Mustang stigma
03-29-2006, 05:39 PM
#21
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,227
RE: Mustang stigma
Sorry man. I replied and your post wasn't there yet; so I wrote mine not even knowing you had a post mentioning an Escort. I have absolutely nothing against the Escort, I only mentioned it to say that the quality of the Escort (non muscle) was equivalent to the Mustang (muscle). That's all I meant to say. Sorry if I offended you in any way; sure didn't mean to, just a coincidence in that I mentioned the Escort as a example on non-muscle Ford.
I sometimes get on a rant about US auto makers because I believe the strategies of it's senior mgt are ruining the industry here in the US. Result will be loss of tens of thousands of jobs, not just in the big three but in the supplier chain as well.
I sometimes get on a rant about US auto makers because I believe the strategies of it's senior mgt are ruining the industry here in the US. Result will be loss of tens of thousands of jobs, not just in the big three but in the supplier chain as well.
03-29-2006, 05:55 PM
#22
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,227
RE: Mustang stigma
Right, I should not have used the word layoff: but they lose their job (with certain pay and benefits). When you see these plant closings you know these folks will be looking for a career change when union benefits run out; "they aint going back". Here's a recent article of Mar 01, 2006 from Reuters:
In its Wednesday filing with securities regulators, Ford said it expected to take charges of $250 million in 2006 for hourly staff cuts and another $250 million to write off the value of plants and equipment.
Ford has said it will shut 14 plants and cut up to 30,000 workers in order to shed costs it can no longer afford to carry given its diminished market share.
Ford said it has had until now "relatively few" plant workers that were idled, but still collecting wages and benefits under a "guaranteed employment" provision of its contract with the United Auto Workers known as the Jobs Bank.
GM's picture is much more "doom and gloom" than this.
In its Wednesday filing with securities regulators, Ford said it expected to take charges of $250 million in 2006 for hourly staff cuts and another $250 million to write off the value of plants and equipment.
Ford has said it will shut 14 plants and cut up to 30,000 workers in order to shed costs it can no longer afford to carry given its diminished market share.
Ford said it has had until now "relatively few" plant workers that were idled, but still collecting wages and benefits under a "guaranteed employment" provision of its contract with the United Auto Workers known as the Jobs Bank.
GM's picture is much more "doom and gloom" than this.
03-29-2006, 06:00 PM
#23
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 315
RE: Mustang stigma
Fairlane -- No problem; that's a heck of a coincidence! 
Actually, I persoanlly think that the Mustang is leaps and bounds ahead of the Escort in terms of build quality, at least interior-wise. First off, the transmission feels a LOT more solid in the Mustang than the Escort. Also, I've never been all-that-hot on the soft rubber dashboard lining, like that on the Escort. While it's no VW in terms of fit and finish, I prefer the plastic in the Mustang to that covered foam garbage in the Escort (and so many other cars). Now...I haven't "abused" or "thrashed" my Mustang yet (I don't plan to...but you never know...), but that was something I didn't even have the "bug" for with the Escort - so that's not even an issue for comparison, IMO. Again, no offense taken. I just used the Escort as an example to point out that the similar Japanese competition was literally priced about 33% more than what I was paying for the Escort...for what, in my case at least, was no reliability benefit. Now, trade-in value is a totally different story; there's no question in my mind that I'd probably have gotten twice what I got for the Escort, for either a Civic or Corolla. Squeaks were as much of a problem with the Escort as they are with the Mustang, but I'm hoping that, like with the Escort, they may subside over time.
I can sum up everything wrong with the senior management of American companies in two words: Bob Lutz. Mr. "Hybrid cars are bad business" himself. Why on Earth GM would hire the guy who tried to run Chrysler into the ground is beyond me. Maybe to bring "original" ideas over, like the HHR.
On the note of Chrysler - I do think that Dodge made a misstep by replacing the Neon with a station-wagon-like vehicle. Not that I was a huge fan of the Neon, but I'd suspect that many people who bought Neons did so specifically because it was NOT a hatchback. Just my .02.
Prof. Wizard -- Thanks for the interesting read! I agree with you.
Actually, I persoanlly think that the Mustang is leaps and bounds ahead of the Escort in terms of build quality, at least interior-wise. First off, the transmission feels a LOT more solid in the Mustang than the Escort. Also, I've never been all-that-hot on the soft rubber dashboard lining, like that on the Escort. While it's no VW in terms of fit and finish, I prefer the plastic in the Mustang to that covered foam garbage in the Escort (and so many other cars). Now...I haven't "abused" or "thrashed" my Mustang yet (I don't plan to...but you never know...), but that was something I didn't even have the "bug" for with the Escort - so that's not even an issue for comparison, IMO. Again, no offense taken. I just used the Escort as an example to point out that the similar Japanese competition was literally priced about 33% more than what I was paying for the Escort...for what, in my case at least, was no reliability benefit. Now, trade-in value is a totally different story; there's no question in my mind that I'd probably have gotten twice what I got for the Escort, for either a Civic or Corolla. Squeaks were as much of a problem with the Escort as they are with the Mustang, but I'm hoping that, like with the Escort, they may subside over time.I can sum up everything wrong with the senior management of American companies in two words: Bob Lutz. Mr. "Hybrid cars are bad business" himself. Why on Earth GM would hire the guy who tried to run Chrysler into the ground is beyond me. Maybe to bring "original" ideas over, like the HHR.
On the note of Chrysler - I do think that Dodge made a misstep by replacing the Neon with a station-wagon-like vehicle. Not that I was a huge fan of the Neon, but I'd suspect that many people who bought Neons did so specifically because it was NOT a hatchback. Just my .02.
Prof. Wizard -- Thanks for the interesting read! I agree with you.
03-29-2006, 06:13 PM
#24
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 571
RE: Mustang stigma
ORIGINAL: JStang78
It's not exactly like Lamborghinis or Ferraris are "known for" their reliability either. Furthermore, if you look at reliability ratings on used cars, the highest rated cars are NOT foreign, but are Buicks. Why? I suspect that it has to do with the owners more than it has to do with the cars. Why would Pontiacs, which largely share engines, platforms and materials with Buick, not have the same ratings, except for the fact that younger people, who overall have less regard for their vehicles and less time to provide for maintenence drive Pontiacs as opposed to Buicks.
As for my Mustang, the only real "gripe" I have...and it's not really a gripe...just something I noticed that I don't particularly like, is that the door insert where the window controls are rattles sometimes when the radio is turned up. BFD. Seriously. Otherwise, I haven't experienced ANY problems with the Mustang. None at all. It has gotten me to work every day, took me on two problem-free road trips of about 500 miles (round-trip) a piece and otherwise has always gotten me to my destination. If that's not "reliability," I don't know what is.
I think the whole idea that foreign cars are more reliable than American cars, as a whole, is a bunch of nonsense. Before the Mustang, I had a 2002 Ford Escort ZX2. The ONLY time that car saw the inside of a shop was for oil and filter changes. That was IT. Otherwise, the only place the car was, was on the road. And I saved about $4000 over the similarly equipped Corolla, and about $5500 over the similarly equipped Civic I compared to them at the time I purchased the Escort.
I suspect, again, going back to the driver, that the supposed "reliability" issues with muscle cars are more related to driving style and what the car is "used for," as opposed to the cars themselves. As for gimmicks...are you suggesting that Scion then, is similarly unreliable, based upon the fact that their entire sales pitch is based around the availability of various options and equpimpent packages? I really don't see any correlation between factory or dealer personalization packages and reliability.
It's not exactly like Lamborghinis or Ferraris are "known for" their reliability either. Furthermore, if you look at reliability ratings on used cars, the highest rated cars are NOT foreign, but are Buicks. Why? I suspect that it has to do with the owners more than it has to do with the cars. Why would Pontiacs, which largely share engines, platforms and materials with Buick, not have the same ratings, except for the fact that younger people, who overall have less regard for their vehicles and less time to provide for maintenence drive Pontiacs as opposed to Buicks.
As for my Mustang, the only real "gripe" I have...and it's not really a gripe...just something I noticed that I don't particularly like, is that the door insert where the window controls are rattles sometimes when the radio is turned up. BFD. Seriously. Otherwise, I haven't experienced ANY problems with the Mustang. None at all. It has gotten me to work every day, took me on two problem-free road trips of about 500 miles (round-trip) a piece and otherwise has always gotten me to my destination. If that's not "reliability," I don't know what is.
I think the whole idea that foreign cars are more reliable than American cars, as a whole, is a bunch of nonsense. Before the Mustang, I had a 2002 Ford Escort ZX2. The ONLY time that car saw the inside of a shop was for oil and filter changes. That was IT. Otherwise, the only place the car was, was on the road. And I saved about $4000 over the similarly equipped Corolla, and about $5500 over the similarly equipped Civic I compared to them at the time I purchased the Escort.
I suspect, again, going back to the driver, that the supposed "reliability" issues with muscle cars are more related to driving style and what the car is "used for," as opposed to the cars themselves. As for gimmicks...are you suggesting that Scion then, is similarly unreliable, based upon the fact that their entire sales pitch is based around the availability of various options and equpimpent packages? I really don't see any correlation between factory or dealer personalization packages and reliability.
Now the mustang. Should it be any more reliable than a Ferrari? For the price you pay, the answer is No. But then again, does it have any reason not to be? Ford's always been the first to do a lot of things (like the whole muscle car revolution both in the 60's and presently), there's no reason for Ford not to start making the perfect musclecar. "as fast as a camaro, but as reliable and well built as a camry" It's got a nice ring to it. But would it cost more to reach that status? Which brings me to my other point. If producing an awsome muscle car with good build quality is costing ANYTHING more than what it costs now, you should return your car back to Ford. NO car company in the world has an excuse when it comes to quality control. We as consumers SHOULDN'T have to pay extra for that. Quality control isnt a luxury, it's a commodity. Every car company already has the technical know-how to make "it" better, but whether they choose to is thier perogative. There's already been a lot of generations of Mustang and they're finally starting to get it right? After 40 years? That's ridiculous. What american consumers don't understand is that good engineering and good build quality shouldnt come at a premium...it should be built in already. The car companies should FIGHT for your business instead of going "hmmm, how do we pay engineer something as simple as we can, slap a bunch of OPTIONS on and charge as much as possible without the market ever knowing while at the same time pleasing the union. It's horse sh*t
It's also discomforting when people go "well, if you want reliability, get a camry, but not a mustang because [blank, blank]" Because by simply saying that everyone automatically assumes that something fast shouldnt also be well built. And what's worse is car companies can get away with it, because they know people won't care and still buy the car regardless of its build quality. But HELL, i dont want a camry. I love the looks of a Mustang, I drool about how fast it is and impressed with its new handling and fuel efficiency on regular (terrific) octane. It's a whole lot of fantastic stuff and then there's the reputed build quality and small little problmes that turn me off to it. The other car that comes close to price and power is the WRX...but why does one have to compromise at all?
03-29-2006, 06:26 PM
#25
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 278
RE: Mustang stigma
who says american cars are unreliable?
before my stang i have a 95 mercury tracer and when i got rid of it, it had 187k miles on it and it was still running like it was new. the only problems that i ever had with it were worn rear wheel bearings at 160k miles, a small radiator leak at about 140k, and i had just replaced the CVs about 3 months before i got rid of it. oh yea, i drove the hell outta that little car too!
perform scheduled maintenence and your car should last you a long time no matter what make it is
before my stang i have a 95 mercury tracer and when i got rid of it, it had 187k miles on it and it was still running like it was new. the only problems that i ever had with it were worn rear wheel bearings at 160k miles, a small radiator leak at about 140k, and i had just replaced the CVs about 3 months before i got rid of it. oh yea, i drove the hell outta that little car too!
perform scheduled maintenence and your car should last you a long time no matter what make it is
03-29-2006, 06:39 PM
#26
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 315
RE: Mustang stigma
Juntech...In theory, I totally agree with you. However, for whatever reason (I don't know why) people simply won't demand it. It's the same reason that someone will bash and bad mouth Wal-Mart as they're walking through its front doors to do their weekly shopping - people "feel" one way, but when it comes to saving a quick buck, they'll do whatever it takes to save that buck. In the case, specifically, of sports cars though (sorry, but I really have trouble calling tuner cars, "muscle cars" ) I think one of the key reasons people pick the American (in this case, specifically the Mustang) over foreign competition is because the foreign competition is quite simply, uninspiring in terms of styling. There are exceptions, of course, but not too many. People are willing to put up with quirks because one of the reasons, if not THE reason, they bought the Mustang was largely based upon the looks.
I don't, however, totally agree with your writing off the comparison to Ferarri. While I can see that there probably aren't too many people around who have Ferarris as their daily drivers, as opposed to the Mustang (which, for the record, mine is a daily driver). But I'd suspect that a good percentage of Mustang owners own another car as well. So, much like the Ferarri owners, they can put up with a degree of inconvenience with the "fun" car because they have the "daily" car that they can drive. A good excuse? Well...no less than if you're making it for a $300,000 car.
) I think one of the key reasons people pick the American (in this case, specifically the Mustang) over foreign competition is because the foreign competition is quite simply, uninspiring in terms of styling. There are exceptions, of course, but not too many. People are willing to put up with quirks because one of the reasons, if not THE reason, they bought the Mustang was largely based upon the looks.I don't, however, totally agree with your writing off the comparison to Ferarri. While I can see that there probably aren't too many people around who have Ferarris as their daily drivers, as opposed to the Mustang (which, for the record, mine is a daily driver). But I'd suspect that a good percentage of Mustang owners own another car as well. So, much like the Ferarri owners, they can put up with a degree of inconvenience with the "fun" car because they have the "daily" car that they can drive. A good excuse? Well...no less than if you're making it for a $300,000 car.
03-29-2006, 07:42 PM
#27
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3
RE: Mustang stigma
95 mercury tracer
I had one in the late 80's....for 1 day, then I re-traded it in and got my 85 GT back. Lost my a$$ on the deal.
I finally sold that 85 GT a few months ago with 286,000 miles on the original motor/ trans and it still ran great.
.
03-29-2006, 09:51 PM
#28
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
RE: Mustang stigma
ok, let's inject some sanity here...
Go to the 05 edition of Consumer Reports auto issue--they had a small 2 page article in it on the new 05 mustang which basically said what a huge improvment it was and shockingly was pretty positive, considering they tend to have somewhat of a foreign car bias. What was PARTICULARLY interesting in this article was a caption under a picture of an assembly line where they said that the 2004 Ford Mustang was THE MOST RELIABLE American car in their rankings, rivaling the best from Japan. I believe it was an average of 4 problems per 100 vehicles, which is actually less than the average for Japanese cars. By the way, for those extolling German vehicles--they are dead last in reliability behind Japanese and American cars according to Consumer Reports, and by a ways.
The first oh, let's see, 4 vehicles I owned were American. The first car I purchased brand new was an 87 Ford Mustang. When it had 130k miles on it I took it off the road and bought a 95 escort because I was commuting a gazillion miles a day while working and doing my grad degree. About that time my dad was laid off after 30 years working for a defense contractor when they were taken over, the raider who bought it taking his pension. As luck would have it, his car died about that time, with no money for him to replace it. I hadn't traded in the mustang, and he started driving that. He finally took it off the road at just over 300,000 miles. He sold it at that point to some kid--I saw it around time a few times after that, but haven't seen it lately. I put 78k miles on my escort in two years with the heavy commuting. When I finished grad school and got a halfway decent job, I foolishly decided to trade in the escort on something a bit more upscale and got a new VW Jetta. Great car as far as thoughtful features--lots of features still not available on many cars now and that was a 1999. Nice ride, great interior, spunky performance. Unfortunately, it was unreliable as hell, and every time I was driving my beater 87 bronco ii with 167k miles on it that I used as a hunting/fishing/wood hauling vehicle at the time while the VW was in the shop I was thinking "what's wrong with this picture...?". I traed that sucker so fast after it went out of warranty it was smoking, though that may have simply been something else going wrong. Traded it in on a Subaru WRX. Subaru's are supposed to be super reliable, right? I believe Consumer Reports said that overall they were THE most reliable brand last year. While having a semi cheapy interior, that car was one hell of a performer--fast, amazing in the winter. But there again, more issues than you'd expect. "Clutch shudder" plagued them. There was an early problem with clutches going bad--mine was replaced under warranty very early on (I've driven mt's my whole life, so it wasn't me--I've had 5 american cars that went wayyy over 100k miles with never a clutch replaced). The A/C, which was great it was so cold, would get SO cold on a long (multi-hour) trip on a hot day that it would freeze the lines, the A/C would go off until the line thawed out, then it'd work until it refroze...I took it to the dealer, when I went back to pick it up they had put 200 miles on my car and used most of my full tank of gas and said they "couldn't duplicate the problem". Subaru had well known problems that were discussed on their forums, if you knew this and went to make a stink they'd fix whatever, but if you didn't, they would NOT issue a TSB or let you know it was a common problem. I traded it on another Subaru that hopefully would be better. It has not been.
Bottom line? If I can get the trade I need and find a Mustang that they aren't soaking me for (which seems to be hard in NY) I'm tading my subaru in on another Mustang. When I tell people it's because I want a reliable car, they look at me like I'm nuts. But so far in terms of reliability the imports I have owned have all fallen down--the Fords have not.
Go to the 05 edition of Consumer Reports auto issue--they had a small 2 page article in it on the new 05 mustang which basically said what a huge improvment it was and shockingly was pretty positive, considering they tend to have somewhat of a foreign car bias. What was PARTICULARLY interesting in this article was a caption under a picture of an assembly line where they said that the 2004 Ford Mustang was THE MOST RELIABLE American car in their rankings, rivaling the best from Japan. I believe it was an average of 4 problems per 100 vehicles, which is actually less than the average for Japanese cars. By the way, for those extolling German vehicles--they are dead last in reliability behind Japanese and American cars according to Consumer Reports, and by a ways.
The first oh, let's see, 4 vehicles I owned were American. The first car I purchased brand new was an 87 Ford Mustang. When it had 130k miles on it I took it off the road and bought a 95 escort because I was commuting a gazillion miles a day while working and doing my grad degree. About that time my dad was laid off after 30 years working for a defense contractor when they were taken over, the raider who bought it taking his pension. As luck would have it, his car died about that time, with no money for him to replace it. I hadn't traded in the mustang, and he started driving that. He finally took it off the road at just over 300,000 miles. He sold it at that point to some kid--I saw it around time a few times after that, but haven't seen it lately. I put 78k miles on my escort in two years with the heavy commuting. When I finished grad school and got a halfway decent job, I foolishly decided to trade in the escort on something a bit more upscale and got a new VW Jetta. Great car as far as thoughtful features--lots of features still not available on many cars now and that was a 1999. Nice ride, great interior, spunky performance. Unfortunately, it was unreliable as hell, and every time I was driving my beater 87 bronco ii with 167k miles on it that I used as a hunting/fishing/wood hauling vehicle at the time while the VW was in the shop I was thinking "what's wrong with this picture...?". I traed that sucker so fast after it went out of warranty it was smoking, though that may have simply been something else going wrong. Traded it in on a Subaru WRX. Subaru's are supposed to be super reliable, right? I believe Consumer Reports said that overall they were THE most reliable brand last year. While having a semi cheapy interior, that car was one hell of a performer--fast, amazing in the winter. But there again, more issues than you'd expect. "Clutch shudder" plagued them. There was an early problem with clutches going bad--mine was replaced under warranty very early on (I've driven mt's my whole life, so it wasn't me--I've had 5 american cars that went wayyy over 100k miles with never a clutch replaced). The A/C, which was great it was so cold, would get SO cold on a long (multi-hour) trip on a hot day that it would freeze the lines, the A/C would go off until the line thawed out, then it'd work until it refroze...I took it to the dealer, when I went back to pick it up they had put 200 miles on my car and used most of my full tank of gas and said they "couldn't duplicate the problem". Subaru had well known problems that were discussed on their forums, if you knew this and went to make a stink they'd fix whatever, but if you didn't, they would NOT issue a TSB or let you know it was a common problem. I traded it on another Subaru that hopefully would be better. It has not been.
Bottom line? If I can get the trade I need and find a Mustang that they aren't soaking me for (which seems to be hard in NY) I'm tading my subaru in on another Mustang. When I tell people it's because I want a reliable car, they look at me like I'm nuts. But so far in terms of reliability the imports I have owned have all fallen down--the Fords have not.
03-30-2006, 12:30 AM
#30
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 226
RE: Mustang stigma
I was all prepared to write my own opinion up but realized that Professor's posting was pretty much what I was going to say (except for the older guy part)!! Thanks for saving some of my valuable time Prof...now I can actually get back to working on my motorcycle...
ORIGINAL: Professor Wizard
Chrysler is improving because they are owned by the Germans now - - and the Germans are willing to take risks like the post above me mentioned. The only thing I’ve noted Chrysler doing wrong is missing the boat on the Charger, but they hope to correct that with the Challanger.
Mind you, I'm an old guy... so I recall when everyone drove AMERICAN... and imports were "Cheapo" cars that people bought if they couldn’t afford an American car.. Gradually however, through the 70's and 80's, the imports improved their designs and tightened up their engineering to the point of making nearly flawless cars without huge increases in pricing. They are no longer the cheapo cars.. But, they are affordable. The Import Companies are able design and produce a complete new car in less then a year, while the American companies take at least 3 years from design to production. Note that most of Asian imports turn over their body styles every 3 to 5 years - The Germans every 5 to 7 years - and the Americans will run with a chassis for as long as 15 years without major changes.
Overall I think it is a mindset of management were dealing with... NOT unions, or workers or the buyers.
The Import companies want to build cars that people will buy... they constantly try to design cars people like. Once they think they have a “Hit”, they price it accordingly. The have learned people will buy and pay for QUALITY – but only if that quality is in a good design.
The American companies want to build cars that are profitable. Once designed and in production, they want to squeeze every ounce of profit out of the design - hence the long run on a body style. The make every attempt to spend the lest amount of money on production while they price it to the maximum profit point that the market will bare. (Adjusting it down with fake rebates when the public didn’t buy off on the original price!) In the end, the public doesn’t buy the American car because the don’t really care for the bodies, the engineering and the crap quality of the product – especially for the price being ask for the car.
It is NO secret to the American companies that the public thinks American cars are inferior, and the Management knows how the public feels. The elect NOT to do something about it in the interest of keeping their stock prices up and keeping their bonuses padded for showing nice bottom line numbers.
Don’t get me wrong… I love my Mustang! I came out of an 02’ BMW 325si Convertible going into this car.
I’ve owned several American cars over the years. I have also owned several import cars over the years and there is NO DOUBT the quality of design, engineering, fit, finish and quality of the imports is way out there compared to the American cars.
Now… I also have to say you can’t buy a 300 horsepower convertible import for less then 35k. So there are some areas the Americans have their act together!
NOW – if only Ford would stop arguing with me about my fog lights being “foggy” and just replace the damn things I might raise my opinion of Ford. But, for some reason I don’t believe they are going to do that!
Chrysler is improving because they are owned by the Germans now - - and the Germans are willing to take risks like the post above me mentioned. The only thing I’ve noted Chrysler doing wrong is missing the boat on the Charger, but they hope to correct that with the Challanger.
Mind you, I'm an old guy... so I recall when everyone drove AMERICAN... and imports were "Cheapo" cars that people bought if they couldn’t afford an American car.. Gradually however, through the 70's and 80's, the imports improved their designs and tightened up their engineering to the point of making nearly flawless cars without huge increases in pricing. They are no longer the cheapo cars.. But, they are affordable. The Import Companies are able design and produce a complete new car in less then a year, while the American companies take at least 3 years from design to production. Note that most of Asian imports turn over their body styles every 3 to 5 years - The Germans every 5 to 7 years - and the Americans will run with a chassis for as long as 15 years without major changes.
Overall I think it is a mindset of management were dealing with... NOT unions, or workers or the buyers.
The Import companies want to build cars that people will buy... they constantly try to design cars people like. Once they think they have a “Hit”, they price it accordingly. The have learned people will buy and pay for QUALITY – but only if that quality is in a good design.
The American companies want to build cars that are profitable. Once designed and in production, they want to squeeze every ounce of profit out of the design - hence the long run on a body style. The make every attempt to spend the lest amount of money on production while they price it to the maximum profit point that the market will bare. (Adjusting it down with fake rebates when the public didn’t buy off on the original price!) In the end, the public doesn’t buy the American car because the don’t really care for the bodies, the engineering and the crap quality of the product – especially for the price being ask for the car.
It is NO secret to the American companies that the public thinks American cars are inferior, and the Management knows how the public feels. The elect NOT to do something about it in the interest of keeping their stock prices up and keeping their bonuses padded for showing nice bottom line numbers.
Don’t get me wrong… I love my Mustang! I came out of an 02’ BMW 325si Convertible going into this car.
I’ve owned several American cars over the years. I have also owned several import cars over the years and there is NO DOUBT the quality of design, engineering, fit, finish and quality of the imports is way out there compared to the American cars.
Now… I also have to say you can’t buy a 300 horsepower convertible import for less then 35k. So there are some areas the Americans have their act together!
NOW – if only Ford would stop arguing with me about my fog lights being “foggy” and just replace the damn things I might raise my opinion of Ford. But, for some reason I don’t believe they are going to do that!