Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Does America Even Need Its Own Automakers?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
They aren't really even a MB design, coming from Steyr in Austria.
The best way to describe a G500 is to imagine driving in a 1997-2000 Wrangler hardtop with less horsepower, more wind noise and the interior from a late 90s C-Class.
The guy that runs the off-road driving school we use had one in his fleet till last year when he dumped it. The truck is actually very good in most off-road situations because of the three manually locking diffs. The wheel travel is rather limited so that is why it needs the three locking diffs. Now he only has Toyotas and Land Rovers in his fleet plus one Montero. One of the reasons he dumped the G500 was the maintenance costs were spiraling out of control. Keep in mind he has a series 1 Diso and a 1997 Defender and the maintenance costs on the G500 were bad enough to make him dump it.
The last thing Americans want is to REALLY experience the past. They want the "past of the future". :P
I don't see the G as selling on retro cred...the vehicle is all about ostentatious oneupmanship. It's for that beloved segment of society with far more cash than common sense or good taste. I see it as this...one of these posers lives in a big fakey arts and crafts mcmansion and buys a blinged out Escalade...so his neighbor builds a big fakey Tuscan villa mcmansion and buys a G55.
I think MBs only real retro car is the SLR, which is somewhat like a fatter crazier 300SL. The previous SLK always reminded me of a 190SL too. No overdone retro like a PT.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I know this is a really minor nitpick, but the biggest thing that turned me off with the new Challenger was a last-minute change they made before going to production. Instead of going with a true pillarless hardtop, with roll-down rear windows like what the concept had, they slapped on a B-pillar and made the rear windows stationary.
It's minor, sure, but to me it just smacks of all the cheapening and cost-cutting they did back in the 70's. Some folks in one of my Mopar clubs were joking that they should call it the Challenger Deputy. That was a cheap, stripper trim level of the '70-74 Challenger that had stationary rear windows. It still had no B-pillar, but they took out the crank and lift mechanism, so it became one of those faux hardtops, like a Mark V, Mirada/Cordoba, or '79-85 Riv/Toro/Eldo.
Sad thing is, the modern Challenger, like the original Challenger came late to the game. We're entering into an age of high fuel prices where there's little room for a fun car like the Challenger anymore. Look for the retro 2010 Mustang II and the 2010 Nissan Honeybee in the near future! :sick:
Hey, at least it was still a true hardtop with roll-down rear windows.
Geeze, next they'll be slapping a GTO sticker on a G5 or we'll be seeing the Aveo SS!
PLEASE!! Don't give GM any more ideas like that! Stuff like the Calais Quad 4-4-2 and the 1974 Ventura-based GTO show that GM isn't afraid to go there. Although in its (admittedly weak) defense, by 1974 standards, a ~3500 pound compact with a 350-4bbl putting out 200 hp probably was something to crow about. I don't think any other GM compacts were offering that kind of hp by then, and I think the only Fords breaking 200 hp by that time were the 460's. Chrysler still had the fairly hot 360 in the Duster/Dart Sport, putting out around 240 hp.
Now there were still some pretty hot versions of the Mopar 400/440 and various GM big-blocks hanging around by 1974, but they went into bigger, heavier cars, and because of the fuel crisis, were probably rarely ordered.
With the increase in fuel prices, I most definately fear the return of pseudo-performance monstrosities like the "Stallion Package" or worse yet, the 1975 Plymouth
/ RO___AD \
/RUN o NER\ based on the "small Fury."
Chevrolet Aveo SS
Chevrolet Chevette ZR-1
Chrysler 003-C SRT-4
Dodge Retreater
Dodge Submitter
Ford Mustang II Gartersnake
Nissan Honeybee 1.3Z
Pontiac G5 GTO
Toyota Yarisupra
Cruddy Trucks for a rotten era:
Chevrolet Lead-a-rado
Ford F-1.5 litre
Dodge Ewe
I still think that, even given the history of the Ford Motor Company which has certainly had its share of market disasters, the Mustang II was the worst thing they ever did. Not only a bad car but one that completely destroyed the idea of what a Mustang was supposed to be.
I remember the ads - Mustang two; Boredom zero. I guess boredom hadn't gotten to the plate yet...
I'd rather have this:
Nissan March Super Turbo
Ford's problem was that it tried to turn the Mustang into a mini-Thunderbird. If the source of inspiration had been the original Capri (the "sexy European"), the Mustang II would have had more long-term success.
Look at prime example Harley Davidson.
Is it a great motorcycle? No. Mediocre at best. Any Japanese. bike will humiliate it in any contest of speed, handling, durability or price.
But they sell a gazillion of them AND the Japanese are even copying their styling.
This is genius-level marketing and excellent management at work in an American company.
TRUE, if you look closely, a lot...a LOT of the parts on a Harley are not American, especially the parts that really matter on a bike (fuel injection, ignition, suspension---the reliability items) but still, you have to give this company a lot of credit for surviving in a highly competitive market against very aggressive opponents.
While the 1975 pictured in that link looks like a 2-door hardtop, by this time I think the windows were stationary. At least I've never seen a '75-78 Coronet/Monaco/Fury coupe with roll-down rear windows in person. I've seen factory photos where it looks like the window is down, but I think they just pulled the windows out to make it look like a hardtop. I wonder if that would be considered false advertising? I've also seen factory photos of GM's '73-77 intermediate 4-doors where it looks like the rear window is rolled all the way down. In real life, they stuck up about 4 or 5 inches, so I guess they just pulled the glass out completely in this case, too.
I still remember that silly jingle "Smaaaaaaall Fury! The car a lot of people have been waiting for!"
I guess if nothing else, the GTO was still a bit more performance-based than the Grand Am. The Grand Am's standard engine was just a 400-2bbl, which probably only put out around 175 hp that year, although the 400-4bbl and 455-4bbl were optional.
And while generally panned today, the "Nova in drag" '74 GTO, while a mere shell of its former self, was actually a bit of a bargain. It was a $195 option that got you the 200 hp 350-4bbl, a floor-mounted 3-speed stick, heavy duty suspension, front and rear sway bars, a shaker hood, special grille and mirrors (I guess those aerodynamic-looking body-colored mirrors), and upgraded wheels (Pontiac Rally II's, I guess?)
Too bad they never put that 290 hp SD 455 in the GTO or Grand Am. That would've been one heckuva ride, and would've at least helped the musclecar class have a little dignity for a few more years.
Sadly, by 1977, they needed an HO 400 CID V-8 to get to 200 hp. That was the setup in the 1977.5 Can Am. With a standard automatic and 3.23:1 axle, 0-60 came up in about 8.7 seconds, and that was probably Pontiac's last gasp at a muscular larger car, at least until they got the 3.8 coaxed up to a respectable hp in cars like the W-body Grand Prix and Bonneville in the 1990s.
Harley-Davidson Inc., which has been slowing down for the past few years, has hit a serious rough patch as even its upwardly mobile customer base thinks twice about dropping thousands of dollars on a classic motorcycle.
The maker of one of America's most iconic rides said Thursday that it will cut its work force by 8 percent and trim bike shipments by the thousands with domestic sales falling nearly 13 percent in the first quarter.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNmxY1CSZIEZM7rplYFjLTCWRPagD903Q4OG0
Grrrrrrrrrrr. Those 71-73 "Bunkie Knudsen" Pontiac inspired Mustangs were also beautiful to me, and I had and restored a 72., and I know they weren't worth much. From a styling perspective though, I liked them. Much more Camaro/Firebird like, which is the look Knudsen was looking for. I think they also pissed Henry Ford off too though, as he fired Knudsen shortly after the 71 came out.
I still liked 'em. Better than the Mustang II.
Alternatively, American car companies were sputtering through a great time of growth, relying on SUV and truck sales to keep them afloat. If they could barely keep their heads above water when people were buying SUVs, what are they going to do now?
I think I've heard a general rule of thumb that net hp is roughly 70-75% of gross hp. So if you have a 1971 engine rated at 200 hp gross, while its 1972 counterpart is rated at 140-150 net, then both engines are really putting out the same hp.
A 250 hp Pontiac 455 from 1974 would probably be around 330-340 hp gross, and a 200 hp would probably be around 270-280 hp gross.
That 70-75% ratio is an inexact science, though, partly because with the gross hp numbers, some engines were under-rated, while others were over-rated. I'm sure with net hp, some of those numbers were fudged as well though.
This: http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/01/24/ford/ refers to those enormous profits from 1999.
How about this quote:
''The Expedition has been the best thing that happened to this company,'' said Nicholas Lobaccaro, an auto analyst at Bear, Stearns & Company. ''The thing is a license to print money.''
from: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05EFDA123FF934A25757C0A96195826- 0
Do you think that the domestic automakers did not profit for years and years from selling overpriced toys, known as SUVs and trucks? When folks are trading in their F-150s for Focii, clearly the F-150 was mostly an overpriced toy just like the Harley.
There are a lot of panicked buyers out there trading their huge trucks and SUVs in at a loss. I think it's getting to the point that dealers won't accept them anymore. I think trading in an SUV for a subcompact shows lack of long-term vision. Somebody who's used to a big honkin' SUV isn't going to be very happy with a subcompact and they're going to roll-over the negative equity once again into a decent mid-sized car.
The Fox-bodied models (beginning in 1979) got the Mustang back on track...they are starting to show up at various car shows. The styling lacks most of the Mustang design cues, but I still like it. I remember one of my high school teachers bought a brand-new 1979 Ghia hatchback, and I thought it was a very sharp car. He traded in a 1975 Cougar XR-7.
Of course, in those days, I wasn't worried about things like reliability, so it may have ended up being a dog. The late 1970s were not a good time for the domestic auto industry in general, and Ford in particular...
Not really, because the profits from the fat years of truck and BOF SUV sales only offset the masive losses on car sales. When the market shifted toward CUVs, those profits went away and exposed the vastness of their money-pit North American operations.
As for that quote, it's true---the Expedition made a per-vehicle profit for Ford that was, I've read, about $12,000 per car. That's pretty wonderful for an automaker. But alas, the chickens have come home to roost and the party's over.
I never thought of SUVs as "overpriced" particularly.
the Expedition made a per-vehicle profit for Ford that was, I've read, about $12,000 per car.
So they could have sold them for maybe $8000 less and still made a 10% profit, if that is not "overpriced" I don't know what is.
In addition, pretty much all the utility and functionality of an SUV was available in much lower priced minivans.
No, overall they were making a profit. Yes, the profits would have been even higher had they not bothered with their money losing car operations in the US.
There are actually lots of other instances in the automotive world that are similar. For example, the Chrysler 2.7 DOHC V-6 is a VERY expensive engine to manufacture, yet it's the base engine in the Charger/300/Magnum. The 3.5 SOHC V-6, which is optional, and a better engine in most respects, is actually CHEAPER to build! So the buyer pays more for a car with the optional, better engine, yet it was cheaper for the manufacturer to make it. And, this might be a shock, but I think the Hemi is actually cheaper to build than the 3.5 V-6! In this case though, it needs an upgraded transmission and other components, so the ultimate cost to build a Hemi car might still be more than to build a 3.5 or 2.7 car, but sometimes certain options don't cost as much as you think they might.
If buyers were willing to pay the price that Ford was charging, then the vehicles in question were not overpriced. The Ford Motor Company is a for-profit business, not a charity.
If people couldn't afford Expeditions at the price that Ford was charging, they were free to buy something else.
And *that* is my opinion of brilliant marketing at work--to sell an overpriced thing. Same with Fendi or Prada---these clothes are not particularly durable, bullet-proof, or even good looking.But they are driven by marketing genius.
Is that a good idea in the long run? Probably not.
and this statement does not apply to Harley, because...???
Please...give me a break. You think Harley is overpriced because it is not worth it's price to you. I think all SUVs are overpriced because they are not worth their price to me. How is there a difference here?
Sorry, but your opinion of what is worth how much is no more the "truth" than is mine. I think the giant SUVs were overpriced because the majority of Americans are a bunch of dopes who think vehicle price should be based on weight (or perhaps volume that it diplaces).
So the argument I was presenting was that the Escalade does offer extra utility and refinement over the Explorer for the price but that the Harley offers none that I can discern beyond "image"
WHICH, relates or loops back to my original argument that if you can sell something at a high price without providing any discernible advantage over the competition priced at half as much, or that is perhaps inferior to the competition at half the price, you are , ergo, a marketing genius and I bow down to you.
In gross terms, think of a 6 cylinder automatic Corvette priced at $80,000 that looks like it could go 300 mph.
Ball in your court
The first question is whether the vehicle in question is "overpriced," meaning that the company is somehow gouging the customer who buys said product, based on the amount of pure profit generated by each sale.
With both the Expedition and the Harley, I would say "no," because customers have agreed to pay the asking price, and the company is therefore justified in charging what the market will bear. As I said, the Ford Motor Company is a for-profit business, not a charity, and the same goes for Harley-Davidson.
The second question is whether the product is selling at the higher price, and thus generating those great profits, because it offers buyers capabilities that they cannot get in another product, or whether it sells at a higher price based on image.
In the case of the Expedition, it offers buyers capabilities that they cannot get in other vehicles. A Civic, Fusion, Taurus or Explorer does not have the capabilities of the Expedition. Whether Expedition customers USE those capabilities to the fullest extent possible is another question, but they are there.
A Harley can't do anything better than a Japanese motorcycle, except look cooler and sound better at idle and when running.
In my view, however, I would still say that the Harley isn't overpriced, as long as buyers are willing to pay what the company is asking. Those customers need to remember that the extra money they are paying is buying them a more distinctive motorcycle, not a better one. But given that Harley-Davidson customers are adults who presumably have a decent amount of disposable income, I think we can safely assume that they have figured this out already. We aren't dealing with a product pitched to impressionable pre-schoolers during Saturday morning cartoon time.