Ah, now you have hit on something, but not what you think. In my opinion,
US auto makers do a miserable job of promoting ALL their models. Ford is
starting to do a better job with their mid-sized Fusion model, but every
other US promo I see is advertising "low lease rates" or "low financing"
with annoying music in the background, telling nothing about the car. A
while back, Ford was advertising "A Focus and a Dell (computer)" where they
gave away a "free" computer with the purchase of a Focus - targeted to
Detroit doesn't advertise SUV's any better than their smaller models, or any
differently than the foreign brands. In fact, you may have it backwards.
Mercedes advertises their M series, Porsche their Cayenne, but I don't
recall any E series or Boxster commercials. The same goes for Kia, Honda,
I'd say you are giving them too much credit. Chrysler came out with the
300 series, but on their negative side is pretty much everything else
they make except Jeep which they are also doing their best to emasculate
and abolish. Ford just sold Aston Martin and is trying to trash Jaguar.
The Ford 500 isn't really a bad car, as is the Mercury version, but
neither one of them exactly pulls folks away from the lines for the
Chrysler 300 [which is a disguised Mercedes chassis with an American
engine]. Ford hasn't built a real showcase Lincoln since the Mark VII
even through they have all of the Jaguar talent able to help them create
a whole series of world class cruisers, say with an aluminum chassis for
the series for better mileage. Other than the Corvette and the one
Cadillac built of it, all of the interesting GM cars are warmed over
Australian models...even though GM also has all sorts of talent
available from European touring divisions. All three have the talent
it would take to make a series of interesting, reliable, safe, and even
economical cars, but not one of them has the guts to do so.
Agreed... but underneath, you need a vehicle not built by a bean counter
or someone that never has to drive the result.
Let's don't get too picky. Aston had strong growth, and actually makes
money now. As for trashing, Jaguar doesn't need any help. That's gotta be
the most incompetent auto manufacturer on earth that actually still builds
something. Ford has been nothing but salvation for them the whole way.
Billions were spent, and they'll never get a nickel back.
Boy, that's the truth. I thought the Mark VIII was a good follow-on, but I
thought the 89-98 or whatever t-bird was kinda ugly.. What on earth were
they thinking when they canceled the whole platform? Their badge
engineering is a bit scary now. Neither Mercury nor Lincoln has anything
with its own sheet metal now. They're just changing the grilles on stuff.
A 1995 Mark VIII seems extravagant now, compared to the obviously
That's a GREAT set of criteria for cars. You know, I think there are some
products out there. The Mustang and the 300 are both interesting. At least
they look like a car instead of an egg on wheels. The 300 can be pretty
economical if it's equipped right. GM doesn't have a product in that same
"interesting/reliable/safe/economical" race. I have to admit that I woke up
and realized the HHR really does look like a 47 Chevy. The panel truck is
what woke me up. It's very questionable whether that makes it interesting,
but I bet it's reliable, safe, and economical. Makes you wonder how
Chrysler is going to follow up the PT. That was interesting, and a huge
huge success. But now they have to do that again, don't they?
Gosh - all those years of purpose-built rental cars. I don't see how some
of the brands make it. I guess the truck sales paid for all the money they
lost on rental cars.
I thought the earlier Thunderbirds (89 era) were handsome cars, but when I
drove them, in anticipation of buying, they were still just shimmying Fords.
What a disappointment!
Then the new Thunderbird, on first glance, looked pretty good, but the more
I looked at it, the uglier it got...They nearly put enough lipstick on that
make it look pretty.
I am just not a Ford person...not since my old 66 Mustang, at any rate, and
it had a bit of the patented Ford Shimmy and Shake to it.
Unlike the European brands that are bringing us such fuel efficient
vehicles as the V12 Mercedes, the Turbo Cayenne, the V10 Audi, etc. Of
course you could always blame it on the poor neighbors to the south,
where such "American" evils as the new Hemi are built.
I see them, but you are correct. Then who needs a 7 liter monster when a
2 liter will silently move your vehicle at over 200 Km/hour with
reasonable gas or diesel mileage. Plus it might go around the first
corner...and stop. Not that some so called luxury brands are that good
at safety, when a big Lexus sedan takes longer to stop than a Range Rover.
I was surprised at the number of Porsche Cayenne and 200 series Mercedes on
the Autostrade a few weeks ago. Fair number of A6 Audis also. Yes, the
percentage of less than 2 litre machines is greater, but some mid to large
cars do exist.
Sure they exist but many of those Audis will only have 2 litre engines. Even
Merc does a 1.9 litre. At the other end of the scale there are a number of cars
with engines smaller even than 1 litre.
The most popular in the C class is a 2.5 litre. (2496 CC to be exact)
Audi does have a 2.0, a 2.4 and a 3.2.
The percentage of larger cars seems to have grown though, and the smaller
ones seem to be losing ground in some areas where there is some room. The
Smart, for instance, is doing well in the big cities. Scooters are still
highly popular too, I might add.
People tend to forget the imports were "born" in countries were gas
always costed a lot so they tned to be masters of the art of high MPG
while Detriot has long been the master on gas guzzlers and does not
want to change its ways. Some US model "promise" good MPG but you you
own them you find that some manufacture EPA ratings are more fiction
than fact. Take Dodge, in 2008 they are yet again going to try to
market the hemi SUV as fuel efficent vehicle in the mask of a hybrid
using some GM technology. Rather than reinventing the vehical and
concept they keep trying to keep the old one alive.
You are bazzare. We have do not have unlimited resources (though some
like to think they are) and detriot sarted the whole SUV thing to get
around the MPG and crash standards for many years. I would venture to
say that over 90% of the people with 4x4 drive "think" they need it
because that is what detriot pushes, not because they need it. Had
Detriot no exploited the SUV MPG loop hole for profit, there would be
no SUV craze. You make money by making a product and convincing people
they need it even if they do not. If you want your children and grand
child to have anything in future things need to change now or by the
22nd century they will be looking for another planet to live on.
Anceint Dinosuars roamed the earth for 100 million years plus but but
mordern one call man is going to destroy climate and planet in the
span a of few thousand years with most the damage in the last 50 or so
Geezus - do you see black Chevrolet helicopters hovering around your house?
Detroit started all of this for their own purpose, and not to respond to
their customers? Then who the hell would ever have bought them? And what
about all of those vehicles being produced by every import manufacturer?
They're producing SUV's to satisfy something other than their customer's
demands? Those vehicles are selling for some other reason than consumer
demand? Man - you've got to get a grip.
Bull. You don't understand much about market dynamics, do you?
Save the planet then - quit breathing. You'll emit less CO2. Global
warming is caused by people like you blowing hot air in groups like this.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.