American vs German Quality

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:
>
> > Engine (3.0L Duratec) is the same as the upgrade engine from the Taurus
> > lineup. Other than that, not much similar between the cars.
>
> 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.

"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.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bill 2 wrote:
>
> > Engine (3.0L Duratec) is the same as the upgrade engine from the Taurus
> > lineup. Other than that, not much similar between the cars.
>
> 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.

"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.

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, KokomoKid wrote:

> > > Engine (3.0L Duratec) is the same as the upgrade engine from the Taurus
> > > lineup. Other than that, not much similar between the cars.

> > 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.

> "Built on a Volvo platform" is a good thing in that the ride and
> handling will likely be better than the Taurus architecture.

Could scarcely be worse.

> Reliablility issues are more a build quality thing than anything else.

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

> Time will tell how they do with the 500.

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!"

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, KokomoKid wrote:

> > > Engine (3.0L Duratec) is the same as the upgrade engine from the Taurus
> > > lineup. Other than that, not much similar between the cars.

> > 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.

> "Built on a Volvo platform" is a good thing in that the ride and
> handling will likely be better than the Taurus architecture.

Could scarcely be worse.

> Reliablility issues are more a build quality thing than anything else.

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

> Time will tell how they do with the 500.

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!"

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/survey/
>
> 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):
> http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...376145,00.html
>
> (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
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.

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/survey/
>
> 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):
> http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...376145,00.html
>
> (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
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.

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

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 ... !
"

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

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 ... !
"

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Harry K wrote:
>
> > > The Australian Ford line contains numerous world-class vehicles,
> > > including a full range of up-to-date RWD passenger cars and utes with
> > > vastly better performance, economy, ergonomics, emissions and safety
> > > than anything Ford sells in the rest of the world. Australia gets a
> > > RWD Falcon with 4-litre inline Six (normally aspirated, turbo or
> > > supercharged), thoroughly modern in all respects. North America gets
> > > the Five Hundred, a warmed-over Taurus. There ain't no justice.
>
> > Warmed over Taurus??
>
> Warmed-over Taurus. Another piece of Ford garbage with the same ****ty
> electrical system and same cardboard transaxle they've been foisting off
> on the North American market for decades.

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.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Harry K wrote:
>
> > > The Australian Ford line contains numerous world-class vehicles,
> > > including a full range of up-to-date RWD passenger cars and utes with
> > > vastly better performance, economy, ergonomics, emissions and safety
> > > than anything Ford sells in the rest of the world. Australia gets a
> > > RWD Falcon with 4-litre inline Six (normally aspirated, turbo or
> > > supercharged), thoroughly modern in all respects. North America gets
> > > the Five Hundred, a warmed-over Taurus. There ain't no justice.
>
> > Warmed over Taurus??
>
> Warmed-over Taurus. Another piece of Ford garbage with the same ****ty
> electrical system and same cardboard transaxle they've been foisting off
> on the North American market for decades.

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.