAFE numbers. They need the domestic model to balance out their trucks. It doesn't answer the question of "why not produce the European Focus in the US as well" (that has to do with the UAW, and other things), but it's part of it.
A Ford Focus produced in Europe and imported wouldn't improve Ford's CAFE numbers.
Then just make the car in the US. Or lobby to the government to allow the Euro Ford Focus to help their CAFE standards. Or make less trucks and use cars like the Euro Focus to make money. They typically get their way in Congress, so it likely wouldn't have been such a big deal. The problem is as listed above. Ford felt like they could sell a crappy car to the American consumer to make a bit more profit. Put some American flags in your advertising, and encourage people to buy your sub-standard car because it's patriotic.
Toyota and Honda both proved to be able to adapt to changing conditions/laws and seem to always come out on top. When the Big 3 come across a change in conditions/laws they bitch and moan about how it's impossible to compete now.
Donald,
The diesels are easy to explain: CARB standards. They're incredibly difficult to meet for diesels, and it's very expensive to get an engine/drivetrain certified in the US, so manufacturers have largely not done so (current exceptions being a $50k+ Mercedes and the recent Volkswagen Jetta TDI). If they can't meet CARB they're blocked from over 50% of the US auto market (California isn't the only one following CARB rules), so it's just not worth it.
The other high mileage cars are really two main factors. One is the US Automaker perception that Americans won't pay for high quality small cars, a notion Mini has challenged quite well.
The second is the UAW and the stupid "two-fleet rule" they got added to CAFE as a form of protectionism. This makes it difficult or even counter-productive for the automakers to bring in those high mpg small cars.
All of this is extremely frustrating to me, since I am in the market for a new car. I've got great credit and plenty of cash, but am currently not planning on buying anything for the simple reason there isn't a car in the US I particularly want to buy as long as my '97 Civic is still working. Even the current Civics have succumbed to bloat. There are a number of cars available in Europe that aren't available in the US that I'd be down at the lot buying today if I could.
So, yeah, I'm really not happy about this bailout. They've shot themselves in the foot (both the management and the union leaders) repeatedly for decades. Why should I be paying for their crutches?
I drive a 1985 Mercedes 300D as my daily driver and I have a 2007 Ford Truck as my travel/family vehicle. The Benz is still running strong after
almost 24 years, and I am sure that the Ford will
last me maybe 10 before I have to get rid of it.
I wish that Mercedes marketed a truck other than
the G-Wagen, something simple like the F-150 that
could work as a daily/weekender for people like
me that like to have a truck for weekend hauling,
but it is also appointed well enough to be used for family trips as well.
Jordan T.,
The reason Detroit doesn't make expensive, high-margin small cars here is that there isn't much of a market for that sort of car here. With small exceptions (such as Megan's Mini) small cars are what Americans who can't afford bigger cars buy; they are economy cars. In Europe, with its steep gas prices, small cars are the default choice of drivers, so there is a market for more expensive, more well-appointed small cars there.
The reason Detroit doesn't make expensive, high-margin small cars here is that there isn't much of a market for that sort of car here.
But there is a market as the Mini has shown, it's just that the Big 3 are too dumb to realize it. Are you saying that people wouldn't spend 2-3K more on a Ford Focus if it was a nice car? Especially if it was sporty, well made with decent gas mileage.
They take a pick-up truck, a vehicle which is about as basic as it gets, [..] extend the cab all the way to the back of the bed, put a couch in the back and put a set of rear doors on the beast and you have an SUV.
Which is why I don't want an SUV. if I buy an SUV, I get to carry around an extra ton of gratuitous steel everywhere I go. That's not free.
I saw an ad for a new Cadillac hybrid SUV the other day, and it was crowing about how it manages to achieve a mighty 20 mpg. Twenty??? Twenty!!! It doesn't need to be that heavy to be that big.
But here's the thing - I'm not in the market for "some absolutely brilliant automotive engineering", I want a car. If it carries me around in reasonable comfort and safety, it's ok. The fact that it was complicated to design and build isn't an inherent advantage - in fact, it's probably a disadvantage as it'll cost more to fix when it breaks.
As far as the "Consumer Reports says all American cars suck" meme, they actually that Ford reliability has improved while Toyota's had decreased, and most of their cars are average or better.
And as far as "Ford should just lobby to get the European-built focus to count for CAFE", that's unlikely. It's the unions that pushed for foreign-built cars not to count for CAFE numbers, and they aren't going to let that happen.
And Ford will never make as much profit on a Focus as it does on an SUV. At one point, they made something like $10,000 per Lincoln Navigator they sold. Good luck making that much money selling a $15,000 car. American companies weren't being stupid selling big SUV's - at the time, they were incredibly profitable.
But there is a market as the Mini has shown
How are you going to get hipsters into a Ford?
For my own personal 2 cents worth, I am still ticked off about what GM did to the Saturn. I bought a 96 Saturn SL and still drive it. It has 339,000 miles, original engine and original clutch. It also still gets 30-40 mpg depending on how I drive it.
I would buy another new one in a heartbeat, but they don't make them like that anymore. The Aura gets lower gas mileage and has body panels that can get dents and rust, unlike my version.
This is why I also believe US car quality has increased, even if the perceptions haven't.
This is why I also believe US car quality has increased, even if the perceptions haven't.
You own a '96 Saturn, which you think is better than the modern models, but you think that US car quality has increased? Are you a little confused?
JordanT
Sure there's a market for the Mini, but it's rather niche market. Annual sales appear to be on the order of 30,000-35,000. Those numbers are a drop in the bucket that is the US automotive market. For the vast majority of buyers, if faced with the prospect of paying an extra 2-3k for a Ford Focus, they'd either go for a cheaper competitor or they'd just move up to a midsize car (sticker on a Ford Fusion is about 4k above the Focus.) Besides, if you do want improved handling and such and are willing to spend more money, the Mazda3 is available in the US, is based on the same platform and sells quite well.
i just finished reading this amazing pamphlet by eric liu and nick hanauer about patriotism. it's called the true patriot. it really applies to what's happening in our economy today with the auto industry. why keep encouraging bad behavior? is that patriotic? what ever happened to responsibility?
This is why I also believe US car quality has increased, even if the perceptions haven't.
"You own a '96 Saturn, which you think is better than the modern models, but you think that US car quality has increased? Are you a little confused?"
Err, no. I pointed out that I own a US made car that has lasted 339,000 miles. I think this is quality. What I don't like about the new Saturns is their increased emphasis on style at the expense of fuel economy and rust proofing, even if in some ways they improved their quality. Allegedly the plastic body panels were dropped because sheet metal got a tighter fit. I could care less about a millimeter or so tighter fit. I wanted body panels that will never rust and can't be dented (you can break them, but they allowed you to hit the doors with a mallet at the dealer to demonstrate that they didn't dent).
Heck, in Southern California, they may even last as long. I live in the North East, so rust proofing is important to me.
Rob, isn't that a problem for Ford's marketing department to figure out? It's not like they can't run up a new marque, or buy out an established one (they have before).
I think limiting to "hipsters" is a bit silly, anyway. You want to be able to address as much of the market as possible, after all.
Sbard, those numbers are small compared to the overall market, but there's a couple things you don't seem to be considering. One is that several of the last months (quarters? Haven't checked) Mini has been one of or the only brand with increasing sales. The other is that the demand greatly surprised even BMW, and they're very supply constrained. When you're selling everything you can make as fast as you make it, and your competitors have 12 months or more of inventory sitting at dealer lots, you're in a good position.
I've talked to others like me, so I know I'm not alone. I would have no problem paying for a good, solid, small car. I'm single, so I don't need a big one. I've got money, so I don't have to buy an econobox. Put out a car in the same category as something like an Audi 3 TDIe or a BMW 125d and I'll be there with my checkbook. Heck, even the stuff that's an econobox in the US is better overseas. Give me a European or JDM model Civic iCDTi, even as an Acura CSX, and I'll be there.