American vs German Quality

Back then VW people had a different idea of reliable. They had the old
air-cooled engines rebuilt every 60,000 miles, maybe a few extra valve jobs
thrown in between. I guess that was considered reasonable because the
overhaul bill was $200. But I agree, everybody considered them reliable,
even though the engine components had no longevity. The simplicity was a big
part of that. If it broke down it was always something very simple. Plus,
one frat boy could push it.

That said, the dribble fuel injection was a big kick in the head for
air-cooled VW's. That just ruined the car's rock-simple reputation. They
were still popular, but the attitude of people buying them was a lot
different. I've never heard anybody say anything good about that change.

So when you look at these realities, no to mention the exhaust-fume
defroster that could kill you, you can see it wasn't that good of a car.

 

Warmed-over Taurus. Another piece of Ford garbage with the same shitty
electrical system and same cardboard transaxle they've been foisting off
on the North American market for decades.

Aw, come on. Use your brain just a LITTLE BIT. If you were trying to sell
Fords, would you admit to their being any Taurus "engineering" in the car
you were trying to sell?

 

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.

 

The Chrysler Saratoga (as the car was known there) was equipped similarly
to the highest-spec North American Spirits in the suspension, steering,
brake, durability and luxury equipment departments, and much better in the
seatbelt, lighting, signalling and mirrors department. The majority of
North American AA-bodies were low-spec cars with "adequate" brakes,
"adequate" suspension, power nothing, etc.

 

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.

DAS

 

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/article/0,,12529-1376145,00.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
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

 

"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.

 

Could scarcely be worse.

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

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!"

 

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.

 

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 ... !
"

 

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.

 

I should have made myself clearer -- I didn't intend to suggest that the
AXOD or a derivative was used in the 500; I'm speaking on a much more
general level than you are: You're thinking "AXOD" and I'm thinking "Ford
automatic transaxles".

Didn't say they hadn't been. But since we were talking about Fords...

Yup. VERY close, for several hours, as part of a dealer focus group.

I can understand how you'd think I was saying the 500 is *literally* a
Taurus, but we both know that's not true.

 

A Ford, is a Ford, is a Ford. Any hype you want to give it will not do it a bit
of good. BTW - the first cardboard transmission in my '96 Chrysler Town &
Country LXi (I gave the complete model name rather than abbreviating it as you
are a Ford man and probably wouldn't know what a T&C LXi is) went 117,778 miles
before it gave out (because of misuse by me, I might add).

 

I drive Chryslers too, I know what a T&C is.

I drove my 1995 Ford Taurus GL 300 000 kms (185 000 miles) before I sold it
and I didn't once have any problems with the transmission. I don't know what
your point is, but for either make a sample of one is insignificant.

I don't know why you are playing down Ford so much, it's not like Chrysler
is the idol of car reliability.

500 is to Taurus as 300C is to 300M. The new cars don't have a whole lot in
common with the versions they replaced.

 

You always seem so ready to stick arguments to Ford that can be used against
Chrysler. Neither brand scores exceptionally for reliability. I never see
you attacking Chrysler. Why is that?

OK, so what you're saying is you think it's designed using the same crappy
engineering as the Taurus. Why didn't you just say that? Either way you're
making assumptions. Ford did actually spend some effort designing a new car,
and rather than even give it a chance you write it off right away. Whose to
say the 300C isn't going to be the same garbage Chrysler has been pumping
out?

 

Neither does GM.

Because you're not looking hard enough, perhaps. Googlegroups is good for
that sort of thing. I have attacked Chrysler in *scathing* terms multiple
times for multiple reasons over the years.

....based on Ford's lengthy and depressingly uniform track record.

Chrysler's track record hasn't been anywhere near as uniform as Ford's
over the last two decades. While Ford has churned out one piece of trash
after another, Chrysler's offerings have consisted, variously sequentially
and concurrently, of a mix of fall-apart dreck and well-built, reliable,
good cars.

 

Bill 2 wrote:

The obvious answer is that Chrysler hasn't been pumping out garbage for
YEARS now. Not since they got the 41TE/42LE working right (circa 1993)
and since they quit using Mitsushitti engines.

 

Well, on the reliability score I'm afraid you might be mistaken.

Other than a misstep with one transmission design, Chrysler reliability
has actually been fairly good in the past 20 years, with the possible
exception of the 1st-gen Neon. Sure, there have occasionally been
problems here and there, but overall the cars are quite good, and have
been, for a long, long time.

Ford's quality issues are numerous and in some cases have been
disastrous. The Explorer/Firestone tire debacle nearly caused the
financial ruin of the company. The Focus and Escape were both released
before they were sorted out. The 1996 Taurus was a complete styling
disaster, and had transmission and other reliability problems to boot.
It took them 25 years to realize the Mustang needed a platform that
couldn't directly trace its lineage to the 1971 Maverick. The Crown Vic
and Grand Marquis and Taurus only managed to survive via fleet sales.
The F-150 nearly had to be euthanized before Ford realized that a
7-year-old pickup might need some freshening.

Now we have the Freestar, a regrettable POS also-ran. The Five Hundred,
which is so underpowered, so poorly styled, and oh-so-likely to have CVT
problems I'll bet it's a fleet sale special in just a few short years.
The Freestyle, which is the answer to a question nobody has asked.
The Focus, which has been rendered just another boring small car, while
Ford of Europe is producing a product that's clearly superior.

Let's not even go into Mercury, which is the next Oldsmobile.

As far as Lincoln is concerned, the average buyer can
reasonably expect to drive their purchase to their deathbed. I doubt
the marque can be saved, it has been so badly mismanaged.

Meanwhile, the company is being run by a liberal environmentalist who
seems to think that a 30-mpg car-based hybrid SUV is important, or some
type of technical innovation. Still, he's a vast improvement over the last guy, who thought Ford's next
frontier should be electric bicycles and environmentally-friendly
junkyards.


So you can whine about Chrysler's one bad transmission all you'd like,
but one bad transmission isn't even comparable to the flames Ford finds
its future in.

--Geoff

 

Not all the vehicles they make are total garbage. Contrary to your belief,
the Crown Vic / Grand Marquee are reliable vehicles (although they may lack
"refinement"). Some models of North American Escort were pretty reliable.
Focus isn't bad (although it is based on European design). The F-150 isn't
bad.

So there's no guarantee that it won't be garbage.

 

Bill 2 wrote:

I'm willing to grant you that the 500 is more differentiated from the
Taurus than has been implied... but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is
to the Taurus as the 300C is to the 300M. There's NOTHING in common
between a 300C and a 300M, chassis or engine-wise. Now if you want to
talk about the current 300 (no "C") then yes, the very nice 3.5L engine
is shared between the two. But not even the new 300's transmission is
the same as the 300M's 42LE. Related, yes. Same, no. And in the case of
the 300C, its not even related (though time has not yet told if that is
a good thing- I have complete confidence in the later production 42LE,
but the Stuttgart-designed / Kokomo-built nightmare in the 300C appears
far to complicated for its own good if you ask me.