Import owners are to blame for the recession

> wrote in message
...

> When they called it a FiveHundred they couldn't GIVE it away.

Not true. The sales were never "bad (well except in Canada). You need
to consider that the Five Hundred and Freestyle were essentially the
same vehicle, except the Freestyle was the station wagon version (but
nobody wants to call a vehicle a station wagon these days).

2007 Five Hundred Sales - 35,146
2007 New Taurus Sales - 33,032
2007 Taurus + 500 Sales - 68,178
2007 Freestyle Sales - 23,765
2007 Taurus X Sales - 18,345
2007 Freestyle + Taurus X Sales - 42,110
2007 - 500/Taurus/Freestyle/Taurus X Total Sales - 110,288

2006 Five Hundred Sales - 84,218
2006 Freestyle Sales - 58,602
2006 500 + Freestyle Sales - 142,820

2005 Five Hundred Sales - 107,932
2005 Freestyle Sales - 76,739
2005 500 + Freestyle Sales - 184,671

The combined numbers for the Five Hundred and Freestyle make it one of
Ford's better selling cars for 2005 and 2006 (more sold than Crown
Victorias in 2005 and 2006, more sold than Mustangs in 2005, almost as
many as the Taurus in 2005, and about 80% as many as the Taurus in
2006). For 2007 sales were down, but certainly the name change
confused things. But a sales rate over 110,000 is nothing to be
sneezed at. It is about twice the rate of the Toyota Avalon, Toyota's
pathetic entry into the large car class.

Ed

On Dec 14, 8:38*pm, me > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:36:08 -0800 (PST), Jeff >
> wrote:
>
> >> Unfortunately, I don't know if they are warranteed to last 120,000 miles.
>
> >Yet, I haven't read anything that indicates that the batteries are not
> >good for a longer lifespan. Toyota and Honda were really conservative
> >with the batteries when they first came out. For example, they kept
> >the charge within a really narrow window, something like between 60
> >and 80% charge, until they had real-life experience to guide future
> >battery usage.
>
> >Jeff
>
> "Hybrid-Related Component Coverage: Hybrid-related components for
> hybrid vehicles are covered for 8 years/100,000
> miles. The HV battery may have longer coverage under emissions
> warranty. Refer to applicable Owner’s Warranty
> Information booklet for details."

This doesn't mean that batteries are an issue.

"me" > wrote in message
...
> JD Powers is very short term. Owner Satisfaction is very subjective.
> Most people I know keep their cars longer than three years and judge
> on other criteria.

But Consumer Reports isn't, and even THEY agree that Ford's quality is now
competitive.

Derek

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:33:35 -0500, me wrote:

>>Ford had more vehicles in the J.D. Powers to ten quality rating than
>>any other maker. Lincoln comes in tops with owner satisfation.
>
> JD Powers is very short term. Owner Satisfaction is very subjective.
> Most people I know keep their cars longer than three years and judge
> on other criteria.

And if you listen carefully to the ads, it says "Initial quality." That
means, the quality experience of the owner when he first takes delivery of
the car.

"me" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:28:44 -0500, "Derek Gee"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"me" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> JD Powers is very short term. Owner Satisfaction is very subjective.
>>> Most people I know keep their cars longer than three years and judge
>>> on other criteria.
>>
>>But Consumer Reports isn't, and even THEY agree that Ford's quality is now
>>competitive.
>
> FYI - Consumer Reports is unscientific and their surveys are, from a
> statistical viewpoint, worthless. That said, I'd agree that they do
> have some value as generalized surveys.
>
> Also, I'd agree that Ford quality has increased dramatically in some
> areas. In fact, Ford was the only one of the Big-3 to adopt "total
> quality management" some time ago - albeit still 30 years too late. It
> is worth noting that they are not currently asking for tax payer
> money. That's a good thing IMHO.
>
> All that said though, it's not actual quality that is the issue. It's
> the public perception of quality. They have a long way to go before
> they start to gain a reputation for quality though and they've had
> some big missteps that have reduced that reputation back the starting
> point for many buyers. The general public's perception, based on many
> years of Ford producing low quality cars, is still one of poor quality
> products.
>

If you keep getting burned over and over again, you learn not to put your
hand on a hot stove.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

"me" > wrote in message
...

> All that said though, it's not actual quality that is the issue.
> It's
> the public perception of quality. They have a long way to go before
> they start to gain a reputation for quality though and they've had
> some big missteps that have reduced that reputation back the
> starting
> point for many buyers. The general public's perception, based on
> many
> years of Ford producing low quality cars, is still one of poor
> quality
> products.

It never seems to hurt Toyota. They have produced some of the least
reliable, lowest quality cars ever sold in this country, yet they now
seem to be the "gold" standard for quality. Are people's memories that
short?

Ed

On 17 Dec, 12:20, "C. E. White" > wrote:
> "me" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > All that said though, it's not actual quality that is the issue.
> > It's
> > the public perception of quality. They have a long way to go before
> > they start to gain a reputation for quality though and they've had
> > some big missteps that have reduced that reputation back the
> > starting
> > point for many buyers. The general public's perception, based on
> > many
> > years of Ford producing low quality cars, is still one of poor
> > quality
> > products.
>
> It never seems to hurt Toyota. They have produced some of the least
> reliable, lowest quality cars ever sold in this country, yet they now
> seem to be the "gold" standard for quality. Are people's memories that
> short?
>
> Ed

"Japanese brands are still the ones to beat. Of the 47 vehicles with
the highest predicted reliability, 39 are Japanese. Of those, all but
seven are made by Toyota or Honda."

"Twenty of the "Least Reliable" vehicles are domestic models and just
five, all from Nissan, are Japanese."

"Gosi" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 Dec, 12:20, "C. E. White" >
> wrote:
>> "me" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > All that said though, it's not actual quality that is the issue.
>> > It's
>> > the public perception of quality. They have a long way to go
>> > before
>> > they start to gain a reputation for quality though and they've
>> > had
>> > some big missteps that have reduced that reputation back the
>> > starting
>> > point for many buyers. The general public's perception, based on
>> > many
>> > years of Ford producing low quality cars, is still one of poor
>> > quality
>> > products.
>>
>> It never seems to hurt Toyota. They have produced some of the least
>> reliable, lowest quality cars ever sold in this country, yet they
>> now
>> seem to be the "gold" standard for quality. Are people's memories
>> that
>> short?
>>
>> Ed
>
> "Japanese brands are still the ones to beat. Of the 47 vehicles with
> the highest predicted reliability, 39 are Japanese. Of those, all
> but
> seven are made by Toyota or Honda."
>
> "Twenty of the "Least Reliable" vehicles are domestic models and
> just
> five, all from Nissan, are Japanese."

Is this based on perception, or actual facts?

Ed

C. E. White wrote:

>> "Twenty of the "Least Reliable" vehicles are domestic models and just
>> five, all from Nissan, are Japanese."
>
> Is this based on perception, or actual facts?

It's based on what owners tell the organizations collecting the data. If
you're looking for some sort of double-blind study that determines which
vehicle is the most reliable, then you're not going to find it.

According to all the data, the Japanese models are almost always more
reliable, and they stay on the road longer.

Of course there could be many reasons for this. Maybe the owners of
Japanese nameplate vehicles take better care of their cars because they
tend to be better educated with higher incomes. There could be a lot of
factors causing the data to be what it is.

There's another issue as well. I'm sure everyone knows people with the
attitude of, 'I owned a Ford and had xyz problem so I'm never buying an
American car again,' yet it's rare to find someone with the same
attitude about Hondas or Toyotas, even though both companies have
produced an occasional crappy model.

Finally, there's the rental car problem. Almost every time you rent a
vehicle in the U.S., you get a bottom of the line American nameplate
vehicle that the manufacturer had equipped specifically for the rental
market, and which is sold to the rental agency at a very low price. You
drive these cars and you think that nothing has changed from the 1970's.
On the rare occasions that the rental agency has a Toyota, Subaru, or
Nissan, it's a regular production model that hasn't been decontented,
and it's often a "free upgrade" because the agency is out of what the
renter requested.

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>> "Twenty of the "Least Reliable" vehicles are domestic models and
>>> just
>>> five, all from Nissan, are Japanese."
>>
>> Is this based on perception, or actual facts?
>
> It's based on what owners tell the organizations collecting the
> data. If you're looking for some sort of double-blind study that
> determines which vehicle is the most reliable, then you're not going
> to find it.

Yet I bet they exist. I am sure that every major car company buys the
registration data and analyses the crap out of it. The only time you
see any claims made on longevity are from Chevy on trucks and they
don't give you the numbers, just their interpretation. I've always
though that if there was conclusive data either way, it would show up
in advertising. Instead you get something like Toyota's current
claim - "the best overall value." I assume what this really means is -
"We know we are screwing you on price, but we hope you won't notice."

> According to all the data, the Japanese models are almost always
> more reliable, and they stay on the road longer.

The only data I've seen is that Canadian data someone published
earlier. "All" takes in a lot more room. I certainly don't see a lot
of older Japanese cars on the road in my area. And my personal
experience (including the experience of those close to me) does not
match this claim.

> Of course there could be many reasons for this. Maybe the owners of
> Japanese nameplate vehicles take better care of their cars because
> they tend to be better educated with higher incomes. There could be
> a lot of factors causing the data to be what it is.
>
> There's another issue as well. I'm sure everyone knows people with
> the attitude of, 'I owned a Ford and had xyz problem so I'm never
> buying an American car again,' yet it's rare to find someone with
> the same attitude about Hondas or Toyotas, even though both
> companies have produced an occasional crappy model.

You haven't met my older Sister - Ford, Honda, VW, Honda, Toyota. She
keep saying never again to whatever she is driving at the moment. Or
my other sister - Ford, Ford, Mazda, VW, Ford, Toyota. She changes
with the wind. Or my SO - Nissan, For, Toyota, Plymouth,Toyota. She
likes Toyotas (but doesn't really have a reason). Toyotas are in this
year....and they all agree NO VWs.

> Finally, there's the rental car problem. Almost every time you rent
> a vehicle in the U.S., you get a bottom of the line American
> nameplate vehicle that the manufacturer had equipped specifically
> for the rental market, and which is sold to the rental agency at a
> very low price. You drive these cars and you think that nothing has
> changed from the 1970's. On the rare occasions that the rental
> agency has a Toyota, Subaru, or Nissan, it's a regular production
> model that hasn't been decontented, and it's often a "free upgrade"
> because the agency is out of what the renter requested.

It is funny how people have different experiences. I don't rent a lot
of cars, so I am sure I am not typical. When I rent for business, I
always seem to get a Taurus. The last one was very good. No problems,
no complaints from me at all. It had decent seats, good power, etc.
Nothing special, but certainly not bad. The biggest POS rental I ever
got was a Camry in Hawaii (personal rental - seemed all they had were
Toyotas). What a dog. No power, no room, horrid (and I mean horrid)
seats. If you had offered it to me for free, I would have taken it,
but there is no way I would have bought it. Summer before last we
rented a car in Texas. We got a Pontiac Grand Prix. I don't usually
like GM cars, but even I had to admit it was a terrific car. It had
the supercharged 3.8L V-6. Really good seats (best I've had in a
rental ever). It got terrific fuel economy despite driving around at
over 80 mph (Texas has insane speed limits on two lane roads). It was
very quiet. It handled well. The A/C was great (and very needed in
Texas in July). There were three of us in the car, and no one griped
about room. My only complaint was the stupid red/orange instruments
and displays. Very irritating. The car had over 34k miles, so it had
seen plenty of use. I didn't care for Pontiac styling but if the car
had a decent looking body, (like the current G8) it would have been of
interest to me.

Ed