Re: American vs German Quality

They're both Fords. They're both FWD/AWD. You think "built on a Volvo platform" is a *good* thing? Go look at anybody's reliability ratings for Volvos made in the last 9 years -- they're right down there in the toilet with those for Ford's own products.

The Chrysler Saratoga (as the car was known there) was equipped similarly to the highest-spec North American Spirits in the suspension, steering, brake, durability and luxury equipment departments, and much better in the seatbelt, lighting, signalling and mirrors department. The majority of North American AA-bodies were low-spec cars with "adequate" brakes, "adequate" suspension, power nothing, etc.

As you are such a clever-clogs, why don't you explain why the cited website is such a paean to 'American' cars, other than the headline and general criticsm of German cars? The site has extensive descriptions of problems with his American cars.

DAS

The Merc M-Class has come in for particular stick.

While most of you don't have the pleasure of reading our very own Jeremy Clarkson's words of wisdom on cars every Sunday (in the UK Sunday Times), I know that many of you have heard of him through other ways, so you may like to hear about his comments on the results of a recent BBC Top Gear customer satisfaction survey. Top Gear is a top motoring programme and has a classy magazine associated with it.

Of 142 cars surveyed in the UK, the M-Class was BOTTOM for reliability.

Clarkson gives two reasons ..."appalling dealer network but also because it's made in Alabama, where the locals are good at picking cotton, singing mournful songs and listening to Lynyrd Skynyrd but not so good at attaching complicated pieces of machinery to one another."

You can read the whole article -- which is mainly about the new Peugeot

407 -- here (see page 2): (Just for comparison, only one west European brand was in the top ten, Jag at No. 2).

What do you think about the car workers of Alabama...?...

DAS

"Built on a Volvo platform" is a good thing in that the ride and handling will likely be better than the Taurus architecture. Reliablility issues are more a build quality thing than anything else. Time will tell how they do with the 500.

Could scarcely be worse.

Er...no, not really. Reliability issues are more an engineering issue than anything else. Build quality is secondary.

Exactly. It's WAY too early for anyone to be trumpeting about what a terrific car it is, and Ford's track record is very poor in this class of car in North America. It's sort of the same thing as GM hyping their new Malibu "No, seriously! No, this time we built a *good* car! No, for real! No, you guys, seriously! We totally built a good car this time! It's on a Saab platform. Seriously! No, seriously! No, seriously!"

The articles were interesting. I've seen a few comparison tests in British car magazines in recent years, and the French cars have always done well. It looks like their doing well had nothing to do with reliability.

Clarkson's stereotypes attached to the Alabama workers were intriguing, but the main reason for poor quality of the M-Class is probably that the plant isn't run all that well, and that Mercedes made some poor choices of suppliers for pre-made assemblies, such as the instrument panels.

The list of problems is shorter than the problems he's had with German cars?

" For over six years now they see it standing in front of my house or driving away for another working week. In those years lots of Golfs, Kadetts or Vectras have passed away ... ! "

You're ignorance is showing again. The transaxle is not related to the AXOD.

And it's not like Chrysler hasn't been foisting off cardboard transmissions on everyone worldwide.

Have you even driven a 500? Or looked at one up close? Until you have, you can't say it's the same car.

I should have made myself clearer -- I didn't intend to suggest that the AXOD or a derivative was used in the 500; I'm speaking on a much more general level than you are: You're thinking "AXOD" and I'm thinking "Ford automatic transaxles".

Didn't say they hadn't been. But since we were talking about Fords...

Nope

Yup. VERY close, for several hours, as part of a dealer focus group.

I can understand how you'd think I was saying the 500 is *literally* a Taurus, but we both know that's not true.

A Ford, is a Ford, is a Ford. Any hype you want to give it will not do it a bit of good. BTW - the first cardboard transmission in my '96 Chrysler Town & Country LXi (I gave the complete model name rather than abbreviating it as you are a Ford man and probably wouldn't know what a T&C LXi is) went 117,778 miles before it gave out (because of misuse by me, I might add).

I drive Chryslers too, I know what a T&C is.

I drove my 1995 Ford Taurus GL 300 000 kms (185 000 miles) before I sold it and I didn't once have any problems with the transmission. I don't know what your point is, but for either make a sample of one is insignificant.

I don't know why you are playing down Ford so much, it's not like Chrysler is the idol of car reliability.

500 is to Taurus as 300C is to 300M. The new cars don't have a whole lot in common with the versions they replaced.

transmissions

You always seem so ready to stick arguments to Ford that can be used against Chrysler. Neither brand scores exceptionally for reliability. I never see you attacking Chrysler. Why is that?

OK, so what you're saying is you think it's designed using the same crappy engineering as the Taurus. Why didn't you just say that? Either way you're making assumptions. Ford did actually spend some effort designing a new car, and rather than even give it a chance you write it off right away. Whose to say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has been pumping out?

Neither does GM.

Because you're not looking hard enough, perhaps. Googlegroups is good for that sort of thing. I have attacked Chrysler in *scathing* terms multiple times for multiple reasons over the years.

...based on Ford's lengthy and depressingly uniform track record.

Chrysler's track record hasn't been anywhere near as uniform as Ford's over the last two decades. While Ford has churned out one piece of trash after another, Chrysler's offerings have consisted, variously sequentially and concurrently, of a mix of fall-apart dreck and well-built, reliable, good cars.

The obvious answer is that Chrysler hasn't been pumping out garbage for YEARS now. Not since they got the 41TE/42LE working right (circa 1993) and since they quit using Mitsushitti engines.

Well, on the reliability score I'm afraid you might be mistaken.

Other than a misstep with one transmission design, Chrysler reliability has actually been fairly good in the past 20 years, with the possible exception of the 1st-gen Neon. Sure, there have occasionally been problems here and there, but overall the cars are quite good, and have been, for a long, long time.

Ford's quality issues are numerous and in some cases have been disastrous. The Explorer/Firestone tire debacle nearly caused the financial ruin of the company. The Focus and Escape were both released before they were sorted out. The 1996 Taurus was a complete styling disaster, and had transmission and other reliability problems to boot. It took them 25 years to realize the Mustang needed a platform that couldn't directly trace its lineage to the 1971 Maverick. The Crown Vic and Grand Marquis and Taurus only managed to survive via fleet sales. The F-150 nearly had to be euthanized before Ford realized that a

7-year-old pickup might need some freshening.

Now we have the Freestar, a regrettable POS also-ran. The Five Hundred, which is so underpowered, so poorly styled, and oh-so-likely to have CVT problems I'll bet it's a fleet sale special in just a few short years. The Freestyle, which is the answer to a question nobody has asked. The Focus, which has been rendered just another boring small car, while Ford of Europe is producing a product that's clearly superior.

Let's not even go into Mercury, which is the next Oldsmobile.

As far as Lincoln is concerned, the average buyer can reasonably expect to drive their purchase to their deathbed. I doubt the marque can be saved, it has been so badly mismanaged.

Meanwhile, the company is being run by a liberal environmentalist who seems to think that a 30-mpg car-based hybrid SUV is important, or some type of technical innovation. Still, he's a vast improvement over the last guy, who thought Ford's next frontier should be electric bicycles and environmentally-friendly junkyards.

So you can whine about Chrysler's one bad transmission all you'd like, but one bad transmission isn't even comparable to the flames Ford finds its future in.

--Geoff

Agreed.

Not all the vehicles they make are total garbage. Contrary to your belief, the Crown Vic / Grand Marquee are reliable vehicles (although they may lack "refinement"). Some models of North American Escort were pretty reliable. Focus isn't bad (although it is based on European design). The F-150 isn't bad.

So there's no guarantee that it won't be garbage.

I'm willing to grant you that the 500 is more differentiated from the Taurus than has been implied... but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is to the Taurus as the 300C is to the 300M. There's NOTHING in common between a 300C and a 300M, chassis or engine-wise. Now if you want to talk about the current 300 (no "C") then yes, the very nice 3.5L engine is shared between the two. But not even the new 300's transmission is the same as the 300M's 42LE. Related, yes. Same, no. And in the case of the 300C, its not even related (though time has not yet told if that is a good thing- I have complete confidence in the later production 42LE, but the Stuttgart-designed / Kokomo-built nightmare in the 300C appears far to complicated for its own good if you ask me.

In fact Clarkson makes a point of using and emphasizing national stereotypes. It's so easy. Some months ago an article drew readers' letters saying he had taken his foreigner-bashing (Americans in this case) too far.

Today I watched a video picked off the Top Gear site I referenced about a race Jeremy Clarkson organised between the new Aston-Martin DB9 and the train, from London to Monte Carlo.

Clarkson was driving the DB9...in an otherwise enjoyable clip I found his frequent references to Frenchies not very nice.

Of course there are many possible real reasons why quality is poor. Here's a thing: the vast majority of the workforce in Merc's main plant in Stuttgart is/was of Turkish origin. When I did my works tour in the mid-80s there weren't all these quality issues, so it had little to so with the work force.

DAS