By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
It was just a matter of needs...they didn't have the need for a people mover as much as a stuff mover, so to them the tradeoff was worth it.
Now that my wife and I have had a baby and grandpa and grandma are around all the time, however, their van is getting used more as a people mover, and there is universal acknowledgement that those seats aren't very comfortable, especially on long trips.
So if I was to buy a minivan, for my new family's needs--which would have a heavier emphasis on people--Stow N Go is probably not for me. I sat in their van and a new Ody back to back and to say it wasn't close was a dramatic understatement.
I can understand why you'd want that feature, but to say that the seat comfort difference is "neglibile" is ridiculous.
Nobody's questioning stow-n-go's practicality; it's a compromise that makes sense to a large number of people. For people who haul more rears than gear, a more comfortable seat is worth losing stow-n-go.
Very true and Chrysler gives you both options
I still think the Swivel seats plus the 2 under floor bins would be the best option.
People keep forgetting that for the vast majority of minivan customers, the 2nd rows are used by kids, often in car seats or boosters. In that case, the seat comfort difference is non-existent
My older child has almost outgrown her booster already.
We plan on keeping our van long term. So for the majority of that time, she'll be sitting in that position.
If you have babies it may not matter, but odds are they'll need the regular seats sooner or later.
If you lease short-term (2-3 years) it also may not matter. If you buy to keep, it likely will.
Edmunds commented on how comfy the Swivel seats were, IIRC.
My older child has almost outgrown her booster already.
We plan on keeping our van long term. So for the majority of that time, she'll be sitting in that position.
If you have babies it may not matter, but odds are they'll need the regular seats sooner or later.
If you lease short-term (2-3 years) it also may not matter. If you buy to keep, it likely will. "
This is true, but it will be a rare occurance for child to go from carseat to adult size in the same vehicle. And most preteens and young teens would find the seats just fine.
I honestly think this is why the smaller Stow N Go seats have done well in the marketplace - a lot of the time it doesn't matter, because of the size of the most likely occupants
My older child has almost outgrown her booster already.
We plan on keeping our van long term. So for the majority of that time, she'll be sitting in that position.
If you have babies it may not matter, but odds are they'll need the regular seats sooner or later.
If you lease short-term (2-3 years) it also may not matter. If you buy to keep, it likely will. "
This is true, but it will be a rare occurance for child to go from carseat to adult size in the same vehicle. And most preteens and young teens would find the seats just fine.
I honestly think this is why the smaller Stow N Go seats have done well in the marketplace - a lot of the time it doesn't matter, because of the size of the most likely occupants
Your entirely right. No one has ever complained about my 2005 Stow-N-Go seats being uncomfortable and I have asked several times. But if that worries him so much, get Swivel -N-Go and get two great seats and get a table and storage bins to go with it. Heck, you got the best of both worlds. What more can you want? It's got everything. The middle seats in the Chrysler minivans should no longer be a problem for anyone, with the two options they give you. Sorry, make that four options you get with the middle seats. You can also get a middle bench seat. With or without a built in booster seat for kids.
If I imagine life in the Dodge, she would likely Swivel the seats to face back, and put one of the kids in the 3rd row.
So then she'd be in the more comfy seat, which would be fine.
I can imagine with one baby the mom may also want to sit next to the child, though again that may be a short-term need.
My advice is to think ahead, decide what you need now but also what you might need for the whole life of the van, at least as long as you own it.
It may or may not matter, but it helps to plan ahead.
Any one try the new ones to compare?
Yes it's true you still get the huge 2 storage bins in the second row w/ SWnG. The table & pole take up little room. The Swivel'n Go seats can be removed. Anyone try this yet? I'm wondering what's on the floor when the seat is removed? Not sure it's a carpeted area. Is there a metal turntable base or something permantely secured to the floor making it prone to get damaged if cargo is out on top of it? Any sharp areas exposed?
There are a lot of great things to like about the T&C. You know anyone that bought or leased a 2008 yet?
Sometimes I read about whether or not a certain truck can carry a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood. It is written about as if this is really significant. Ok, for the record, my standard wheelbase 2003 Pontiac Montana is both too narrow and too short. But a little high school math tells me that if you prop up one side of a 4' wide sheet a few inches, I could easily carry the width, and if I leave the hatch open a bit (being careful to secure the load), I could probably do it if I really wanted to do it. All of which makes me wonder if any of the people who write this stuff ever passed high school math. But that is another matter.
The interesting question is: What about Europe? Does anyone know what the equivalent size sheet of plywood be in the Metric countries like England, France or Norway?
A 4'x8' is just the gold standard of measurement. Plywood is heavy so sliding them in at an angle will likely damamge whatever wall you lean it on.
You can use the roof rack but that makes your center of gravity high (rollover risk) and most racks can only take about 75-150 lbs, vs. 1200 lbs of payload inside the van.
Plus no lifting.
Plus things like drywall stay dry if it rains.
I guess the more the merrier. I have actually brought home some 4'x8' lattice, some 4'x8' drywall, and even some 16' sections of trex decking.
To haul the 16' decking, I folded the front passenger seat flat, which the Sienna can do, and shoved it in the footwell. Some still stuck out the back, but not that far, and I was able to tie it to the rear hatch. Made it home no problem.
It would not fit on the roof rack because trex flexes, and sags. A sixteen foot length would hit the ground. The rental trucks they have still might have had problems brigning that home, so most people have Trex delivered.
I was lucky - my van could haul that. Not many vehicles could.
Each individual can decide what "enough" is for them, but I was glad I could get my deck finished on time when the subcontractor ran out of that material. We would lose at least 2 days to wait for delivery of the material.
With lumber lengths up to 16', I'll take all the length I can get.
Width in the Sienna is a good 52", so there's room to spare. This is why is has the most cargo capacity behind the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rows.
Will I use it? Maybe, maybe not. I'll be glad if I ever haul something more than 48" wide, though.
The Vulcan 3.0L V6 is the same motor that was in the Taurus and some Rangers so there's millions of them on the streets. I'd bet that there's a copious supply of go fast parts that you could find if you look in the right places.
As for the seats - can't help you there - I know they don't fit in my Venture
Dodge/Chrysler have two plants that make their minivans. One is in Canada, the other is in St. Louis. Even the one in Canada, has a 83% US, Canada parts content. With engine and tranny both made in the US.
While most Americans don't give a thought to Buy American, you can bet the Japanese think about Buy Japanese. They protect their jobs and those of their countrymen. In return, the companies try to protect them, with life time jobs.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922519-7,00.html
Americans are reared with a commitment to individual liberty and freedom. But the U.S. was forged in a frontier spirit of cooperation and collective enterprise that was as simple and forthright as a barn-raising. Western thinkers from John Locke to Oliver Wendell Holmes believe that individuality at some point has to give ground to group needs. It has taken a successful country on the rim of Asia to remind the U.S. that teamwork, however it is organized, is still the prerequisite for a prosperous society.
Did this come from Das Kapital? This is the gist of what the media wants us to believe -- cooperation and Socialistic economies are better than competition and Capitalism. At least they want us to believe they make better cars and are more prosperous as a whole. They can cram it down my throat all they want but I just haven't seen this to be true. My 179,000 POC Chrysler, my friends 209,000 POC Chrysler, my friends 102,000 POC, my nephews 201,000 POC, my brother-in-laws 108,000 POC etc. just don't add up to POC for me. All the bad press, bad media, bad reviews just can't convince me that I don't see what I see.
As for prosperity that article makes Japan sound like a Utopia. They have plenty of problems economically over there. Their stock market busted in 1989 (?) and it has gone nowhere ever since. Now I must end this because it will get too political. Suffice it to say - if all things are equal I would chose American. If not I would chose whichever offers more, and better for a lower price. Keeps everybody on their toes as the spirit of competition usually does!! Lots of the media has an agenda that differs from my best interests so I'll make my own informed, well researched decisions.
I agree. I wouldn't think of buying American if they didn't have a equally good product that was competitively priced. Which is the reason we bought the Honda Civic for my wife back in 1993. But now we see that Ford has done wonders with their Focus and that is what we will replace it with next year. It is really a fun car to drive.
Don't forget "It Takes a Village" too
Just wondering.
Japanese manufacturers build cars specifically for the USA and assemble them here. Note how our Accord is bigger than theirs, same for the Camry.
He also wrote:
There is just to much of an advantage to the foreign makers here, that the American makers don't have, in wages, pensions, vacations, health care, taxes, etc.
True, but why aren't they taking advantage of exchange rates? The dollar is so cheap, exports should be cheap and imports should be expensive.
I'd like to see them take more advantage of this.
I don't know if I posted this before, but I think it shows the problem all three American auto makers are in. To lose the automotive business in this country would really hurt our economy. If they are putting out decent vehicles now, we need Americans to buy them.
FORD BETS THE HOUSE
It puts assets on line to secure $18B in financing
Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News
Ford Motor Co. is going all in on a bet-the-company financing strategy that will put virtually all of its U.S. assets -- including factories, office buildings and technology -- up as collateral in a multibillion-dollar credit deal designed to buy time to execute a North American restructuring.
The struggling automaker hopes to obtain $18 billion in financing to fund its turnaround and shore up its liquidity as protection against unanticipated events, such as a recession, the company said in a statement Monday.
The financing will include up to $15 billion in secured loans, which will be backed by most of Ford's domestic assets, as well as all or part of the stock it owns in subsidiaries such as Ford Motor Credit Co. and Volvo.
Advertisement
This is the first time Ford has put its assets up as collateral. Doing so gives it access to much-needed funding, but also translates into a big increase in debt-servicing costs. More critically, the company's future is on the line if it fails to execute a turnaround.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061128/AUTO01/611280378/1148- -
Ford, GM down - banks move in for the kill
While the nation is busy grappling with constant insults from endless war on every front, one ruthless knife in the backbone of our economy has gone largely unnoticed.
For the first time in history, two of the nation's Big Three car manufacturers are in such dire straits that they have to take out loans secured by their most essential assets, yet no one, neither in our government nor in our media has raised an eyebrow at the stakes.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/122
Ford Asks Hourly Employees: Who Wants a Buyout?
Fordflex
Today, Ford Motor Company announced it would offer buyouts to all of its hourly workers, 54,000 in total. We normally don’t cover the business side of the automotive industry, but because of the scale of the buyouts and the impact they could have on the economy
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/01/ford-buyouts.html
Yes, but you have to consider that ANYONE, even yours truly here and CR reviewers can own Toyota stock and participate in the $$$ (NYSE TM). I simply found the T&C a better value. But what happens is that the corporate taxes are paid to Japanese governemnt and profit are going to Japanese CEO's who are living as well as the detested US CEO's. Then you have some moron over here in the US whining how US corporations are paying less percentages of the US tax than they were years ago, while driving a Japanese car.
Guess I'm such a Laissez Faire type thinker. Keep government interference out and things would be better.
I think that's the bottom line right there.
In the van segment, GM was uncompetitive. The Uplander was helplessly outdated. GM finally decided to invest in an update - the Lamdbas, and it paid off.
Sure, they're not really vans, but they prove that when GM decides to invest properly they can design a great product, and also that the market will respond - demand is strong.
You see similar success stories with the CTS and the Malibu. They are truly "no excuses" products.
Chrysler had a hit with the 300C, but they rested on their laurels for far too long. That came out years ago, what about an update? You can't gamble the whole company on the Hemi when oil is at $100/barrel, it's suicide.
I think they could have done better with the Caliber/Compass/Patriot. The vans are innovative, but again, they could have invested more in the interior material quality. The minivan segment is shrinking so perhaps they saw this as too much of a gamble. Still, they are much better efforts than the Caliber. The Stratus and Sebring could also be a lot better.
Chrysler has some work to do. Any why let VW use the minivan platform with a nicer interior? Why let the import clone lead the way? Who's van is this anyway?
Ford is on the right track. They also dropped their van, but perhaps too early, as the Flex was not ready yet. Let's see if that model enjoys the success that GM has had with its large crossovers. The Fusion is solid, and even gets great reliability scores from CR.
The product is the bottom line.
Cerburus and other investors have to realize that you have to spend money to make money. When the domestics have the best product, indeed people will flock to them, as they have to the Enclave, CTS, Malibu, etc.
I think that's the bottom line right there.
It is. But I have heard so many say they would never buy an American vehicle again. That mindset has to change also, or it won't make any difference what they put out.
I think they could have done better with the Caliber/Compass/Patriot. The vans are innovative, but again, they could have invested more in the interior material quality. The minivan segment is shrinking so perhaps they saw this as too much of a gamble. Still, they are much better efforts than the Caliber. The Stratus and Sebring could also be a lot better.
I went to see the Caliber after seeing it in a magazine. I really like the looks of it on the outside. But was very disappointed in the inside. Didn't like the molding, or dash and the seats looked cheap. If they had done just half as well on the inside as they did on the outside, they would really have a winner there. It's one of the cutest of the small cars on the outside.
I really like the new Dodge GC. But I didn't like the white face speedometer they have in it, which is the same as mine. I even wrote them when I read they were putting out a new minivan, to dress up the dash by changing the color of the speedometer.I guess they didn't listen.
I had a Ford with a few issues. I would think twice, though that's not really my primary concern. Ford didn't even make a minivan for sale when I was shopping. We rented a Freestar once and it was OK, but not a leading minivan, nowhere close to the new Chryslers for instance.
Another one is the new Dodge crossover, the one that replaced the SWB minivan. Again, lots of good ideas, but could have been better executed. I'll still check one out in person.
I tend to test drive lots of vehicles before I buy. We checked it out at the DC Auto Show but they weren't letting anyone get inside.
I made a mistake when I said the wife's Civic was a 1994. It's a 2004.
I think that the real bottom line is that you should buy what you like and what fits your needs. I've owned nothing but GM cars of one brand or another with the exception of a Honda Civic and they have all treated me pretty well. I didn't buy the GMS because it was an American brand - I bought them because I liked them. We didn't buy the Civic because it was Japanese or because it was built in Ohio, we bought it because it fit our needs at the time. It was a good car but whenever things broke it cost a small fortune.
We have a Venture van and a Saturn Vue because they fit our needs now, not because they are GM cars - we got good deals on them and they fit our needs.
It makes me crazy when someone says that they wouldn't buy this brand or that brand because they build lousy cars...taste and try before you buy...all cars will need to be repaired, even Hondas and Toyotas!
Life's too short - buy what you like and enjoy the ride!
For me, the seat cushions were a bit short, so I had trouble getting comfy.
They're quite nice, though.
If you look at the reliability and build quality of the Japanese cars compared to the American cars, there's just no contest there. The Japanes cars are extremely reliable - with most first prod issues resolved in 1-2 years. The interiors are also very nicely done, with good molding set to tight tolerances.
American cars are like supermodels - they look good outside, but once you sit inside, the cost-cutting and lack of attention to detail really screams. Poorly molded plastic parts. Cheap interior materials. Fittings so loose that you can throw quarters into the car between the moldings. Sitting in an American car is like sitting in a Nissan - cheap cheap cheap.
The Japanese, on the other hand, can choose between Honda, Toyota and several other quality brands (sans Nissan) which not only look decent outside, but look and feel nice inside! And those cars are reliable - just look at the aggregate repair data.
The european quality is on par with the American brands, but they drive much better - and the interiors are just elegant. Sure, it will be in the shop as often as an American car, but they are a joy to drive indeed.
So, where does that leave the American brands? In a very undesireable position in the market segment where they have to lower their prices to compete with Kia / Hyundai who have far better quality controls than they do. Now that, is pathetic.
Much of this was really brought on by the American automakers themselves. And they have nobody to blame but themselves. Should they be able to turn around their abysmal quality record, it will take decades to erase that stigma - the same way it took Honda and Toyota decades to erase the stigma of a cheap, unreliable rice-burner.
I will go out of my way to buy American, but I refuse to throw my hard earned cash away in an inferior car in the name of patriotism - that's just corporate welfare.
This is gonna take a while.
Which means it's assembled in Canada using Mexican corn and oil from Honduras.
And isn't Redenbaker a German name? Hmmm...
I put 120,000 miles on both a 94 Civic (bought new) and a 1990 Oldsmobile Calais Quad 4 (also bought new)- both cost me about the same for maintenance throughout their lifespans.
The cupholder broke on the Civic, the shift knob popped off, radio stopped playing tapes, had to replace oil pan (leaked at oil plug)+ expensive routine maintenance
On the Olds - replaced the ignition module - blew a front bearing, replaced a head gasket, window mechanism broke + much less expensive routine maintenance.
The Honda cost more for routine maintenance but the Olds cost me more for non routine so the net cost was about the same over the time I owned them. The build quality for both was comparable although I'd give the edge to the Civic for a better designed interior. I enjoyed driving both - very good cars (neither ever stranded me) and I'd buy either of them again.
Just my $ .02
Take a good look at vehicle reliability data and the answer may surprise you.
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney staff writer
February 3, 2006: 12:19 PM EST
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/Autos/american_cars/
Take a test ride in the Ford Focus and the Honda Civic and see which one drives and handles better. Check what they say about the quality of the Ford Focus.
The last year for which complete numbers on who pays what taxes are available was 2004. In 2004 there were 130 million individual tax returns filed. If you take the bottom 50% of those tax returns – 65 million of them – and add up the total amount of taxes those households paid you come up with $27.4 billion. This means that one corporation, Exxon Mobile, pays as much in taxes to the federal government as do the bottom half of individual taxpayers. How's that for paying your fair share.
There's more. The Adjusted gross income for the bottom 50% of taxpayers comes out to about $922 billion. This means that these taxpayers are paying an effective tax rate of about 3% of their adjusted gross income. Exxon? Adjusted gross income of around $67.4 billion in 2006 ... for an effective tax rate of 41%.
Hey I can't stand the government and I hate taxes but I posted this political rant to display that US corporate profits DO go into the US, where as Japanese go into Japan. I still welcome foreign competition and would buy Japanese should I deem their product to be superior as a true Capitalist would. But it unfair to assume that corporate profits are scattered around in many countries equally.
How Americans Can Buy American!
Visit our Library... Books, Reference materials, and more... Find out more about the author, Roger Simmermaker... Ask a question, make a comment, or reserve your copy of the second edition... Check out some of these great websites...
Supporting American-Made Products
and Services from American-Owned Companies
Email Friend
Cooper Tire Keeps the USA Rolling
Our Buy American Mention of the Week!
by Roger Simmermaker
January 11, 2002 - for the American Reformation Project
http://www.americanreformation.org
If you are searching for an All-American company that makes everything it sells to the U.S. market with U.S. workers, look no further than Cooper Tire. Cooper, along with Goodyear, is one of the two remaining American tire companies left. Yes, I know, foreign companies like Firestone and Michelin make tires in the United States, but the profits they make go back to Japan in the case of Firestone and back to France in the case of Michelin. And, of course, the taxes on those profits are paid to foreign governments, not our own. Any patriotic American should be concerned about profits and taxes taking flight out of the country. Why? Because taxes pay for things like national security, national defense, the military, the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan, etc.
Pat Choate, author of "Agents of Influence" and former vice-presidential candidate, notes that we lose at least $30 billion a year by supporting foreign-owned companies instead of American-owned companies. And that includes, mind you, companies that produce here in the United States. In short, foreign companies pay little or no taxes to America!
Fortunately, Cooper makes their automobile tires (and belts and hoses, etc.) in the United States, and is also an American owned company. Still, they ship their American-made tires to over 100 countries around the globe, and are ranks the ninth-largest tire maker in the world. I'll bet that if more Americans knew how dedicated this American company is to employing their own people, that rank would be higher. So it is my hope you will pass this email along to your patriotic friends and support the American company that supports you - Cooper!
http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/bamw/bamw-020111-cooper.shtml
The chief economist of General Motors, Mustafa Mohatarem, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives on September 30, accusing Japan of a trade policy that discriminates against American products – automobiles in particular. The silence of the response from Japan was deafening. What’s even worse was the silent response from our own government.
All Rep. Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, could do was rant about Japan’s protectionist policies. I guess we have to blame somebody for our huge trade deficit. And the fact that we have to blame someone else is evidence that our elected representatives that form and influence U.S. trade policy really believe it’s beyond our control and there is absolutely nothing we can do. So much for founding American virtues such as independence, self-reliance, self-sufficiency, as well as controlling our own destiny.
But talk is cheap, and all the U.S. government laissez-faire lip-service providers like Rep. Thomas can do is whine and warn us about the problems of not getting the desired access to overseas markets. Soon after that, they proclaim once again that we need to keep our market wide-open to countries like Japan that remain virtually closed to U.S. products – automobiles in particular. I remember a headline to a news article I read not too long ago about how Chevy had broken a new monthly record for the number of cars it exported to Japan. The figure was only in the 500 or 600 range.
Allow me to make it clear I am not bashing Japan. Far from it. I admire Japan for their intelligent and well-thought out trade policy. Why would Japan abandon protectionism at home while enjoying easy access to America’s wide-open market? They keep their market for themselves and enjoy taking a greater market share from America where people are eager to quickly bash their own home-based automakers and support foreign companies instead, even though they employ fewer American workers.
The ridiculous rhetoric from foreign-car lovers should leave any clear-thinking American wondering how they maintain any sense of credibility. They talk about how foreign car companies are building factories in America, but ignore that GM and Ford have nearly 5 times as many major plants than Toyota, Honda and Nissan combined. They talk about how foreign car companies employ workers in the U.S., but ignore the fact that GM has more U.S. salaried workers than Toyota has total U.S. workers. They talk about how foreign car companies use some domestic parts (the Nissan Maxima has a whopping 5% domestic content,) but ignore the fact that GM and Ford use more American parts on average. They talk about the reliability of foreign cars while accusing American cars of poor quality, but you’ll never hear them mention the following about GM:
* The Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu Maxx is the highest ranked entry midsize car in initial quality.
* The Chevrolet Suburban is the highest ranked full-size SUV in initial quality.
* The GMC Sierra HD is the highest ranked heavy-duty full-size pickup in initial quality.
* The Buick LeSabre is the highest ranked full-size car in initial quality.
* The Buick Century is the highest ranked premium midsize car in initial quality.
* The Chevrolet Malibu is the most dependable entry midsize car.
* The Chevrolet Silverado HD is the most dependable heavy-duty full-size pickup.
* The Cadillac Escalade EXT is the most dependable light-duty full-size pickup.
* The GMC Yukon/Yukon XL is the most dependable full size SUV.
* The Buick LeSabre is the most dependable full size car.
* The Buick Century is the most dependable premium midsize car.
* The Chevrolet S-10 pickup is the most dependable midsize pickup.
* The Chevrolet Prizm is the most dependable compact car.
The above rankings are all according to J.D. Power & Associates Quality Surveys. I especially like the statistic about the Chevy Prizm, which debunks the myth that GM is only good at making “gas-guzzlers.” It just so happens that after it was announced that the Chevrolet Tahoe took the top ranking for dependability in its class, the Wall Street Journal confirmed that the Tahoe’s 20 mpg rating was three better than the Nissan Armada. In fact, GM already leads the large-SUV segment in fuel economy, and is improving their ratings for the 2006 models by an additional mile per gallon (approximately a 5% increase.)
When Ford Motor Co. Chairman Bill Ford spoke before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce late last year, he suggested government and industry should work in unison to “restore American competitiveness.” It makes sense. Since American companies pay more taxes to the U.S. Treasury than foreign companies because they are U.S. based, they should expect some cooperation from their own government. But laissez-faire lovers (who are usually import lovers) that welcome any and all types of foreign, predatory, do-as-they-please competition would probably cry foul. Any policy other than one that gives foreign producers better access to American consumers than American producers is usually fine with them. However, should the government intervene to ensure the rules of competition are the same for all players – or heaven for bid tilt it slightly in favor of domestic producers – that would be unwise policy.
Even though Chrysler is now foreign-owned, Bill Ford used them to highlight the foundation of automobile manufacturing sector. Lumping GM, Ford and Chrysler together, he pointed out they employ 90% of the autoworkers in America. The former “Big Three” makes 75% of the cars and trucks that are made in the USA. And in the last 25 years, GM, Ford and Chrysler are responsible for more than 85% of the investment dollars poured into this country. The average domestic content from these three companies is 80%, according to Bill Ford, and only 31 percent for Japanese automakers, 5.4% for European automakers and 2.1 for Korean automakers.
Free traders advocate open American markets regardless of the circumstances. The thinking is that unless we remain open and accept any volume of imports, we would lessen our chances of convincing foreign countries to open their markets to us. But this strategy can only beneficial when it results in us selling more to them than they sell to us. Even though that hasn’t been the case for decades, and free traders know it, they still claim that if we don’t buy stuff from foreign countries, then foreign countries won’t buy our stuff. Is it so difficult to see that most foreign countries already aren’t buying our stuff? That’s why we have a trade deficit instead of a trade surplus. Hello!
It’s almost as if free-trade advocates were coaches of football teams, their entire strategy would be formulated upon a strong offense, with little regard to defense. Even if they consistently gave up five touchdowns per game and only scored three for themselves, their focus would be an offense that could score more tou
I agree that American automaker quality has made a steady improvement over the years - but as I said before, it will take a long time for the stigma of poor quality to wear off. The Japanese had to do it. The Koreans are trying to do it, and the American name-plates will be no exception to this rule.
Until they can shake off that well-earned stigma, they are very limited in their ability to raise prices for quality.
We've had domestic vs. foreign topics in Auto News and they most often dissolve into a flame fest. I'd hate to see this one go that route....and it really needs to be about MINIVANS. Don't mean to be a killjoy, but that's just the way it is.
From what I'm seeing in the last few comments, you really should be posting in Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?
The last time I was in the market for a minivan, Chrysler was the only domestic minivan that made the short list.
Ford drove like a truck and screeeched at every turn.
Chrysler / Dodge drove better, but their tranny reliability issues were on their 7th year in a row. The interior felt cheap with poor fittings and rough plastic moldings.
The Odyssey beat out the Sienna (back in 2000) for size, drive, and style (interior and exterior) - and best of all, it drove like a sedan, better than the Chrysler.
Looking at today's domestic minivans compared to the Sienna / Odyssey, I can certainly say that the Japanese name-plates still win hands down.
GM seems to have simply given up on the minivan market for the SUV market. Their designs are stale, with very few foundamental improvements to the car.
Chrysler also appears to have opted for questionable cosmetic changes, rather than improving the overall vehicle as well. Swivel seats are nice, but that's mostly cosmetic.
Honda made a ton of changes on their latest Odyssey - changes the covers handling, vehicular performance and useability enhancements - but they need to improve their reliability from Average to Above Average.
Toyota seems to have everyon beat on the reliability factor, but I haven't seen the current ones yet to comment on interior useability.
Don't shop Kias / Hyundais - so I can't comment.
My point here is, the Japanese continue to make huge improvements on their minivans compared to the cosmetic improvements the American minivans - and still maintain a high degree of reliability and quality. This is clearly reflected in the average owner review ratings for the minivans in edmunds.com (where the foreign nameplates trounce the domestic ones).
American minivan innovation, quality and reliability haven't really gone anywhere the past ten years (sorry, swivel seats don't cut it for me). This lax attitude has allowed the Japanese nameplates to catch up and surpass them. Unless they get their act together, their market share will only grow smaller and smaller.
Stow-n-Go, by Chrysler, was a great extension of the magic seat that the Odyssey debuted back in 1995. It isn't perfect (small seats that don't match the comfort of their conventional cousins), but it's quite a useful feature, and innovative, i'd say.
My brother owns one (in Brazil, how about that?) and is happy with it.
This is what I was talking about in the other thread, though - Ford has to make the decisions to spend money to make money. Invest and bring the latest and greatest models to the USA. Is the USA not worthy of their best? :confuse:
The hosts have asked us to stick to minivans, OK, then, what about the Ford Galaxy?
Why does Ford let Mazda bring over the Mazda5, yet Ford doesn't have a small van of their own?
Same with the Mazda3, but we've been asked to focus on minivans.
Who owns who? Who is the boss here?
Ford owns a large chunk of Mazda, not the other way around. Why is Ford playing 2nd fiddle to its own subsidiary?
On the same note, why is Chrylser letting VW sell an upscale version of their van with a nicer interior? Again, who is the boss here? This is Chrysler's van, for cryin' out loud.
At least they withheld the Swivel-n-Go feature from VW.
They should lead, not follow.
Rebranding the Chrysler really doesn't differentiate them - since it won't have the VW German driving experience which is what many VW owners go for - so I'd expect that to fail relatively quickly.
The only reason I can see why Ford would withold a product in the US market is because they are in the process of abandonning the market. The Windstar has such a poor reputation, it is probably easier and more profitable to sell Mazda's instead - which doesn't suffer the quality stigma as Ford does.