Being a former TC owner, I understand why. It really is the "last truly american car" Is the new Mustang still on the Panther platform? I know guys a DUH question, sorry just can't remember.
the Mustang is on a modified version of the LS/T bird platform (LW?), with a solid rear axle to save money (er, better drag racing starts, yeah, that's it!).
The Mustang has never been on a Panther. It was on a Fox platform from 89 to 04, then was put on the DEW-LITE platform I'm told (though I've been corrected on this by someone, just can't remember what they said) in 05. Which is the Jag S-type, LS and T-Bird platform as described by stickguy. But never a Panther.
"And the lead engineer on the project was Vietnamese."
Well, he is an American. I assume you mean "of Vietnamese ancestry" or whathave you though...he came to the USA when Siagon fell. Makes it sound like Ford outsourced the Mustang to the commies...
Ford NEVER intended to keep that promise. Just like their promise to increase the fuel economy of their truck line by 25%, this was merely a bunch of words strung together. Nothing more.
The second fuel prices fall below $2.50 per gallon (if that ever happens) expect a moratorium on all talk of fuel efficiency. Its the Ford (and GM) way.
"Ford NEVER intended to keep that promise. Just like their promise to increase the fuel economy of their truck line by 25%, this was merely a bunch of words strung together. Nothing more."
And you KNOW that for a fact how? I don't think Bill is a strong leader either, which is why I actually do think he believed it when he promised it. Now, it's painfully obvious this isn't going to happen, he has to break the bad news to Wall Street.
The funny thing is, Hybrids aren't all they are advertised to be, or people think they are, and he probably never could have achieved it, even if they had the money. Same with the 25%, it was a goal he set, but the engineers knew it wasn't going to happen with the same truck they have today. Maybe in a Ranger sized truck......
It's nice to throw those numbers out and try to enforce compliance, but not always easy to achieve it. And neither of us could probably run Ford any better, though we think we could from the armchair. I do think though, that if Bill wants to save his company, he needs to go find somebody to run it for him as President.
Believe it or not, I do have faith in Mark Fields. He did good things at Mazda.
The big question is whether he can move the company fast enough to prevent it from falling into either financial ruin or foreign hands.
He must also change an entrenched corporate culture that conspires against producing top-notch product across the board. Ford can do certain vehicles well, but others appear to be done on the cheap (Freestar). And others are milked until they are dry (Ranger, Town Car).
What Ford needs is consistency. Quality must be good across the line, and all vehicles must be kept up to date.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it will lokk like I am, does the consistent quality problem have anything to do with labor problems, which will NEVER go away, especially with the upcoming plant closures???
My reason for this is simple...one thing I know about the UAW is that when members are losing their jobs, the folks who remain on the line often perform "activities" that they feel "get back" at Ford (or GM) for dumping their neighbor's job...it comes from that "union entitlement attitude" that I often experienced in my years in Detroit...so, if the remaining workers feel they have nothing to lose, they can produce a poor product and everyone sits around wondering "why can't Ford make a good product?", when the real answer is the pink elephant in the room, but no one in the industry has the guts to say so...which is why that the new Honda plant in Indiana will NEVER, I repeat NEVER, hire any displaced UAW worker, because they walk in with a militant attitude from Day One, and Japanese carmakers have no tolerance for rabble rousers, and they (and me) see the UAW as just a bunch of overpaid welfare entitlement rabble rousers...
Well, I would disagree. This is a management problem, although the union isn't inclined to do anything until management shows the way.
In the 1980s, when Ford and the UAW worked together, quality improved. Remember, in the 1980s GM invested in automation big time (the Poletown plant in particular). Ford, which didn't have the capital to take this route, worked with the union (and laid off a bunch of workers and closed a bunch of plants, which sent a sobering message to remaining workers - change or die!).
I've seen original-condition Fords, Mercurys and Lincolns from the 1980s at various car shows, and they have much better build quality than their domestic competitors. Fords were far superior to comparable GM and Chrysler cars in this regard.
Plus, looking at the problems Ford owners are experiencing on this site and others, they mostly are related to cost-cutting and poor engineering, not shoddy assembly or bad workmanship.
What you describe happens in other production plants including the paper industry and that is why in Seattle, Boeing is called the 'Adult Day Care Center'.
In the 1980s, when they hit their low point, and the Japanese invasion was just beginning, to say their quality improved is sorta misleading, as the Big 3 made such junk that for quality to improve all they needed was to show up sober and the doors would not be installed backwards...having lived in Detroit from 1980-1990, the 1980s, to me, the quality of their automobiles barely qualified them to be boat anchors in Lake Erie...
It was the early 80s that we Americans finally realized that their was an alternative, and we voted with our dollars and bought Hondas...I bought four of them...
My clients were divided into two camps...those that worked in the auto industry (which obviously dominated the City of Detroit) and "all others"...when I spoke to an auto person, they were absolutely shocked that someone would buy a Japanese car when their neighbor worked for the UAW...those in the "all others" camp would actually express outright resentment and hostility that their neighbors who worked for the Big 3 had the unmitigated gall to make such absolute crappy junk, call them cars, and expect folks to buy them with their hard-earned money when the Japapnese products just oozed with quality...
Sat what you will, but many, many folks who were not associated with the industry carried deep resentment for the autoworkers because they were tired of having no choices but the American crap, and they voted with their feet and their dollars...while my opinions can be argued, when that many folks take their dollars elsewhere without anyone holding a gun to their head, I think it is safe to say that the 1980s (and the leadup of the late 1970s) were the lowpoint for American quality...basically, when the Detroit resident was willing to buy Japanese and throw it in the face of his UAW neighbor, I think it is safe to say that the conventional wisdom knew the truth, regardless of the hype that they wish us to believe...the Americans made crap, they knew it, we knew it, and the Japanese saw an opening that you could drive a Kenworth through, and they wisely took it...
You didn't see the same Japanese (German) cars that I did during the 80s. Can you say Datsun? Rust? Honda?
As I recall the need for economy cars, purchase price and operation cost, was what the VW and Japanese sold into. They were simplistic, few options to go bad, manual transmissions. Repairs were often easy-to-do for the shadetree or local mechanic. They tended to rust away. VWs didn't run.
I recall following some of these econoboxes and noting how small they were physically and how small their tires were; narrower, smaller tires meant less initial cost.
imidazol97: You didn't see the same Japanese (German) cars that I did during the 80s. Can you say Datsun? Rust? Honda?
But what about the Vega, Pinto and Gremlin? The Vega rusted WORSE than any Japanese car, and the Pinto and the Gremlin weren't much better. And let's not forget the Vega's infamous engine that was virtually guaranteed to self-destruct before 60,000 miles.
The Chevette (in production until mid-1980s as GM's main small car offering) wasn't bad in the rust or drivetrain durability departments, but it was a cheap, basic car - and you were reminded of that every time you sat in one. No mechanical finesse, no sprightly handling, no clever features (as one would find on, say, a Honda Civic).
imidazol97: As I recall the need for economy cars, purchase price and operation cost, was what the VW and Japanese sold into. They were simplistic, few options to go bad, manual transmissions. Repairs were often easy-to-do for the shadetree or local mechanic. They tended to rust away. VWs didn't run.
The domestic subcompacts were sold on the same attributes as the Japanese subcompacts. And they were just as sparsely optioned as most Japanese cars. And they were still more unreliable (while being less refined) than their Japanese counterparts.
The "econoboxes" gave the Japanese a foothold in the market. In the early 1980s, GM, and to a lesser extent, Ford, still owned the family sedan market. The domestics had plenty of time to bring out more competitive models to beat the Japanese at their own game. They didn't - and have no one to blame but themselves.
We obviously disagree. Are you saying the foreign cars didn't rust? :P :confuse:
A coworker had a Datsun B210? hatchback type vehicle that pure junk. He laughed every time it started and got him to work without driving his Vega! But it was a shoestring.
Vega motors that weren't maintained had some problems. >not forget the Vega's infamous engine that was virtually guaranteed to self-destruct before 60,000 miles.
imidazol97: We obviously disagree. Are you saying the foreign cars didn't rust?
No, I'm saying that the Vega rusted worse than the Japanese cars, and that the Pinto and the Gremlin weren't much better. The Chevette was, but it had other problems, not the least of which was that it lingered on far beyond what should have been its expiration date.
As for the disagreement - every automotive historian I've read has agreed with me on how the Vega and Chevette compared to their chief Japanese competitors.
imidazol97: Vega motors that weren't maintained had some problems.
All Vega motors had problems, whether they were maintained or not. The basic design was faulty. Ed Cole (and GM's leadership) forced an unproven design on Chevrolet that it was not prepared to build properly.
Chevrolet had designed a small car (which was more conventional, and probably would have been much more reliable), but the division was ordered to drop that model and build what became the Vega instead.
All Vega motors had problems, whether they were maintained or not.
Well in my case that was not true. But then again, I never missed a 3,000 mile oil change and changed the belts and hoses every 25,000 miles and all the ordinary stuff. I sold it with 80,000 miles. Now I am not saying the car was trouble free it did have it's problems. All in all in was a decent ride.
>As for the disagreement - every automotive historian I've read has agreed with me on how the Vega and Chevette compared to their chief Japanese competitors.
Good for them.
>All Vega motors had problems, whether they were maintained or not.
See post 1555. I had coworkers who had them and theirs hadn't failed, so there goes the anecdotal survey you cite.
Well I do remember when Honda/Toyota/Nissan were just selling cheap econoboxes in the late '70's and early '80's but the thing about these Asian manufacturers is that they learn from their mistakes (Hyundai same thing only maybe 10 years later). So from the Datsun B-210, Honda Civic, Toyota Toyopet, we now have the Nissan Maxima, Honda Accord, Toyota Avalon. GM, Ford, and Chrysler seemed to abandon or downplay the things that weren't working or didn't produce short term profits. It really is a difference in management philosophies. I dont know if the domestic 2.5 can change that at this point.
"Well in my case that was not true. But then again, I never missed a 3,000 mile oil change and changed the belts and hoses every 25,000 miles and all the ordinary stuff. I sold it with 80,000 miles. Now I am not saying the car was trouble free it did have it's problems. All in all in was a decent ride."
I had one too, Chuck, a 1975, Beige. It was without qualification, the WORST car I've ever had. The engine didn't blow up on me, I didn't have it long enough for it to do that. But I couldn't steer the thing parked, the old reciprocating ball steering was impossible. It farted sulpher all the time out the tailpipe, smelled like a rotten egg. It leaked so much oil, I had to put a coffee can under it at night, so I could put it back in the engine in the morning. The heater ran all the time, so even when it was summer, and you had it off, you still got a hot blast right over the hump that just roasted you out. That was when the heater motor worked. Fortunately, it went out regularly. The door and window handles broke off, the front seat broke, and it was horrible in the snow.
I kept it for only a year, and I bought it new. Traded it for a 1976 Pinto. Not a huge improvement, but the pinto was put together a lot better. The doors would shut on it. The only things that went wrong with the Pinto in 60,000 miles, were it pinged constantly, unless you put the timing back far enough to stop it, then you couldn't get it out of its own way it became so slow. The transmission case cracked, making the transmission leak considerably. The starter drive malfunctioned and eventually wore out the ring gear on the flywheel, requiring a replacement ring gear. And the carburator gave me considerable headache for a while. Not great, as I said, but a damn site better than the Vega was. AND, the Pinto had rack and pinion steering was a breeze to steer.
Ford really screwed up because they forgot the need to innovate.
Henry Ford said "If I asked people what kind of automobile they wanted, they would have told me they wanted a faster horse".
Japanese are not afraid to do what wasn't done before. From the 70s to today it seems like every NEW thing is in a Japanese car. Remember the Civic with the CVCC engine. Detroit said you couldn't meet emissions standards with out a Cat. Little Honda said you could and did!
Japan had the first Rotary production car Japan had the first Hybrid Car Japan had the first widely available DOHC engines Japan had the first ULEV car. (another thing Detroit said could never be done) Even when America does come up with a new idea, like the minivan, the Japanese make it their own.
The truth is that the blame falls on the American corporate culture as much if not more than on the UAW. The workers just build the crap that was designed by the engineers who just design the crap that management tells them to.
Lee Iacocca was INFAMOUS for stifling good engineering. On the Pinto project, the goal was 2000 pounds to sell for $2000 dollars. Any idea that would make it a better car was squashed by Iacocca if it would add weight or cost. The decision was made at the top to produce a piece of JUNK.
I knew I would catch some flack (not you) when I posted that. But it's true. There's no doubt they were not a very put together car. I was just lucky I guess. Now about my dad's 1970 Gremlin he bought new...it was just that a Gremlin.
a joke that does not qualify as an automobile in my mind, I bought: 1985 Prelude, and sold it 20 months later with 20K miles for $100 less than I paid for it...sold it because it had manual windows and we wanted power windows...
1986 Accord, got the power windows, and got a 5 speed manual, kept it for 2 years...
1988 Prelude Si 4 wheel steering...easily the best car I have ever owned, and the 4WS is the best option next to air conditioning...kept this car until 2001, 180K miles, basic maintenance...
also bought a 1988 Legend L, kept it until 1988, traded in at 165K, trouble free miles...
I have come back to the "dark side" giving Americans another chance, but the 4 Hondas were the best made cars I have ever owned...if the UAW made anything that solid I may never have left, but in 1985-1988, listening to the solid sound of a Honda door closing, next to the metallic clang of American junk, there was no comparison...
When I would ask UAW folks just to listen as I closed the door on my Prelude, "why can't you make a car that solid?" they just shook their head and muttered something about saving my neighbor's job, typical union brainwashing...
I would have respected them if they at least had the guts to say "Yeah, we need to improve" or "hey, they DO make a quality product" but all they can do is attend the Detroit Auto Show and destroy the import cars by slashing upholstery, breaking steering wheels and keying paint jobs, which is what children do when they pout...all that is all the union folks would do, complain and pout...God forbid they should CONSIDER making a better product...
They DO make a better product now, but that is 20 years, TWO DECADES later, they are realizing that imports are here to stay, and that patriotic veneer about Buy American falls on deaf ears when the other guys make a better product...
You can have any opinion you want, but folks did not flock to imports because they had nothing better to do, they were fed up with the crap sold to us by the Big 3 and they deserted them in droves for an obviously better product...
And, today, there are some folks who were so badly tainted by their UAW experience that they will NEVER look at another Big 3 (2?) car again, it is imports only for them, even if they are made here, they are not made by American UAW folks...
The union had 'em, mistreated 'em with years of crap, and now lost'em forever...and no amount of anything will bring them back...in their minds they will NEVER buy a UAW car again, and the memories of the 70s and 80s will linger forever...
I didn't know that the UAW decided what the company will build as far as product goes. So you are sort of saying the UAW decided to put the Ford Contour, Ford Fiesta into production. marsha, while I understand your anger, you are blaming the wrong side of the aisle.
I note that you start talking about Hondas 14 years later. I would expect there to have been differences during the evolution in 14 years. How did the Honda, Datsuns, Toyotas being imported then compare to the Vega of 1971.
Comparing the 1971 to 1975 Vega to a Honda 1985, 1988, 1988 is apples and oranges.
I really think that Bill Ford has the interest of Ford and the entire industry as his number one goal. However, while he appears to be an excellent spokesman, he unfortunately displays no ability. However, in fairness, does one see any real talent at Chrysler or GM. I sincerely feel that a major part of the problem is the attempt to come up with a great car by committee. Old Henry relied on himself and a couple of close associates. Decisions were not generated by committee. If you have been in that environment, you know how it works. "Let the other guy do it". "It will happen, somehow, eventually." etc., etc., etc. I remember an advertisement a number of years back when Buick was getting ready to make a giant leap forward. One of their engineers indicated that he had been given an assignment of coming up with a system of daytime running lights and he had been working on this project for two years. What somebody should have shown him was the door. The entire American automotive industry has become way to bureaucratic to achieve success. Unfortunately, the foreign manufactures are headed down the same path.
imidazol97: See post 1555. I had coworkers who had them and theirs hadn't failed, so there goes the anecdotal survey you cite.
As you said earlier - "Good for them." (Incidentally - using anecdotal evidence to refute anecdotal evidence doesn't work. Since everyone I knew with a Vega had a bad experience, I suppose that cancels out your anecdotes.)
A few years ago someone tried to commit suicide by jumping off the Empire State Building's 86th observation deck. The strong winds blew him on to ledge on a lower floor, and he survived.
Using your "logic," it's safe to jump off the Empire State Building, because one person did and lived to tell about it...
History has rendered its judgment on the Vega, and it does not accord with your opinion. The cars were junk, whether they were maintained or not. Even if the engine didn't fail, the bodies still rusted with a vengeance, the interiors were uncomfortable and the engine - while it was working - vibrated like a lawn mower engine.
It's best to study history instead of trying to rewrite it to suite what we think should have been...
a) Did Ford make a Vega, or is it in their future? b) Is this the UAW/Domestics discussion?
If you find that neither a) nor b) is true, please see discussion title for posting assistance.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
The Toyota Corolla and the Datsun 210 of 1971 were still superior to the 1971 Vega.
Civic debuted in 1973, and it completely blew the Vega out of the water.
GM wouldn't have another small car answer until the 1976 Chevette, which was a major improvement over the Vega, as the basic design was sturdy and long-lived. GM's problem was allowing it to linger largely unchanged for way too long - it was in production until 1985.
You are right, rceggl - management by committee insulates any one person from blame when the (Aztek) car flops....and that's all that committee management is designed for - to avoid blame. Meantime, nothing ever gets done, or done well.
Where is Harley Earl, the original Thunderbird guy, forgot his name, and Iacocca when you need them? Say what you will, they all had faults, but they got great cars out that were hits, and sometimes saved their companies.
Lewis Crusoe was executive who pushed through original Thunderbird. Franklin Hershey designed it, if I recall correctly.
Robert McNamara then said it would sell better if it had four seats. Which, of course, it did, although in the long run the car slowly lost its charm as it morphed from the Thunderbird to the Thunderbarge.
A better course would have been to keep the two-seat Thunderbird as a Ford and bring out what became the four-seat version as a Mercury. This would have put Mercury on the map by giving it something that Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick didn't have at the time.
sometimes the focus groups and market planners just have no idea which products will strike a chord in the buying public...Ford does seem to almost make a good product sometimes and then blow it in the execution...I think an example of this may be the current midsize line, where the V6, IIRC, only has 200 or so HP, enough to make it quick with the driver, but certainly bog down with a family of four with AC running in July...why they could not make a 250-275 HP V6 like in the Pacifica is beyond me...
Than, you have where the planners miss the intended market, but still have a hit by accident...I read recently that the Honda Element was intended and designed for young adults and college students on a budget, yet the majority of buyers (or at least a large minority) are over 55 and it seems that the middle age to older folks fell in love with the boxy design and ability to haul stuff w/o being as big as an SUV...
Maybe Ford should copy the Accord, Camry, CRV, or something that the imports sell like hotcakes...who cares if it looks like an imitator???...sometimes Ford/GM miss the boat by a mile, and if a conservative car like Camry/Accord sells well year after year, maybe we need to notice things like that and design cars accordingly...
I think an example of this may be the current midsize line, where the V6, IIRC, only has 200 or so HP, enough to make it quick with the driver, but certainly bog down with a family of four with AC running in July...why they could not make a 250-275 HP V6 like in the Pacifica is beyond me...
Your wish has been granted. They may have messed up by not doing this when the models were introduced, but the 3.5L V6 will be in the new Edge, Five Hundred and Freestyle (if I'm not mistaken), with the Fusion/Milan twins soon after that. Figure about 260+ HP, depending on model.
Maybe Ford should copy the Accord, Camry, CRV, or something that the imports sell like hotcakes...who cares if it looks like an imitator???
I disagree. If you want proof, look at how well the Fusion/Milan is selling. Granted, it's not Camry numbers, but Fusion/Milan sales are trouncing what the generic Taurus/Sable were (not including fleet sales, of course). IMO, the Fusion is just what Ford needed, a mid-size sedan that does NOT look like a Camry/Accord, and still offers a great value for the $$$. Offering an "imitator" is what Ford's done with the Taurus, and we all know how well it's done in the past few years. In the automotive business, you need to stop following the pack, and stand out as an alternative in order to generate buzz (and sales). Of course, the Aztec did this, and failed miserably, but Ford did the right thing with the Fusion/Milan (and to some extents, the Mustang), and needs to spread this momentum to the rest of the product line.
...sometimes Ford/GM miss the boat by a mile, and if a conservative car like Camry/Accord sells well year after year, maybe we need to notice things like that and design cars accordingly...
The Camry and Accord sell well due to their nameplates, plain and simple. Their perceived quality over the years has helped to sell their cars, not their styling.
The Camry and Accord sell well due to their nameplates, plain and simple. Their perceived quality over the years has helped to sell their cars, not their styling.
Correct - Many purchases of these cars are by people who just want a tried and true nameplate, with good (if not guaranteed) resale - almost regardless of styling.
And besides, we already have Hyundai and Kia trying to copy these - do we need more?
>who just want a tried and true nameplate, with good (if not guaranteed) resale
Many purchases are by people who don't want to research, compare values and prices, and shop. I'm sure the purchasers of Odysseys are glad to know their transmissions will be replaced up to 100K and their droning noise in the cabin will be considered normal. Do you want listing of problems in Accords? Read the other threads here. Civics; same. Pilots, Same. Camry transmission problems-current.
Tried and true? I don't think people can assume that now. Things have changed, although some don't want to admit it.
It's almost like those who think the Ford Volvo is still a "safer" car than others. or those who think the 500 is similar to volvo in shape so it's a Volvo.
"Your wish has been granted. They may have messed up by not doing this when the models were introduced, but the 3.5L V6 will be in the new Edge, Five Hundred and Freestyle (if I'm not mistaken), with the Fusion/Milan twins soon after that. Figure about 260+ HP, depending on model."
Awesome...couple that with a manual transmission option in the Fusion, and that would be quite a nice "bargain basement Bimmer".
Comments
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Explorer not selling good is it :surprise:
Rocky
Igor
Rocky
Even older than that - 1978 Fairmont/Zephyr
Please be advised that the Mustang is producted on a modified C1 platform from the new European Focus and Mazda3.
The DEW-Lite plan was killed due to massive cost over runs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_D2C_platform
Note that the Mustang is built on what is almost a Mazda platform in a Mazda run factory.
Mark.
Mark.
Well, he is an American. I assume you mean "of Vietnamese ancestry" or whathave you though...he came to the USA when Siagon fell. Makes it sound like Ford outsourced the Mustang to the commies...
The Mazda 3 & EuroFocus are RWD are they?
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060628/AUTO01/606280368/1148
Rocky
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060628/BUSINESS01/606280345/10- 14
Rocky
Hence the reason why it's a MODIFIED C1 platform. The DEW-lite is indeed history.
Rocky
The second fuel prices fall below $2.50 per gallon (if that ever happens) expect a moratorium on all talk of fuel efficiency. Its the Ford (and GM) way.
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060630/AUTO01/606300400/- 1148
Rocky
And you KNOW that for a fact how? I don't think Bill is a strong leader either, which is why I actually do think he believed it when he promised it. Now, it's painfully obvious this isn't going to happen, he has to break the bad news to Wall Street.
The funny thing is, Hybrids aren't all they are advertised to be, or people think they are, and he probably never could have achieved it, even if they had the money. Same with the 25%, it was a goal he set, but the engineers knew it wasn't going to happen with the same truck they have today. Maybe in a Ranger sized truck......
It's nice to throw those numbers out and try to enforce compliance, but not always easy to achieve it. And neither of us could probably run Ford any better, though we think we could from the armchair. I do think though, that if Bill wants to save his company, he needs to go find somebody to run it for him as President.
The big question is whether he can move the company fast enough to prevent it from falling into either financial ruin or foreign hands.
He must also change an entrenched corporate culture that conspires against producing top-notch product across the board. Ford can do certain vehicles well, but others appear to be done on the cheap (Freestar). And others are milked until they are dry (Ranger, Town Car).
What Ford needs is consistency. Quality must be good across the line, and all vehicles must be kept up to date.
My reason for this is simple...one thing I know about the UAW is that when members are losing their jobs, the folks who remain on the line often perform "activities" that they feel "get back" at Ford (or GM) for dumping their neighbor's job...it comes from that "union entitlement attitude" that I often experienced in my years in Detroit...so, if the remaining workers feel they have nothing to lose, they can produce a poor product and everyone sits around wondering "why can't Ford make a good product?", when the real answer is the pink elephant in the room, but no one in the industry has the guts to say so...which is why that the new Honda plant in Indiana will NEVER, I repeat NEVER, hire any displaced UAW worker, because they walk in with a militant attitude from Day One, and Japanese carmakers have no tolerance for rabble rousers, and they (and me) see the UAW as just a bunch of overpaid welfare entitlement rabble rousers...
Strong opinions to follow...:):):)
In the 1980s, when Ford and the UAW worked together, quality improved. Remember, in the 1980s GM invested in automation big time (the Poletown plant in particular). Ford, which didn't have the capital to take this route, worked with the union (and laid off a bunch of workers and closed a bunch of plants, which sent a sobering message to remaining workers - change or die!).
I've seen original-condition Fords, Mercurys and Lincolns from the 1980s at various car shows, and they have much better build quality than their domestic competitors. Fords were far superior to comparable GM and Chrysler cars in this regard.
Plus, looking at the problems Ford owners are experiencing on this site and others, they mostly are related to cost-cutting and poor engineering, not shoddy assembly or bad workmanship.
It was the early 80s that we Americans finally realized that their was an alternative, and we voted with our dollars and bought Hondas...I bought four of them...
My clients were divided into two camps...those that worked in the auto industry (which obviously dominated the City of Detroit) and "all others"...when I spoke to an auto person, they were absolutely shocked that someone would buy a Japanese car when their neighbor worked for the UAW...those in the "all others" camp would actually express outright resentment and hostility that their neighbors who worked for the Big 3 had the unmitigated gall to make such absolute crappy junk, call them cars, and expect folks to buy them with their hard-earned money when the Japapnese products just oozed with quality...
Sat what you will, but many, many folks who were not associated with the industry carried deep resentment for the autoworkers because they were tired of having no choices but the American crap, and they voted with their feet and their dollars...while my opinions can be argued, when that many folks take their dollars elsewhere without anyone holding a gun to their head, I think it is safe to say that the 1980s (and the leadup of the late 1970s) were the lowpoint for American quality...basically, when the Detroit resident was willing to buy Japanese and throw it in the face of his UAW neighbor, I think it is safe to say that the conventional wisdom knew the truth, regardless of the hype that they wish us to believe...the Americans made crap, they knew it, we knew it, and the Japanese saw an opening that you could drive a Kenworth through, and they wisely took it...
You didn't see the same Japanese (German) cars that I did during the 80s. Can you say Datsun? Rust? Honda?
As I recall the need for economy cars, purchase price and operation cost, was what the VW and Japanese sold into. They were simplistic, few options to go bad, manual transmissions. Repairs were often easy-to-do for the shadetree or local mechanic. They tended to rust away. VWs didn't run.
I recall following some of these econoboxes and noting how small they were physically and how small their tires were; narrower, smaller tires meant less initial cost.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But what about the Vega, Pinto and Gremlin? The Vega rusted WORSE than any Japanese car, and the Pinto and the Gremlin weren't much better. And let's not forget the Vega's infamous engine that was virtually guaranteed to self-destruct before 60,000 miles.
The Chevette (in production until mid-1980s as GM's main small car offering) wasn't bad in the rust or drivetrain durability departments, but it was a cheap, basic car - and you were reminded of that every time you sat in one. No mechanical finesse, no sprightly handling, no clever features (as one would find on, say, a Honda Civic).
imidazol97: As I recall the need for economy cars, purchase price and operation cost, was what the VW and Japanese sold into. They were simplistic, few options to go bad, manual transmissions. Repairs were often easy-to-do for the shadetree or local mechanic. They tended to rust away. VWs didn't run.
The domestic subcompacts were sold on the same attributes as the Japanese subcompacts. And they were just as sparsely optioned as most Japanese cars. And they were still more unreliable (while being less refined) than their Japanese counterparts.
The "econoboxes" gave the Japanese a foothold in the market. In the early 1980s, GM, and to a lesser extent, Ford, still owned the family sedan market. The domestics had plenty of time to bring out more competitive models to beat the Japanese at their own game. They didn't - and have no one to blame but themselves.
A coworker had a Datsun B210? hatchback type vehicle that pure junk. He laughed every time it started and got him to work without driving his Vega! But it was a shoestring.
Vega motors that weren't maintained had some problems.
>not forget the Vega's infamous engine that was virtually guaranteed to self-destruct before 60,000 miles.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
No, I'm saying that the Vega rusted worse than the Japanese cars, and that the Pinto and the Gremlin weren't much better. The Chevette was, but it had other problems, not the least of which was that it lingered on far beyond what should have been its expiration date.
As for the disagreement - every automotive historian I've read has agreed with me on how the Vega and Chevette compared to their chief Japanese competitors.
imidazol97: Vega motors that weren't maintained had some problems.
All Vega motors had problems, whether they were maintained or not. The basic design was faulty. Ed Cole (and GM's leadership) forced an unproven design on Chevrolet that it was not prepared to build properly.
Chevrolet had designed a small car (which was more conventional, and probably would have been much more reliable), but the division was ordered to drop that model and build what became the Vega instead.
Well in my case that was not true. But then again, I never missed a 3,000 mile oil change and changed the belts and hoses every 25,000 miles and all the ordinary stuff. I sold it with 80,000 miles. Now I am not saying the car was trouble free it did have it's problems. All in all in was a decent ride.
Good for them.
>All Vega motors had problems, whether they were maintained or not.
See post 1555. I had coworkers who had them and theirs hadn't failed, so there goes the anecdotal survey you cite.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I had one too, Chuck, a 1975, Beige. It was without qualification, the WORST car I've ever had. The engine didn't blow up on me, I didn't have it long enough for it to do that. But I couldn't steer the thing parked, the old reciprocating ball steering was impossible. It farted sulpher all the time out the tailpipe, smelled like a rotten egg. It leaked so much oil, I had to put a coffee can under it at night, so I could put it back in the engine in the morning. The heater ran all the time, so even when it was summer, and you had it off, you still got a hot blast right over the hump that just roasted you out. That was when the heater motor worked. Fortunately, it went out regularly. The door and window handles broke off, the front seat broke, and it was horrible in the snow.
I kept it for only a year, and I bought it new. Traded it for a 1976 Pinto. Not a huge improvement, but the pinto was put together a lot better. The doors would shut on it. The only things that went wrong with the Pinto in 60,000 miles, were it pinged constantly, unless you put the timing back far enough to stop it, then you couldn't get it out of its own way it became so slow. The transmission case cracked, making the transmission leak considerably. The starter drive malfunctioned and eventually wore out the ring gear on the flywheel, requiring a replacement ring gear. And the carburator gave me considerable headache for a while. Not great, as I said, but a damn site better than the Vega was. AND, the Pinto had rack and pinion steering was a breeze to steer.
Henry Ford said "If I asked people what kind of automobile they wanted, they would have told me they wanted a faster horse".
Japanese are not afraid to do what wasn't done before. From the 70s to today it seems like every NEW thing is in a Japanese car. Remember the Civic with the CVCC engine. Detroit said you couldn't meet emissions standards with out a Cat. Little Honda said you could and did!
Japan had the first Rotary production car
Japan had the first Hybrid Car
Japan had the first widely available DOHC engines
Japan had the first ULEV car. (another thing Detroit said could never be done)
Even when America does come up with a new idea, like the minivan, the Japanese make it their own.
The truth is that the blame falls on the American corporate culture as much if not more than on the UAW. The workers just build the crap that was designed by the engineers who just design the crap that management tells them to.
Lee Iacocca was INFAMOUS for stifling good engineering. On the Pinto project, the goal was 2000 pounds to sell for $2000 dollars. Any idea that would make it a better car was squashed by Iacocca if it would add weight or cost. The decision was made at the top to produce a piece of JUNK.
Mark.
1985 Prelude, and sold it 20 months later with 20K miles for $100 less than I paid for it...sold it because it had manual windows and we wanted power windows...
1986 Accord, got the power windows, and got a 5 speed manual, kept it for 2 years...
1988 Prelude Si 4 wheel steering...easily the best car I have ever owned, and the 4WS is the best option next to air conditioning...kept this car until 2001, 180K miles, basic maintenance...
also bought a 1988 Legend L, kept it until 1988, traded in at 165K, trouble free miles...
I have come back to the "dark side" giving Americans another chance, but the 4 Hondas were the best made cars I have ever owned...if the UAW made anything that solid I may never have left, but in 1985-1988, listening to the solid sound of a Honda door closing, next to the metallic clang of American junk, there was no comparison...
When I would ask UAW folks just to listen as I closed the door on my Prelude, "why can't you make a car that solid?" they just shook their head and muttered something about saving my neighbor's job, typical union brainwashing...
I would have respected them if they at least had the guts to say "Yeah, we need to improve" or "hey, they DO make a quality product" but all they can do is attend the Detroit Auto Show and destroy the import cars by slashing upholstery, breaking steering wheels and keying paint jobs, which is what children do when they pout...all that is all the union folks would do, complain and pout...God forbid they should CONSIDER making a better product...
They DO make a better product now, but that is 20 years, TWO DECADES later, they are realizing that imports are here to stay, and that patriotic veneer about Buy American falls on deaf ears when the other guys make a better product...
You can have any opinion you want, but folks did not flock to imports because they had nothing better to do, they were fed up with the crap sold to us by the Big 3 and they deserted them in droves for an obviously better product...
And, today, there are some folks who were so badly tainted by their UAW experience that they will NEVER look at another Big 3 (2?) car again, it is imports only for them, even if they are made here, they are not made by American UAW folks...
The union had 'em, mistreated 'em with years of crap, and now lost'em forever...and no amount of anything will bring them back...in their minds they will NEVER buy a UAW car again, and the memories of the 70s and 80s will linger forever...
Rocky
I note that you start talking about Hondas 14 years later. I would expect there to have been differences during the evolution in 14 years. How did the Honda, Datsuns, Toyotas being imported then compare to the Vega of 1971.
Comparing the 1971 to 1975 Vega to a Honda 1985, 1988, 1988 is apples and oranges.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
As you said earlier - "Good for them." (Incidentally - using anecdotal evidence to refute anecdotal evidence doesn't work. Since everyone I knew with a Vega had a bad experience, I suppose that cancels out your anecdotes.)
A few years ago someone tried to commit suicide by jumping off the Empire State Building's 86th observation deck. The strong winds blew him on to ledge on a lower floor, and he survived.
Using your "logic," it's safe to jump off the Empire State Building, because one person did and lived to tell about it...
History has rendered its judgment on the Vega, and it does not accord with your opinion. The cars were junk, whether they were maintained or not. Even if the engine didn't fail, the bodies still rusted with a vengeance, the interiors were uncomfortable and the engine - while it was working - vibrated like a lawn mower engine.
It's best to study history instead of trying to rewrite it to suite what we think should have been...
b) Is this the UAW/Domestics discussion?
If you find that neither a) nor b) is true, please see discussion title for posting assistance.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Civic debuted in 1973, and it completely blew the Vega out of the water.
GM wouldn't have another small car answer until the 1976 Chevette, which was a major improvement over the Vega, as the basic design was sturdy and long-lived. GM's problem was allowing it to linger largely unchanged for way too long - it was in production until 1985.
Where is Harley Earl, the original Thunderbird guy, forgot his name, and Iacocca when you need them? Say what you will, they all had faults, but they got great cars out that were hits, and sometimes saved their companies.
Robert McNamara then said it would sell better if it had four seats. Which, of course, it did, although in the long run the car slowly lost its charm as it morphed from the Thunderbird to the Thunderbarge.
A better course would have been to keep the two-seat Thunderbird as a Ford and bring out what became the four-seat version as a Mercury. This would have put Mercury on the map by giving it something that Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick didn't have at the time.
Than, you have where the planners miss the intended market, but still have a hit by accident...I read recently that the Honda Element was intended and designed for young adults and college students on a budget, yet the majority of buyers (or at least a large minority) are over 55 and it seems that the middle age to older folks fell in love with the boxy design and ability to haul stuff w/o being as big as an SUV...
Maybe Ford should copy the Accord, Camry, CRV, or something that the imports sell like hotcakes...who cares if it looks like an imitator???...sometimes Ford/GM miss the boat by a mile, and if a conservative car like Camry/Accord sells well year after year, maybe we need to notice things like that and design cars accordingly...
Your wish has been granted. They may have messed up by not doing this when the models were introduced, but the 3.5L V6 will be in the new Edge, Five Hundred and Freestyle (if I'm not mistaken), with the Fusion/Milan twins soon after that. Figure about 260+ HP, depending on model.
Maybe Ford should copy the Accord, Camry, CRV, or something that the imports sell like hotcakes...who cares if it looks like an imitator???
I disagree. If you want proof, look at how well the Fusion/Milan is selling. Granted, it's not Camry numbers, but Fusion/Milan sales are trouncing what the generic Taurus/Sable were (not including fleet sales, of course). IMO, the Fusion is just what Ford needed, a mid-size sedan that does NOT look like a Camry/Accord, and still offers a great value for the $$$. Offering an "imitator" is what Ford's done with the Taurus, and we all know how well it's done in the past few years. In the automotive business, you need to stop following the pack, and stand out as an alternative in order to generate buzz (and sales). Of course, the Aztec did this, and failed miserably, but Ford did the right thing with the Fusion/Milan (and to some extents, the Mustang), and needs to spread this momentum to the rest of the product line.
...sometimes Ford/GM miss the boat by a mile, and if a conservative car like Camry/Accord sells well year after year, maybe we need to notice things like that and design cars accordingly...
The Camry and Accord sell well due to their nameplates, plain and simple. Their perceived quality over the years has helped to sell their cars, not their styling.
Correct - Many purchases of these cars are by people who just want a tried and true nameplate, with good (if not guaranteed) resale - almost regardless of styling.
And besides, we already have Hyundai and Kia trying to copy these - do we need more?
Many purchases are by people who don't want to research, compare values and prices, and shop. I'm sure the purchasers of Odysseys are glad to know their transmissions will be replaced up to 100K and their droning noise in the cabin will be considered normal. Do you want listing of problems in Accords? Read the other threads here. Civics; same. Pilots, Same. Camry transmission problems-current.
Tried and true? I don't think people can assume that now. Things have changed, although some don't want to admit it.
It's almost like those who think the Ford Volvo is still a "safer" car than others. or those who think the 500 is similar to volvo in shape so it's a Volvo.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Awesome...couple that with a manual transmission option in the Fusion, and that would be quite a nice "bargain basement Bimmer".