Improvement in every area has been key at GM for many years.
This is the core problem. The "improvements" are simply taking too long. GM is too big. By the time they realize that a product needs to be updated, dropped, or replaced, the competition is already WAY ahead of them. I will maintain that the product planners at GM work in a vacuum. "I'm happy with my products, so everyone else should be as well" seems to be the prevailing mantra over at the RenCen.
The way business is conducted has become more efficient by changes in everything from union work rules to leading edge technology integration.
Nobody else on the Planet Earth would make this statement other than a manager at General Motors. "Union Work Rules" don't make cars that people want to buy, and neither does "Leading Edge Technology Integration". Onstar is neat, but too expensive for the "average joe" customer who is GM's bread and butter. For $15 a month, they'll take satellite radio instead thanksverymuch.
Anyone who perceives GM as being critical of their customers doesn't know about the pride and spirit that is typically taken as a natural attitude of the GM work force.
Except at this point, you're working from false pride. Your cars need help, your suppliers need help, your divisional structure needs help, and your company is in real trouble. At this point, you have nothing to take pride in.
If you are indeed a GM manager, you need to wake up and start affecting real change within your company - when you start making competitive cars and turning a profit, THEN you will have earned the right to be prideful. Just don't lose sight of the "big picture", and become complacent if and when this happens. Otherwise it's 2005 all over again, and you will get eaten alive in the marketplace.
My intent here was not to flame you, but if you are indeed a GM manager, your attitude is part of the reason your company is circling the toilet bowl. You drank too much of the GM Kool-Aid.
Anyone who believes that American Industrial troubles are just GM and Ford's problem is a fool! We are all in the same boat here, and should be looking out for each other.
Typical American perception:
I don’t like American cars. I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer Japanese products, the quality is much better for the money.
American Reality:
I don like (insert your job here). I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer (insert any up and coming Asian country here) products, the quality is much better for the money.
I don’t like American cars. I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer Japanese products, the quality is much better for the money.
American Reality:
I don like (insert your job here). I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer (insert any up and coming Asian country here) products, the quality is much better for the money.
American Future:
I don like (i.e. Walmart). I just don’t think the pay is up to par. I preferred (i.e. GeneralMotors, Bethlehem Steel, etc.) wages, the pay was much better for my labor.
Transplants jobs mean nothing, Transplants vehicles built here mean nothing. Buy GM, buy Ford because they are not (insert derided transplant country here)
A wonderful world it would be with everyone driving Pintos and Vegas because there was no other CHOICE...
Would it be better with everyone driving Camries and Accords because there was no other CHOICE? That's like going to Baskin-Robbins and finding out all 31 flavors are vanilla.
Funny he'd select Pintos and Vegas - the very worst domestic cars from over 30 years ago. There were plenty more choices from domestic makes back then and now.
There are other companies besides Toyo/Honda and Ford/GM...
BTW, I picked those because do you actually believe the two domestic brands would put the efforts into building the best product if there were no competition? Hence the Vega and Pinto reference since they WERE so bad, but at the time the Asian imports reputation wasn't as strong as it is today. That's all.
It can happen to you! GM and Ford are the one's getting pounded first! By the time Asian and Indian (India) companies figure out a way to compete with YOUR job, Ford and GM will have figured out a way to survive, at a much smaller size of course. Five years from now will be reading threads with Ford and GM employees telling us how much better it is now that India and Korea are supplying YOUR product and/or service.
If they can do it better than me then I have to improve and do it better than they or move on to something that they can't do at all. It's always been a moving target.
ARLINGTON, VA — Crashworthiness evaluations for seven new or redesigned midsize car models reflect performance in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's front, side, and rear impact tests. The models include three moderately priced cars — Ford Fusion, Hyundai Sonata, and Pontiac G6. The other four models are luxury/near luxury cars — Acura TSX, BMW 3 series, Infiniti G35, and Lexus IS.
The best overall performers are the BMW 3 series and Lexus IS, which earned the silver 'Top Safety Pick' designation for good performance in the Institute's front and side crash tests plus acceptable ratings for their seat/head restraint designs in rear tests. The Ford Fusion, tested without its optional side airbags, earned the lowest overall ratings. It's the only car in this group that didn't earn a good rating in the frontal test. It earned a poor rating in the side test and a marginal rating for rear crash protection.
"Nearly every car now earns good ratings in our frontal test," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "The Fusion is acceptable, which isn't a bad result, but it's not competitive with other cars in its class. Based on this car's side and rear evaluations along with its acceptable frontal rating, the Fusion is the lowest rated moderately priced midsize car we've evaluated."
'The Ford Fusion, tested without its optional side airbags,' Huh??
Safety is one of the most basic decisions that are 'buy/no buy' for consumers. Who could have possibly screwed up this design and allowed the IIHS to test the Fusion in the manner it did? The Fusion/Milan is the heart of Ford's auto strategy and now it has a stake in its heart. It's beyond stupid.
With this it's fire everyone involved and send a janitor to the plant in Hermosillo and put a padlock on the gate or the next headline will be:
"Entire production of Hermosillo plant intended for fleet sales"
Were there some posts here previously about cutting costs and producing 2nd rate vehilces ( primarily intended for the used car market? ) while trying to pass them off as worldclass to retail buyers here.
Even more pitiful is the frontal test. Like Lund said, everybody gets a good now. What's up with this "acceptable" crap. That's just disgracelful. Brand new and improved my foot.
It's amazing to me how the American auto makers get off track the way they do. People are easy to please, and go looking for a brand to love and be loyal to. All it takes is quality, reliabliity, and common sense styling to keep the customers coming back. But noooooo! They can't stay on track. They keep going off on grand adventures and schemes designed to impress the shareholders with their brilliance. They don't realize that without customers, there will be no shareholders.
My first car was a VW Beetle..Then I joined the Marine Corp. While there I owned 3 Toyotas. All clapped out but dependable. For the next 8 years all I owned were used Toyotas. Up until my 1991 MR2 Turbo. That was when Toyota stopped making cars that appealed to me. So i switched to Acura/Hondas. My wife and I have owned over 30 cars in the last 10 years(she's the creator of the Chronic Car Buyer thread) and over 60% have been Honda/Acura products. 4 new Civics and 5 new Accords to be exact. Depending on the next Accord, my next car will either be a new Civic, Accord, and the new Camry SE looks promising. I simply haven't found any other reason to purchase any other brand. I will admit other brands make better handling, looking, or cheaper cars. But no automaker seems to combine all aspects that I find important into a car like Toyota/Honda/Lexus/Acura. For example, the G6 looked promising. But no manual in the 4 cylinder engine and the V6 engine has pushrods. Coming from a steady diet of OHC engines and manual transmissions, I can't see myself buying a car with a 2 valve per cylinder engine. GM biggest embarrassment should be when it looks at Hyundai. They are producing a great product now. And growing by leaps and bounds overcoming the spotty past reliability. The largest automaker in the world should be ashamed.
Dateline showed it on prime-time TV, so more customers are going to demand side air bags. Ford did say it would make them standard next model year, so I don't think the report hurt the Fusion much (though the Sonata scored better).
The Subaru Legacy beats all of them, earning Gold, vs. only Silver for the BMW 3 and the Lexus IS. So safety is very affordable after all.
-juice
PS Legacy is made in the USA, in Lafayette, Indiana
Not being the best may not be the worst, but being among the worst isn't good. Even if the "acceptable" is pretty good, when most cars are getting "good" you are among the worst. And for a "brand new" design. That's just un"acceptable".
Even if they get the side airbags, they will still be among the worst in frontal crashes. They just won't be "poor" in side impacts anymore.
There are plenty of people that still would prefer not to pay for it, even though the evidence that they provide an extra layer of safety is pretty substantial.
"The Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego were recently announced by the IIHS as the safest cars EVER tested."
I just took a look through their website and couldn't find that press release. I did note that the 500/Montego (equipped with the optional side airbags) received "gold" status.....as did the Honda Civic, Saab 9-3, and Suburu Legacy.
A car that size needs at least a 3.2L engine with a 3.5L option. I actually like them. But a 3.0L with 200 or so hp and torque don't cut it in a 2 ton car. The underhood problem is the only issue i have with the car though. Otherwise, it looks like a very nice vehicle.
I like the outside of the Malibu Maxx. But the interior and engine choices are sub-par.
The Fusion looks like thay gaffed on the safety aspect.
The Focus was introduced and promtly recalled.
The Cobalt has a non-independent rear suspension. But then so does the Corolla. That's a consideration for many "sporty car" minded buyers though.
the IIHS also made a similar statement back when they tested the 1996 Taurus. At that point, I believe it was the best-crashing car they had ever tested.
So maybe Ford has been doing a few things right. It would be nice if they'd do it right in cars that people WANT to buy!
No actually I am just speaking of the Fusion/Milan. The 500 has it's own problems but that's another story.
This specifically is about the Fusion which is the state of the art family sedan for Ma and Pa America which replaces their most basic auto the midsized Taurus/Sable.
My indictment is that this vehicle should not ever have been put in a position of failing. It should be, has to be, bulletproof in order to regain the original Taurus sizzle.
It's the designers, product managers, safety engineers, plant managers, etc which have to bear the brunt of this. It's inexcusable for such a high profile vehicle.
'Oh SAB are optional, so we'll have better results next year' Why was this vehicle tested without SAB? Yes they are optional so why not provide a vehicle for testing with this option and make your vehicle look good?
And to be indicted by the IIHS for being mediocre in frontal impacts when every bozo auto maker in the world knows how to make an auto with 'Good' frontal impacts is the real 'crime' here. It's not a legal crime... it's a business crime. It's the heart of Ford's auto strategy. How can you not get it right?
The side airbags and other stuff was optional on the Fusion so that it could undercut the price of the base Sonata. Looks like Ford shot themselves in the foot on that one.
My indictment is that this vehicle should not ever have been put in a position of failing. It should be, has to be, bulletproof in order to regain the original Taurus sizzle.
It's the designers, product managers, safety engineers, plant managers, etc which have to bear the brunt of this. It's inexcusable for such a high profile vehicle.
'Oh SAB are optional, so we'll have better results next year' Why was this vehicle tested without SAB? Yes they are optional so why not provide a vehicle for testing with this option and make your vehicle look good?
And to be indicted by the IIHS for being mediocre in frontal impacts when every bozo auto maker in the world knows how to make an auto with 'Good' frontal impacts is the real 'crime' here. It's not a legal crime... it's a business crime. It's the heart of Ford's auto strategy. How can you not get it right?
That is a fine post, worthy of reading by the executives of FoMoCo.
Unfortunately, I'm sure that there have got to be some Big 2.5 apologists out there who will, once again, blame the customer.
The adage that "The customer is always right" is a basic fast of business, that must be properly understood. It doesn't necessarily mean that the customer has more accurate data or always makes the best decision for himself; it means that the customer's objectives have to be satisfied and exceeded if you want his money. Don't do what the customer wants, and you won't be getting his cash.
The customer is not forced to buy from any one provider, and it is up to each business to serve his needs and to win his trust. The company can cry about this fact all it likes, but if doesn't address, it will be the one paying for it, not the custoer.
A: Because IIHS tests vehicles with base equipment, this is their protocol. They test vehicles with optional equipment if and only if the manufacturer agrees to provide more vehicles for testing. In this case Ford did so, so Fusion was tested with and without SAB.
I understood what you were talking about. I was being a bit sarcastic. They make the Five Hundred safe, and everyone says its "boring". They make the Fusion stylish, now it trashed for being "not safe enough". So, it’s always something. Many cars evolve in these tests including models from the import brands...so I'm sure the Fusion will be improved.
My sarcastic point is: If it were really that important, then the Five Hundred would be the best selling car on the road! Obviously, it’s not that important. Power and styling is more of a factor than the safest EVER tested. It can’t be so important for the Fusion, if it’s not that important when it comes to the Five Hundred!
About the protocols I couldnt find iton their site so I will agree with your statement since in the vehicle rankings one finds Accords and Camry's etc with and without SAB's. The one's with SAB obviously rate higher.
My point, and in answer to Kevmo's post also, is why the heck wasn't the Fusion w/ SAB's provided to the IIHS at the time of testing? A vehicle this important just can't have an albatross hanging around it's neck on a site like the IIHS without something to balance it out like a Good rating w/ SAB's.
This is management's fault. The product managers have to be aware of the importance of testing like this in a buyer's mind.
Now the mediocre frontal test results is a company-wide failure. For that there is no excuse. The Fusion is at the very bottom of the list of all midsized autos tested.
And not to bash just Ford... ditto Stratus/Sebring, they are second from the bottom. What are these people thinking?
The Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego were recently announced by the IIHS as the safest cars EVER tested.
So, apparently all of you American brand trashers are lining up to buy one of those two cars!
Has anyone under 50 years old, actually bought a 500? The 500 makes the Camry downright exciting. I don't think Ford is winning over many younger folks with the 500 design.
Has anyone under 50 years old, actually bought a 500? The 500 makes the Camry downright exciting. I don't think Ford is winning over many younger folks with the 500 design.
Wonder why Ford did not pursue their "Forty-nine" 2001 black color show car for production? I believe that it had outstanding reception by the public at auto shows. Instead, they give us milquetoast 500. That 49 would have captured some foreign brand buyers for its excitement level just like the Chrysler 300.
YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. Like a cow going down the line watching the cows drop in front of them, they are unaware of it happening to them because they got a bachelors degree in "underwater basket weaving" from Berkley.
"What you can't replace me, my mommy and daddy paid good money for this degree" <-*laughter*
I almost bought a Ford Five Hundred last summer. The most frustrating thing about the "near-purchase" was the local dealer never stocked any with the Safety Package (Side Airbags). As one who's in marketing, why would a dealer not order in units with side airbags when most potential Five Hundred buyer's are safety oriented? The dealer also made it difficult to do a dealer trade to get one with side airbags. Unfortunately, Ford's marketing, and the dealer's unresponsiveness, cost them a sale. I really like the Five Hundred: sort of a grown-up Passat, albeit a bit underpowered compared to the VW.
Has anyone under 50 years old, actually bought a 500? The 500 makes the Camry downright exciting. I don't think Ford is winning over many younger folks with the 500 design.
Buddy of mine is 31 YO, and bought a Five Hundred Limited last year. It's a nice, smooth ride. Not my cup of tea, but like most people he's not really an auto "enthusiast".
could be kinda exciting, like a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I doubt a 4-cyl Camry, which is what most of them are, would be any more exciting than a 500.
As for the 500, I don't think there's anything really "wrong" about its styling. It's not ugly. It performs adequately, but just needs a stronger optional engine. It's roomy. Gets decent fuel economy. Seems to have nice interior quality. And can be had for a decent price. But it just does nothing to stir the soul, or arouse even the least little bit of excitement. About the best way I can describe it is a VW Passat for the blue haired set!
the 500, with its mammoth passenger cabin, but relatively short hood and rear deck, is almost like a modern incarnation of the Checker! It would make a great taxi. It would also make a great patrol class police car (the kind designed for patrolling neighborhoods, serving summonses, transporting prisoners, donut runs, etc, NOT the high-speed interceptors).
If I wanted a big, roomy (although I find them to be lacking in front legroom) car at a budget price, I'd consider one. But I'd just be willing to pay a bit more for something that excites me a bit more...like a Charger/300 or Lucerne!
The Lucerne needs RWD/AWD very badly. However even with it's FWD it still outshines the 500 in my opinion in the terms of performance, not to mention Luxury and Quality.
The Lucerne needs RWD/AWD very badly. However even with it's FWD it still outshines the 500 in my opinion in the terms of performance, not to mention Luxury and Quality.
I seriously doubt that the average customer cares anything about whether a car is RWD or FWD.
There are some niches in which it does matter, but most average Joes and Janes probably barely know whether or not their current cars are RWD, let alone intend to shop for it for their next purchase. In any case, you end up with less interior space with RWD, which is probably more important to your average consumer than the ability to generate oversteer.
I disagree with you on the average figure. I think your seeing a real trend switching back to RWD for other benefits than strictly performance. A RWD boat handles better than a FWD boat. (FWD-Deville Concours 94') and (RWD-Lincoln Town Car 80's) I've driven both and felt the RWD boat was easier to manage.
I know that RWD offers different handling characteristics. What I'm saying is that the average consumer probably doesn't know where the handling characteristics come from.
If they prefer the handling of one car over another based on a test drive, then I would imagine that they'll pick the one that they like best, regardless of whether it has RWD. They just buy the one that they like.
The real everyday problem with having FWD on more powerful cars that the average Joe might find annoying is torque steer. With increasing horsepower being the current trend, I would expect there to be more RWD cars provided so that Joe could avoid being put off by torque steer. But does Joe know that this is a byproduct of FWD, and does it cause him to deliberately seek out RWD? My guess is, probably not.
...I haven't had to go through the November-April routine of swapping out summer tires for snow tires and vice-versa come Spring since 1993. My Cadillac Brougham was retired from winter duty that November. It would be a pain to have to go through that routine again. I don't know if traction control has made snow tires obsolete. Do snow tires even come in the new sizes these days? I haven't bought a set since 1989.
I disagree with you on the average figure. I think your seeing a real trend switching back to RWD for other benefits than strictly performance. A RWD boat handles better than a FWD boat.
Would agree about boat size cars and RWD being best setup. But, there are some small and mid-size FWD cars that will outperform RWD similar weight/hp cars.
There are probably many buyers (non-automotive enthusiasts) of FWD cars that don't realize the drive configuration of their car.
FWD has a number of advantages over RWD including better utilization of space and traction for those living in snowy climes. I would rather have a larger amount of FWD (or AWD) vehicles on the road on snowy/icy days than RWD vehicles. Better for safety. Also, if one is not interested in max acceleration, dragging at traffic lights, 7/10 driving on interstate ramps, etc., then FWD is fine.
On American cars, I have a relative that has a first gen Chrysler Concord and is thinking of a new car. He has looked at new Chrysler 300 and does not like its space utilization nor the lack of outward visibility. The old Concord has superior window area and driver has great outward visibility. Understand that Chrysler 300 has good styling and a wow factor, but did DC make a mistake in replacing Concord/Intrepid with cars that are heavier?
Lemko, I know our winters down here in MD usually aren't as bad as in Philly, but I haven't had a snow tire on a car since 1995. I had an old set of snows that my Mom gave me when she gave me her old Malibu. After that car was gone, I had them mounted on Dart rims. 1995 was a bad year for me financially, so I tried to cut corners everywhere I could. When the rear tires on the Dart got to the point they needed to be replaced, instead of buying new ones, I put those old snows on the Dart...in the summer! I had also lost track of the time and how old they really were. Mom had given me the Malibu back in 1987, so those tires were at least 8 years old. Needless to say, one of them blew out on me at around 45-50 mph one day, and that was the end of them!
Since then, I've never had any trouble getting around in the winter with various RWD cars...'68 Dart, '79 Newport, '85 LeSabre (although I got it stuck on ice once), '89 Gran Fury, '85 Silverado. Heck, this last snowstorm we had in February, where we got about 12-13 inches, my '85 Silverado, with its aging, dry-rotting Firestone Wilderness tires (just had them replaced, so no safety lectures, please ), did better than my FWD Intrepid! There's just something about the truck that seems stable in bad weather, while the Intrepid tends to lose traction and do that reverse fish-tail thing, which can be a bit annoying.
On American cars, I have a relative that has a first gen Chrysler Concord and is thinking of a new car. He has looked at new Chrysler 300 and does not like its space utilization nor the lack of outward visibility. The old Concord has superior window area and driver has great outward visibility. Understand that Chrysler 300 has good styling and a wow factor, but did DC make a mistake in replacing Concord/Intrepid with cars that are heavier?
I'd say my biggest complaints about the 300/Charger are that the center spot of the back seat is not as comfy as my Intrepid, and the trunks are smaller. I think the 300's trunk is 15.6 cubic feet, while the Charger's is 16.2? In contrast, the old 300M was something like 16.7, while the Intrepid was 18.4 and the Concorde around 18.8. I think the first-gen LH cars only had 16 cubic foot trunks, though.
On the plus side though, even though published measures say otherwise, the Charger/300 feels like it has more legroom up front to me. And I think visibility out the front is actually a bit BETTER, because I can finally see the hood of the car again! Now, visibility on the first-gen LH cars was pretty good, much better than the second-gen, and I think they started thickening up the roof pillars on the '98-04 as well.
I don't know if replacing the LH cars with a heavier car is necessarily a bad thing, as all cars seem to be getting heavier these days. And fuel economy doesn't seem to have suffered much. I think the 3.5 actually gets a slightly better EPA rating in the LX cars than the LH! Now the 2.7 economy went down a bit, but that engine has no place in a car this size, especially mated up to heavier RWD mechanicals.
All in all, I'd say the 300/Charger has about as much useable space as the old 1989 Gran Fury I used to have. So it would be enough for my needs.
i>I don't know if traction control has made snow tires obsolete. Do snow tires even come in the new sizes these days? I haven't bought a set since 1989.
Have traction control on two of our vehicles and snow tires still provide significant improvement in traction.
There have been articles in R&T, C&D over time extolling the virtues of "dedicated" snow tires at 4 corners for superior winter traction. Snow tires are made in same sizes and aspect ratios as "all-season" tires that come with most cars. But, best thing to do if getting snow tires is get them mounted on spare set of rims and get smaller footprint while keeping same rolling circumference. On one of our cars, we went from 45 aspect to 50, kept same circumference and reduced footprint for better snow/ice traction.
All-season tires cannot hold a candle to dedicated snows in snow/ice. Every once in a while we will be surprised by early snow in Nov and have all-season tires on car. This is when one can really understand the shortcomings of all-seasons in snow/ice in that you have first hand knowledge of differences between the two types.
I guess Acura solved the "torque steer" problem of the TL.
BTW- I agree with both you and xrunner there are definite advantages to owning a FWD car. Most of us get some snow and thus FWD is better than RWD. Also FWD performance is getting really good. However I disagree with you that your avg. Joe doesn't know the difference of his car being FWD or RWD. My Gawd my non-enthusiast grandmother knows which wheels power her car.
My father-in-law bought a Lexus ES330 new in 2004. About a month after he had it, I informed him that it was FWD. He had no idea, and even argued with me that it was RWD. His friends even told him that he was crazy for buying it because RWD cars are terrible in snow. He also had no idea that it was a cousin to the Camry. I wasn't surprised because the only time he reads about automobiles is when the yearly Consumer Reports car guide comes out.
Well I guess growing in a automotive state like Michigan and living in Western Michigan, (Grand Rapids are) the average Joe knows alot about cars. Lack of knowledge by people is foreign to me. Everyone I just about know has a good knowledge about cars.
Comments
This is the core problem. The "improvements" are simply taking too long. GM is too big. By the time they realize that a product needs to be updated, dropped, or replaced, the competition is already WAY ahead of them. I will maintain that the product planners at GM work in a vacuum. "I'm happy with my products, so everyone else should be as well" seems to be the prevailing mantra over at the RenCen.
The way business is conducted has become more efficient by changes in everything from union work rules to leading edge technology integration.
Nobody else on the Planet Earth would make this statement other than a manager at General Motors. "Union Work Rules" don't make cars that people want to buy, and neither does "Leading Edge Technology Integration". Onstar is neat, but too expensive for the "average joe" customer who is GM's bread and butter. For $15 a month, they'll take satellite radio instead thanksverymuch.
Anyone who perceives GM as being critical of their customers doesn't know about the pride and spirit that is typically taken as a natural attitude of the GM work force.
Except at this point, you're working from false pride. Your cars need help, your suppliers need help, your divisional structure needs help, and your company is in real trouble. At this point, you have nothing to take pride in.
If you are indeed a GM manager, you need to wake up and start affecting real change within your company - when you start making competitive cars and turning a profit, THEN you will have earned the right to be prideful. Just don't lose sight of the "big picture", and become complacent if and when this happens. Otherwise it's 2005 all over again, and you will get eaten alive in the marketplace.
My intent here was not to flame you, but if you are indeed a GM manager, your attitude is part of the reason your company is circling the toilet bowl. You drank too much of the GM Kool-Aid.
Typical American perception:
I don’t like American cars. I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer Japanese products, the quality is much better for the money.
American Reality:
I don like (insert your job here). I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer (insert any up and coming Asian country here) products, the quality is much better for the money.
I don’t like American cars. I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer Japanese products, the quality is much better for the money.
American Reality:
I don like (insert your job here). I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer (insert any up and coming Asian country here) products, the quality is much better for the money.
American Future:
I don like (i.e. Walmart). I just don’t think the pay is up to par. I preferred (i.e. GeneralMotors, Bethlehem Steel, etc.) wages, the pay was much better for my labor.
Transplants jobs mean nothing, Transplants vehicles built here mean nothing. Buy GM, buy Ford because they are not (insert derided transplant country here)
A wonderful world it would be with everyone driving Pintos and Vegas because there was no other CHOICE...
Funny he'd select Pintos and Vegas - the very worst domestic cars from over 30 years ago. There were plenty more choices from domestic makes back then and now.
BTW, I picked those because do you actually believe the two domestic brands would put the efforts into building the best product if there were no competition? Hence the Vega and Pinto reference since they WERE so bad, but at the time the Asian imports reputation wasn't as strong as it is today. That's all.
GM and Ford are the one's getting pounded first! By the time Asian and Indian (India) companies figure out a way to compete with YOUR job, Ford and GM will have figured out a way to survive, at a much smaller size of course. Five years from now will be reading threads with Ford and GM employees telling us how much better it is now that India and Korea are supplying YOUR product and/or service.
If they can do it better than me then I have to improve and do it better than they or move on to something that they can't do at all. It's always been a moving target.
I have no problem with that.
ARLINGTON, VA — Crashworthiness evaluations for seven new or redesigned midsize car models reflect performance in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's front, side, and rear impact tests. The models include three moderately priced cars — Ford Fusion, Hyundai Sonata, and Pontiac G6. The other four models are luxury/near luxury cars — Acura TSX, BMW 3 series, Infiniti G35, and Lexus IS.
The best overall performers are the BMW 3 series and Lexus IS, which earned the silver 'Top Safety Pick' designation for good performance in the Institute's front and side crash tests plus acceptable ratings for their seat/head restraint designs in rear tests. The Ford Fusion, tested without its optional side airbags, earned the lowest overall ratings. It's the only car in this group that didn't earn a good rating in the frontal test. It earned a poor rating in the side test and a marginal rating for rear crash protection.
"Nearly every car now earns good ratings in our frontal test," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "The Fusion is acceptable, which isn't a bad result, but it's not competitive with other cars in its class. Based on this car's side and rear evaluations along with its acceptable frontal rating, the Fusion is the lowest rated moderately priced midsize car we've evaluated."
'The Ford Fusion, tested without its optional side airbags,' Huh??
Safety is one of the most basic decisions that are 'buy/no buy' for consumers. Who could have possibly screwed up this design and allowed the IIHS to test the Fusion in the manner it did? The Fusion/Milan is the heart of Ford's auto strategy and now it has a stake in its heart. It's beyond stupid.
With this it's fire everyone involved and send a janitor to the plant in Hermosillo and put a padlock on the gate or the next headline will be:
"Entire production of Hermosillo plant intended for fleet sales"
Were there some posts here previously about cutting costs and producing 2nd rate vehilces ( primarily intended for the used car market? ) while trying to pass them off as worldclass to retail buyers here.
For example, the G6 looked promising. But no manual in the 4 cylinder engine and the V6 engine has pushrods. Coming from a steady diet of OHC engines and manual transmissions, I can't see myself buying a car with a 2 valve per cylinder engine.
GM biggest embarrassment should be when it looks at Hyundai. They are producing a great product now. And growing by leaps and bounds overcoming the spotty past reliability. The largest automaker in the world should be ashamed.
The Subaru Legacy beats all of them, earning Gold, vs. only Silver for the BMW 3 and the Lexus IS. So safety is very affordable after all.
-juice
PS Legacy is made in the USA, in Lafayette, Indiana
Even if they get the side airbags, they will still be among the worst in frontal crashes. They just won't be "poor" in side impacts anymore.
There are plenty of people that still would prefer not to pay for it, even though the evidence that they provide an extra layer of safety is pretty substantial.
-juice
So, apparently all of you American brand trashers are lining up to buy one of those two cars!
So, apparently all of you American brand trashers are lining up to buy one of those two cars!
You're confusing crash test safety with quality and popularity.
I just took a look through their website and couldn't find that press release. I did note that the 500/Montego (equipped with the optional side airbags) received "gold" status.....as did the Honda Civic, Saab 9-3, and Suburu Legacy.
I like the outside of the Malibu Maxx. But the interior and engine choices are sub-par.
The Fusion looks like thay gaffed on the safety aspect.
The Focus was introduced and promtly recalled.
The Cobalt has a non-independent rear suspension. But then so does the Corolla. That's a consideration for many "sporty car" minded buyers though.
It's always something though.
So maybe Ford has been doing a few things right. It would be nice if they'd do it right in cars that people WANT to buy!
This specifically is about the Fusion which is the state of the art family sedan for Ma and Pa America which replaces their most basic auto the midsized Taurus/Sable.
My indictment is that this vehicle should not ever have been put in a position of failing. It should be, has to be, bulletproof in order to regain the original Taurus sizzle.
It's the designers, product managers, safety engineers, plant managers, etc which have to bear the brunt of this. It's inexcusable for such a high profile vehicle.
'Oh SAB are optional, so we'll have better results next year' Why was this vehicle tested without SAB? Yes they are optional so why not provide a vehicle for testing with this option and make your vehicle look good?
And to be indicted by the IIHS for being mediocre in frontal impacts when every bozo auto maker in the world knows how to make an auto with 'Good' frontal impacts is the real 'crime' here. It's not a legal crime... it's a business crime. It's the heart of Ford's auto strategy. How can you not get it right?
It's the designers, product managers, safety engineers, plant managers, etc which have to bear the brunt of this. It's inexcusable for such a high profile vehicle.
'Oh SAB are optional, so we'll have better results next year' Why was this vehicle tested without SAB? Yes they are optional so why not provide a vehicle for testing with this option and make your vehicle look good?
And to be indicted by the IIHS for being mediocre in frontal impacts when every bozo auto maker in the world knows how to make an auto with 'Good' frontal impacts is the real 'crime' here. It's not a legal crime... it's a business crime. It's the heart of Ford's auto strategy. How can you not get it right?
That is a fine post, worthy of reading by the executives of FoMoCo.
Unfortunately, I'm sure that there have got to be some Big 2.5 apologists out there who will, once again, blame the customer.
The adage that "The customer is always right" is a basic fast of business, that must be properly understood. It doesn't necessarily mean that the customer has more accurate data or always makes the best decision for himself; it means that the customer's objectives have to be satisfied and exceeded if you want his money. Don't do what the customer wants, and you won't be getting his cash.
The customer is not forced to buy from any one provider, and it is up to each business to serve his needs and to win his trust. The company can cry about this fact all it likes, but if doesn't address, it will be the one paying for it, not the custoer.
A: Because IIHS tests vehicles with base equipment, this is their protocol. They test vehicles with optional equipment if and only if the manufacturer agrees to provide more vehicles for testing. In this case Ford did so, so Fusion was tested with and without SAB.
-juice
My sarcastic point is: If it were really that important, then the Five Hundred would be the best selling car on the road! Obviously, it’s not that important. Power and styling is more of a factor than the safest EVER tested. It can’t be so important for the Fusion, if it’s not that important when it comes to the Five Hundred!
My point, and in answer to Kevmo's post also, is why the heck wasn't the Fusion w/ SAB's provided to the IIHS at the time of testing? A vehicle this important just can't have an albatross hanging around it's neck on a site like the IIHS without something to balance it out like a Good rating w/ SAB's.
This is management's fault. The product managers have to be aware of the importance of testing like this in a buyer's mind.
Now the mediocre frontal test results is a company-wide failure. For that there is no excuse. The Fusion is at the very bottom of the list of all midsized autos tested.
And not to bash just Ford... ditto Stratus/Sebring, they are second from the bottom. What are these people thinking?
So, apparently all of you American brand trashers are lining up to buy one of those two cars!
Has anyone under 50 years old, actually bought a 500? The 500 makes the Camry downright exciting. I don't think Ford is winning over many younger folks with the 500 design.
Wonder why Ford did not pursue their "Forty-nine" 2001 black color show car for production? I believe that it had outstanding reception by the public at auto shows. Instead, they give us milquetoast 500. That 49 would have captured some foreign brand buyers for its excitement level just like the Chrysler 300.
"What you can't replace me, my mommy and daddy paid good money for this degree"
Rocky
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Buddy of mine is 31 YO, and bought a Five Hundred Limited last year. It's a nice, smooth ride. Not my cup of tea, but like most people he's not really an auto "enthusiast".
Rocky
As for the 500, I don't think there's anything really "wrong" about its styling. It's not ugly. It performs adequately, but just needs a stronger optional engine. It's roomy. Gets decent fuel economy. Seems to have nice interior quality. And can be had for a decent price. But it just does nothing to stir the soul, or arouse even the least little bit of excitement. About the best way I can describe it is a VW Passat for the blue haired set!
Rocky
If I wanted a big, roomy (although I find them to be lacking in front legroom) car at a budget price, I'd consider one. But I'd just be willing to pay a bit more for something that excites me a bit more...like a Charger/300 or Lucerne!
Rocky
I seriously doubt that the average customer cares anything about whether a car is RWD or FWD.
There are some niches in which it does matter, but most average Joes and Janes probably barely know whether or not their current cars are RWD, let alone intend to shop for it for their next purchase. In any case, you end up with less interior space with RWD, which is probably more important to your average consumer than the ability to generate oversteer.
(RWD-Lincoln Town Car 80's) I've driven both and felt the RWD boat was easier to manage.
Rocky
If they prefer the handling of one car over another based on a test drive, then I would imagine that they'll pick the one that they like best, regardless of whether it has RWD. They just buy the one that they like.
The real everyday problem with having FWD on more powerful cars that the average Joe might find annoying is torque steer. With increasing horsepower being the current trend, I would expect there to be more RWD cars provided so that Joe could avoid being put off by torque steer. But does Joe know that this is a byproduct of FWD, and does it cause him to deliberately seek out RWD? My guess is, probably not.
Would agree about boat size cars and RWD being best setup. But, there are some small and mid-size FWD cars that will outperform RWD similar weight/hp cars.
There are probably many buyers (non-automotive enthusiasts) of FWD cars that don't realize the drive configuration of their car.
FWD has a number of advantages over RWD including better utilization of space and traction for those living in snowy climes. I would rather have a larger amount of FWD (or AWD) vehicles on the road on snowy/icy days than RWD vehicles. Better for safety. Also, if one is not interested in max acceleration, dragging at traffic lights, 7/10 driving on interstate ramps, etc., then FWD is fine.
On American cars, I have a relative that has a first gen Chrysler Concord and is thinking of a new car. He has looked at new Chrysler 300 and does not like its space utilization nor the lack of outward visibility. The old Concord has superior window area and driver has great outward visibility. Understand that Chrysler 300 has good styling and a wow factor, but did DC make a mistake in replacing Concord/Intrepid with cars that are heavier?
Since then, I've never had any trouble getting around in the winter with various RWD cars...'68 Dart, '79 Newport, '85 LeSabre (although I got it stuck on ice once), '89 Gran Fury, '85 Silverado. Heck, this last snowstorm we had in February, where we got about 12-13 inches, my '85 Silverado, with its aging, dry-rotting Firestone Wilderness tires (just had them replaced, so no safety lectures, please
I'd say my biggest complaints about the 300/Charger are that the center spot of the back seat is not as comfy as my Intrepid, and the trunks are smaller. I think the 300's trunk is 15.6 cubic feet, while the Charger's is 16.2? In contrast, the old 300M was something like 16.7, while the Intrepid was 18.4 and the Concorde around 18.8. I think the first-gen LH cars only had 16 cubic foot trunks, though.
On the plus side though, even though published measures say otherwise, the Charger/300 feels like it has more legroom up front to me. And I think visibility out the front is actually a bit BETTER, because I can finally see the hood of the car again! Now, visibility on the first-gen LH cars was pretty good, much better than the second-gen, and I think they started thickening up the roof pillars on the '98-04 as well.
I don't know if replacing the LH cars with a heavier car is necessarily a bad thing, as all cars seem to be getting heavier these days. And fuel economy doesn't seem to have suffered much. I think the 3.5 actually gets a slightly better EPA rating in the LX cars than the LH! Now the 2.7 economy went down a bit, but that engine has no place in a car this size, especially mated up to heavier RWD mechanicals.
All in all, I'd say the 300/Charger has about as much useable space as the old 1989 Gran Fury I used to have. So it would be enough for my needs.
Have traction control on two of our vehicles and snow tires still provide significant improvement in traction.
There have been articles in R&T, C&D over time extolling the virtues of "dedicated" snow tires at 4 corners for superior winter traction. Snow tires are made in same sizes and aspect ratios as "all-season" tires that come with most cars. But, best thing to do if getting snow tires is get them mounted on spare set of rims and get smaller footprint while keeping same rolling circumference.
On one of our cars, we went from 45 aspect to 50, kept same circumference and reduced footprint for better snow/ice traction.
All-season tires cannot hold a candle to dedicated snows in snow/ice. Every once in a while we will be surprised by early snow in Nov and have all-season tires on car. This is when one can really understand the shortcomings of all-seasons in snow/ice in that you have first hand knowledge of differences between the two types.
BTW- I agree with both you and xrunner there are definite advantages to owning a FWD car. Most of us get some snow and thus FWD is better than RWD. Also FWD performance is getting really good. However I disagree with you that your avg. Joe doesn't know the difference of his car being FWD or RWD. My Gawd my non-enthusiast grandmother knows which wheels power her car.
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky