24th Feb 2009, 01:29
I'm still tapping my foot, unconvinced of the reasons I should buy from a U.S.-based company. I will buy what seems to me to be the better car. The two Nissans I have owned have been far more reliable than my domestics have. I am going to list some reasons the American auto industry has failed itself.
1. Badge engineering: everyone knows what this is and sane-thinking people wonder why they should spend fifteen-thousand more dollars for a Lincoln Navigator or Cadillac Escalade when they can buy practically the same vehicle in the form of a Ford Expedition/Chevy Tahoe. Rarely do foreign makers sell the same product under different names.
2. Selling an inferior product for so many years, then when they realize they are losing a majority of the market share to foreign auto makers, try to improve. The big three are a day late and a dollar short. It's only a matter of time before Chrysler phases out production.
3. Poor resale value. Why purchase a Cadillac DTS when in two years it will be worth roughly half of the original purchase price?
4. Product recognition. Notice that Honda and Toyota have stuck with names such as "Camry" and "Accord" names which people are familiar with and associate with quality, dependability and durability. Ford has trashed successful nameplates like "Taurus" in favor of Five Hundred. Where the heck did Ford come up with such a name. Not only that, the models are blandly styled, do not stand out at all and are rarely sought when shopping. Ford Escort was popular for many years, why change the name. Why change minivan names from Aerostar to Windstar to Freestar (which basically was a Windstar with a name change.)
5. Redesigns. Why have Ford Crown Vic, Lincoln Town Car, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Navigator, Ford Expedition not seen redesigns other than "freshenings" in the past decade? They think it saves money, but it costs them when they continuously sell the same product year after year with fairly minimal changes. Whey would I buy a 2009 Navigator when it looks much the same as a 1998? What's sad is that GMC/Chevy made their Safari/Astro vans from 1985-2005 with almost NO changes. Mid-cycle, 1995 brought a face lift and interior tweaking. Ford's Ranger pickup has not had a true redesign since the 1993 season.
6. Lack of uniqueness. GM back in the early 1990's made a half-hearted attempt to capture minivan sales with the introduction of the Lumina van, Trans Sport and Silhouette. First off, the vans were ugly, hence the nickname "dustbuster." This clumsy lurch into the market haunted them the entire production run of nearly two decades despite name changes and redesigns.
These are just a few reasons our auto industry is needing OUR tax dollars to keep their heads above the water a while longer. In my opinion it's just a waste. Six months from now they'll be back in the same boat. I see no reason in buying from U.S. automakers. Until these companies become more competitive with foreign automakers, I think I'll stick with Nissan.
23rd Feb 2009, 10:56
You misunderstand my meaning. I was already aware of how profound a loss of EVEN ONE of these companies would likely be. But simply arguing that that is the case won't convince someone to buy... someone who thinks that their purchase won't forestall the inevitable collapse because as many have inferred, it isn't strictly based on sales. Their point (valid or not) is that the collapse is GOING to happen... either because of mismanagement, union pressure, poor products, or some combination thereof. It's simply a matter of time. They don't think their purchase will make any difference. Until you can find quantitative evidence that the mentioned factors have been fully addressed, they will continue to argue that, no matter what they buy, Detroit will fail for systemic reasons.