If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Euro Styling and American Buyers <for Brent P
In article .com>,
wrote: Brent, here's a article I posted some time ago. Your comments please. ---- The current Detroit enthusiasm for global engineering and design is amazing considering how often it fails to score with American buyers. My impression is that Americans just don't think much of European design. You might say Mercedes and BMW are successful. They a But their 530,000 combined sales for cars and trucks, out of a market of almost 17 million, is a limited success. Care to look at the failures? Start with Volkswagen and its Golf, popular in Europe but a flop here. Go to Ford. The Contour and Mystique were American versions of the European Mondeo. They failed. There is the Ford Focus, a European-designed small car that started moderately well in the U.S. but is seriously slumping. Go to GM. Remember the Cadillac Catera, an Opel with Cadillac badges, imported here? A flop. How about the Saturn LS, a European platform with a plastic skin, a flop and now gone like Cateras and Contour/Mystique. The Saturn Ion was another of those Euro platforms used here. The most successful of the Global/European platform cars sold here is the Chevy Malibu, the fleet special, which even GM executives say is a design bore. But this doesn't stop executives from thinking the answer to their problems, particularly at GM, is at the global approach. Whenever you bring up the failures, they just brush them aside or say they weren't done well enough. The idea that Americans really don't care for the European approach is beyond their radar. Here are just a few of my complaints with this mindset. There's no global exchange here. What GM and Ford want to build are European cars with Euro platforms and European engineering. They just want American badges on them. The design freedom for the American versions is quite limited because they can only work off the Euro platforms. If this continues, it won't be long before Americans at GM and Ford won't be able to design and engineer a car. They'll just do pickups. Look at General Motors: GM forgot how to do a rear-drive car and had to borrow from GM Australia. No American car platforms get transferred for European production. It's a one-way street. Yet the American market, and GM and Ford's share in it, are much larger than the European vehicle market or the GM/Ford shares. You even see some of this thinking with trucks. When GM wanted a small pickup, the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon, they started with a truck they build in Thailand. That's the global approach. It's supposed to save money. Of course, they couldn't get a V-6 in that pickup, but who needs a V-6? Toyota decided to do a thoroughly American new small pickup truck, the Tacoma. They figured what appeals in Texas might be more important that what sells in Thailand. Right now that Tacoma is outselling the combined GM models 2 to 1. Now I have said the models never go the other way. So far that has been true. GM adapted its minivan designs so that the American-built models could be shipped to Europe. But the Europeans at GM never really wanted them and the exports stopped. GM made a big fuss about the European potential of its Cadillac Seville a few years back, but the GM Europeans never really wanted to sell them. It has occurred to me that the GM people in Europe want to design and build their own vehicles, not sell U.S.-made cars. Now they will have another chance to take an American car. The GM Pontiac Solstice plant will build a version, called the Opel GT, for GM in Europe. It will be interesting to see if the GM Germans actually try to sell it, or if they bury them as they have those American-made vehicles in the past. Aura of success? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Opel designs will sell here. The coming Saturn Aura, which is an Opel design, looks good. It could be successful. But I still say this is a huge market. There's no reason that we shouldn't be able to design and build cars for our market profitably, building what our people like, instead of taking a second-best compromise - meaning, the best car we could make out of a car really designed for the European tastes. Ironically, the one company that seems to think there is something positive in American design is Chrysler, which has German ownership. The Chrysler 300, the Dodge Magnum and Charger don't borrow styling from Europe. The smaller models, the PT Cruiser and the new Dodge Caliber, are distinctive, too. What about Toyota and its global success? Remember that the best-selling Camry sold in America is not the same car they sell in Europe. What sounds better? Having Detroit design and engineer cars for the American buyer or adapting European designs for America? And how much money can be saved if the vehicles have to be built here anyway? The factory and the tooling are the major costs. No savings there. Frankly, German GM, meaning Opel, has been flopping anyway and is just now trying to turn around. What makes anyone at GM think they can build a better car than we can? I recall the then-chairman of Ford, standing with me as we looked at the new Contour. He said. "If this doesn't work we'll never try it again." It didn't work but they haven't stopped trying to shove Euro designs down our throats. -- Patrick > Brent P wrote: >> What I would do product wise at ford: >> Bring in successful foreign market cars. If they do well against japanese >> and european makes overseas they should do well here. Namely focus and >> falcon. They can be built in the US, but there is no reason not use >> successful models elsewhere after they have proven successful. (some >> exception for cars that obviously wouldn't sell in a particular place) > "Euro models" haven't done particularly well for the domestics -- i.e. > -- XR4Ti & GTO Yeah... because the US automakers screw it up time and time again. WTF is a merkur? That was the first screw up there. GM with the GTO? well calling it a GTO was their first blunder. People didn't expect a GTO in theme of 1964, they expected a GTO in the theme of the judge. It's huge marketing blunders like that, plus not knowing how to sell the vehicles. BTW, the current focus here is a warmed over, cheaped version of europe's previous generation focus. The contour was allowed to die as they tried to sell it like a tempo replacement. Bring over the falcon. Move the driver's side over and don't screw anything up. Don't rename it, keep it named falcon. There, now there's something to compete with chrysler's V8 RWD sedans. Chrysler is bringing over several MB designs without trouble. But then again they don't seem to be screwing things up with goofy new make names and poor market research. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Euro Styling and American Buyers <for Brent P
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Euro Styling and American Buyers <for Brent P
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Euro Styling and American Buyers <for Brent P
In article >, Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> 1. There's nothing inherently wrong with the platforms, generally, it's the > presentation... and sometimes the support logistics That's much of what I stated. > 2. Dont tell me the Crossfire is a success... my kid has one and likes it, > but, like the Ram-look Chryslers, I think the design fails fast. I didn't even mention it for specific reasons. However it is typical chrysler styling on the MB platform. They accomplished what the author stated earlier in the article couldn't be done. > - do you prefer the Charger.. or the concept Challenger? nuff said? The challenger looks like challenger. The charger looks like a truck front end grafted to a 4 door sedan. (which is typical of chrysler styling these days) > 3. Are we going to blame the -blah- 500 on some inbreeding? Or is it a > lack of vision in the US? The 500, is based on a volvo platform as I understand it. is it blah because it's just another blah vehicle in realm where ford apparently thinks it should be making blah vehicles? Is it blah because it's a volvo based taurus replacement? (a sort of melding of blah) > Remember the japanese never got it right -with the auto-enthusiast- until > they started up the US design studios. 240Z,280Z,RX7. They got it right with the auto-enthusiast pretty early on. I don't know when they opened the US design studios, but that has them doing it in the early 1970s late 1960s if your statement is true. But as I recall they didn't do it until the 1980s. Nissan's website appears to agree with my memory... http://www.nissan-global.com/GCC/Jap...y/index-e.html RX7 I'll have to check printed material at home. I have an automobile quarterly from the late 70s with an article on the RX7's design. > And it goes both ways... what's wrong with Jag lower lines? Simple... > looks too much like a Ford. It's always been a stupid idea to use a higher production platform to make a lower end luxury car. The cimeron being the most glaring example. And that was an all US vehicle. Perhaps that was also the catera problem. Lincoln versailes... another one based on the granada which was built on a stretched maverick platform which was an evolution of the mustang/falcon platform. > Contour looked too much like the Taurus Such similiarities are typical of US makes going back to the 1930s at least. Ford and GM can design good cars here. The problem is they'll never/rarely see the light of day that way. The people doing them always have to run the car though a crushing political system and internal requirements that end up ruining it to at least some degree, sometimes fatally. I've experienced this myself with other products and what I know of Ford and GM it isn't any different there. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pushing Euro At American Buyers | [email protected] | Ford Mustang | 8 | March 31st 06 12:42 AM |