Consider buying American!

>> Cadillac CTS
>> Cadillac CTS-V
>> Cadillac DTS
>> Chrysler 300

This is the list after cutting FWD crap and SUV's.

They're all too big and ungainly, unfortunately. I had high hopes for
the new CTS, but what a pig it's turned-out to be. Maybe if I was a
big fatass like most Americans, it would be OK.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>> R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>>> The trouble [for the US car industry] is that 25 years after that 735i
>>> was built it is probably still better than most US cars sold today in
>>> almost every department. Some of them are still laughable e.g. the
>>> Chrysler PT Cruiser - poor drive, poor ride, poor handling, poor
>>> performance, poor trim, poor seats, poor reliability and so on. You
>>> would be better off in a ten year old base entry model 3 series than a
>>> new one of these.


>But you don't have to replace it after just a few years.
>
>Obviously cars are / were not taxed as much in the USA and over there a BMW
>was a premium import.
>
>Where it was made it would be a lot cheaper.
>
>The main point was that a car designed and made in Europe a generation ago
>is still better than most US made cars now.
>
>The corrolory would be that current EU mass market cars (e.g. Ford Mondeo,
>Vauxhall Vectra etc.) are better than their BMW market equivalents (3 and 5
>series) of the mid 80's.
>
>To put it another way the US is about 25 years behind Europe on car design,
>build and quality control.

You're thinking is flawed. It does not matter how many years have
passed - an expensive care will always "beat" an inexpensive car in
many of the areas you mentioned.

On the other hand, newer cars should be expected to perform better on
a per-dollar basis, have more and better safety features, and more
modern conveniences.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Gordon McGrew > wrote:
>> >American cars are crap. Made by unionists more worried about when their
>> >next coffee break is than making quality cars.
>
>> It's not the union worker's fault. You could hire a team of Formula 1
>> mechanics to disassemble and reassemble a Detroit 3 car and it would
>> still be a piece of crap.
>
>Yup. It's nice to have a fall guy though. Saves approaching the real
>problems. Since I'm reading this on a BMW group the OP might like to
>ponder why BMW recognises unions but manages to be one of the most
>profitable car makers world wide.

Because they stuck to their guns and designed cars right, instead of
making FWD crap?

Tony Harding wrote:

>> The big three are losing money, and if we don't give them the support
>> they need, they are going to go under.
>
>Isn't that what free enterprise/capitalism is all about, i.e, buyers
>switch to another company's products is supposed to spur the company
>losing business to improve its products, pricing, etc.? Sounds as though
>you want us to reward the Detroit execs for decades of short sighted
>greed - count me out.

Well, what worked for decades for them was building junk, and hoping
for repeat business anyway, with their (stupid) customers thinking
"maybe they've gotten their act together by now", as if 100 years
isn't enough.

>
> But you don't have to replace it after just a few years.
>

Then don't.

> The main point was that a car designed and made in Europe a generation ago
> is still better than most US made cars now.
>

That is total non-sense. It depends on what car you are talking about.

> The corrolory would be that current EU mass market cars (e.g. Ford Mondeo,
> Vauxhall Vectra etc.) are better than their BMW market equivalents (3 and
> 5 series) of the mid 80's.
>
> To put it another way the US is about 25 years behind Europe on car
> design, build and quality control.
>

Then why do European cars have more problems than Japaness and American? Not
to mention they cost a fortune.

dizzy wrote:

>You're

c/You're/Your/

Bob Jones wrote:
>> But you don't have to replace it after just a few years.
>>
>
> Then don't.
>
>> The main point was that a car designed and made in Europe a generation ago
>> is still better than most US made cars now.
>>
>
> That is total non-sense. It depends on what car you are talking about.
>
>> The corrolory would be that current EU mass market cars (e.g. Ford Mondeo,
>> Vauxhall Vectra etc.) are better than their BMW market equivalents (3 and
>> 5 series) of the mid 80's.
>>
>> To put it another way the US is about 25 years behind Europe on car
>> design, build and quality control.
>>
>
> Then why do European cars have more problems than Japaness and American? Not
> to mention they cost a fortune.

I haven't heard of a lot of major problems for Mercedes Benz or BMW. but
they are expensive to repair. I remember in my younger days, I took
apart a MB engine, I think from a late 70s MB. The engine was much more
complicated to disassemble than a US V8. There were more head bolts, the
oil pan came in two pieces, and there were a lot more parts than in a US
V8. I didn't see the bill for the engine rebuild, but I bet it was more
than for a Chevy 350.

And in the old days, the electrical systems on Jags were just bad. I
remember hearing about a metal rod that was supposed to conduct
electricity in a Jag. It just stopped conducting electricity beyond a
point on the rod. I don't remember what the rod was for, though.

VWs and presumably Audis have a lot of problems, though, according to
the reports I hear. And they aren't cheap to fix, either.

Actually, I don't remember too many problems with Swedish cars. i don't
remember if it is because they were better than the other or just less
common.

Jeff
Jeff

"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message ...
>>> What about Toyotas and Hondas made in America?
>>
>>Toyota and Honda assemble cars all over the world, but the profits go
>>back to Japan.
>
> Whereas the domestic manufacturers don't even have profits.

Excellent point.

dizzy > wrote:
>
>You're thinking is flawed. It does not matter how many years have
>passed - an expensive care will always "beat" an inexpensive car in
>many of the areas you mentioned.

You'd think so, but look at the current Cadillac offerings... they sure
cost plenty, but the doors still don't fit right...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

> wrote in message ...
> Most people I know buy japanese cars because they will run for a long
> time without any real maintenance and now American cars are much the
> same way.
>
> Once you do start actually having your jap car worked on the cost
> rises sharply. As was pointed out to me here, they require special
> knowlege and lots of special tools along with very expensive parts.

What a BS... You should not believe in everything you hear!

> BTW anyone who thinks of a car as an investment is an idiot. It is
> simply an expense. A piece of metal you pour money into and drive
> until it quits or you trade it in.

Agree.

> The best use of your car buying
> dollar is to get a junker and drive it until the wheels fall off but
> most people live a little higher on the food chain. God bless the
> people who buy new cars and trade them in a year or two but
> they are certainly paying a lot for that extravagance.

For some people it is not big money and they can aford a new toy
every so often. I can understand driving same car for 10 years
can be boring experience but I am too cheap myself to buy new
cars often :-) So for such people "best usage" for money might
to buy toys => new cars.