Foreign Cars.

[tahleel]

Taheel are you talking about Torx Bits? Lots of applications for those on all cars. Get yourself a nice set of Lisles, good american made tools with a life time guarantee. I've snapped a many while wrenching on something rusty at Parts Glore and the man at the parts store just gives me another, no questions asked.

No, I know what torx bits are. I'm talking about hex-keyed sockets.

The worst I ever heard about a brake job was a late 70s Datsun Z with dual piston calipers a waiter I used to work with years ago would talk about. He got several repair estimates around $1200 and decided to say "scew it" and kept driving the car. This car was all ready a rusty peice of junk and no were near worth $1200; so when the brakes got real bad he would downshift to slow down and just shut the ignition off and let the engine stop the car. I guess he did this until he replaced the heap with a nice American used car that he could afford.

My truck [[Ford) has dual piston calipers. Doing the brakes on that is the same as doing it on single piston calipers. Only difference is I have to push in the second caliper, which takes less than 10 seconds per side. Again, brakes are brakes are brakes.

I feel like people are getting shafted left and right, because it DOES NOT cost that much in parts nor labor. I'd say for brake pads and rotors, it shouldn't cost more than $150-200 in parts for most cars. Labor definitely shouldn't be $600-700. Labor charge for most mechanics is $60-70 hour. That means if they charge you $600-700 in labor, they bill you for 10 hours of work, which is absurd. It would take a mechanic at most two hours to replace four discs and four sets of pads.

P.S. For those people who don't know what the Datsun/Nissan Z is, it was marketed as a sports car that anyone could buy. It became a hit when it came out. Many generations later, the Fairlady Z name is still held by the new Nissan 370Z. I would like to own a classic Z one day.

-Tahleel

[CountrySquire]

Yah the big problem with those 70s Japanese cars is they rusted out quick. Dad's '74 Corolla had no floorbooards or lower fenders left after five years on the road. He still remembers that car as one of his faves though, said it was "reliable".

[tahleel]

Yah the big problem with those 70s Japanese cars is they rusted out quick. Dad's '74 Corolla had no floorbooards or lower fenders left after five years on the road. He still remembers that car as one of his faves though, said it was "reliable".

I will definitely agree with you on that. Early Japanese cars were really never known for their ability to deter rust.

-Tahleel

[TKshreve]

Very nice post wazootyman. I enjoyed it.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

C'mon guys, the direction this discussion is going is absurd - on both sides. Look back at the original post and ask what any of this has to do with what you're arguing about.

There are no guarantees that any of these automakers will remain loyal to this country, and that goes particularly for the foreign-owned plants. Who's to say that when their sweet tax breaks expire that they won't shift production south of the border? Fact is, they're in a better position financially, partly due to unfair advantages regarding health care, trade policies and lack of retiree "burden". They can afford to build plants in the United States [[again, with major tax breaks) because these expenses do not burden them to the extent that they do the Detroit Three. There have been a lot of screw-ups by these companies, but at the same time, we're our own worst enemy when it comes to policy supporting domestic manufacturing.

Can you honestly say that supporting Hyundai instead of GM is better for the future of this country? It may do well for your selfish needs - you view it as a better quality vehicle, that perhaps costs less. You may feel it's got a better value, even if you haven't given the domestic counterpart a fair test. You're entitled to do that, of course, but I don't think you're entitled to complain about the consequences it may bring [[particularly if you live in SE Michigan). If you do live here, you're shooting yourself in the foot by doing so, though I shouldn't say that because it makes me ignorant according to some academics around here - should I just admit I think Detroit is the center of the galaxy? Regardless of what is said about how un-important we are to the 49 other states, I think a lot of people nation-wide should be scared of what is happening to Detroit and what it stands for.

If you wanted to, I think a case could be made that a lot of the work-force is overpaid; what makes a middle-manager worth six figures, and furthermore, what makes him entitled to call out a UAW line worker just because he feels he is superior to him?

I've tried to keep up with this thread, and perhaps I've missed it, but where has anybody acknowledged the fact that foreign-owned automotive jobs are a bucket in a sinking US automotive job ship? As I understand it, the automobile is still the most complex mass-produced product in the world, the biggest consumer of glass to semiconductors, requiring everything from accountants to chemical engineers to make them roll off the assembly line. Should we really just be that willing to give up this source of national pride? If the Japanese were in a similar boat, do you think that their culture would permit such a "it's lost a lost cause...move on" attitude? I think the fact that Hyundai, Toyota and Honda built plants here to employ Americans is great for those that can get the jobs, but it comes at a significant cost to all those that are losing them in return. The Camry may be the "most American" car to some, but I have yet to see figures that quote how many jobs the Camry supports versus, say, the Malibu. I suspect it's not even close. Can we get past the fact already that there is SO much more to a vehicle's human involvement than the 3,000 jobs in a final assembly plant?

If I've learned one thing in this thread, it's that the Fusion is built in Mexico. Wait, I already knew that, I've just seen it repeated half a dozen times. I think it sucks that Ford, GM and Chrysler make cars outside this country. I probably wouldn't have bought the 2008 Vue - my 2007 was built and designed in this country, and I didn't want a Mexican-built car [[as it would sort of go against my beliefs). But consider this: Besides outright greed, what else would drive production down to Mexico? Cost cutting. In my experience with an automotive supplier, we HAD to send production to Mexico and China, despite the preference by myself and most of the engineers. The reason was cost. GM couldn't pay the domestic-made premium because the consumer wouldn't. Joe McWalMart would be driven to the foreign competition immediately if the domestic counterpart had a $2,000 add-on because it was 100% domestic. Problem is, we have it too good here, and making a decent wage is no longer acceptable in the "shiny new global economy" that's slowly killing our standard of living. My understanding is, as I mentioned earlier, that the advantages the foreign-owned companies have give them more available overhead for a domestic worker. In turn, it convinces some of you that they're a more caring, more American car company than our own.

I look toward the future as really uncertain. I don't think we're headed in the right direction by shifting ownership and manufacturing power overseas. A lot of the so-called growth over the last however-many years has been a fraud; our manufacturing base erodes while credit masks our financial strain. I know this is a much bigger issue than "foreign cars", it just is ultimately where my beliefs come from. If we don't maintain the capacity to design, produce and support our own product, how do we build wealth? Our loss is their gain.

So, whatever. I hope I've been somewhat coherent. How about this for homerism. Brings a tear to my [[ignorant) eye when I think about how far we've fallen since even this was made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoLtODutYNQ

To put my viewpoint in perspective: I'm 28, an electrical engineer, and in the midst of forming a start-up energy/engineering company while also working for a global [[locally-based) automotive supplier. My wife and I own two domestically-built and engineered GM cars, a 2007 and a 2009. Call me what you will, but I will never buy a foreign car.

I concur, what a great post.

[CountrySquire]

I like your Post Cincinatti, and I agree with most of it except:

"The reason was cost. GM couldn't pay the domestic-made premium because the consumer wouldn't. Joe McWalMart would be driven to the foreign competition immediately if the domestic counterpart had a $2,000 add-on because it was 100% domestic. "

The costs of all products, save maybe that 10 pack of bar soap priced below $5 at Wal-Mart has stayed the same and /or risen with the normal pace of inflation. That means as consumers we are paying the same for that Automobile, coffee maker or Vacuum cleaner, as we did in 1990 when most of the manuafacturing was right here in the good ole USA. Where did all that money go companies saved by not having to pay an American a living wage, so they could instead pay a 15 y/o girl in China .30 cents an hour?

[darwinism]

I've been around this site for awhile too and I can read an over inflated underthought blow hard like you from a mile away that wants to pile on a guy when he is perceived to be stumbling. Why should I post data from Murray's;What's wrong with Rock Auto? Just because you've not heard of them in your little world does not mean no one else has.

#1: All the evidence thus far points to you as the over-inflated under-thought blow-hard jerk-off, because you lie and you put words in Norm's mouth as proven below. I know Norm personally, so I know he is credible.

#2: Prove to us all here at DetroitYes that there are a lot of people that know about Rock Auto. Otherwise, your little world of lies and games need to zip it.

Sorry, don't stick words in my mouth. I believe fully in Free trade. I'm looking for the opposite. We need to force China to play by the same rules we play by. If you want full access to our economy we should have full access to yours.

[CountrySquire]

Great, it's nice that you know Norm personally. I know a few people from this site personally too, maybe even a few more then you. Using your alienation logic does that make me a better poster on this site since I may have a few more friends on here then you? Basically Norm and I say slightly different things about China but want the same thing, Fair trade. Maybe you and he can discuss it over coffee and let me know what you come up with. I think the guy who led off with the junior high level name calling in this thread is the real jerk, and that would happen to be you.

[Det_ard]

Stop the arguing over Rock Auto. They're a well-known internet auto parts vendor. I've used them for various things, they're often but not always the low-priced source. They don't have some foreign/domestic pricing bias as far as I know, although all my cars are Big 3 types.

Beyond that though, $900 for a routine brake job on a common car is way too much. Now, quality rotors cost more than Chinese rotors but that holds true no matter what the origin of your vehicle. I've done my own brake jobs and you can get pads and rotors for $250 or less, even for something large like a full-size pickup. Upgrade to the best quality they have and you can add $100 - $150. Buy "factory" parts and pay even more. But that's the same for foreign and domestic vehicles.

Now I've got to take issue with the following comment. Vehicle prices actually have decreased when adjusted for inflation. Vehicle affordability, measured by the number of weeks of median wages necessary to buy the average priced vehicle hit a record low recently of 21.5 weeks. The lowest since this measurement was devised in 1979. Add in the fact that each year more content in made standard [[ABS, air bags, stereos, A/C, power windows/doors/steering, auto trans, etc.) and cars are a better buy than ever before. Quality is higher than ever, engine efficiency [[fuel used per unit of power output) is higher than ever, emissions are lower than ever. Stop the doom and gloom.

I like your Post Cincinatti, and I agree with most of it except:

"The reason was cost. GM couldn't pay the domestic-made premium because the consumer wouldn't. Joe McWalMart would be driven to the foreign competition immediately if the domestic counterpart had a $2,000 add-on because it was 100% domestic. "

The costs of all products, save maybe that 10 pack of bar soap priced below $5 at Wal-Mart has stayed the same and /or risen with the normal pace of inflation. That means as consumers we are paying the same for that Automobile, coffee maker or Vacuum cleaner, as we did in 1990 when most of the manuafacturing was right here in the good ole USA. Where did all that money go companies saved by not having to pay an American a living wage, so they could instead pay a 15 y/o girl in China .30 cents an hour?

[darwinism]

I know a few people from this site personally too, maybe even a few more then you. Using your alienation logic does that make me a better poster on this site since I may have a few more friends on here then you?

Yeah, right ..... I can imagine anybody would believe anything you say at this point, after all the lies that you have made, and continue to make.

I think the guy who led off with the junior high level name calling in this thread is the real jerk, and that would happen to be you.

Sure wish I could return to my youthful age of junior high.

Speaking of the real jerk, you've gotta have balls heavier than ship anchors to come up with lies like this .....

The costs of all products, save maybe that 10 pack of bar soap priced below $5 at Wal-Mart has stayed the same and /or risen with the normal pace of inflation. That means as consumers we are paying the same for that Automobile ...

Det_ard is correct. The Vehicle Affordability Index clearly shows that it is more affordable than ever to own a new car. [[Link to report) Adding up all the extras that are becoming standard these days; including perks like free OnStar service, XM radio and so on, consumers ARE NOT paying the same for that automobile. Stop the lies.

[CountrySquire]

Sigh....Darwinism, do you bring anything useful to this site besides re-affirming and amplifying what someone else has posted and throwing around juvenile insults and baseless claims of lying? $26K for a 2010 Taurus base model, adjusted down for inflation in 1990 Dollars is about $16K, best I recall that's what a base model Taurus was selling for back then, and yes you could have airbags and ABS around that time. So the argument you are getting more car for your money now is at best true to a very marginal degree. Not every car comes with On Star you know. I'm still not seeing the benefit as a consumer car buyer between GM paying someone 20 bucks per hour at it's parts plant in Flint vs. 0.30 per hour for the Delphi plant over seas.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I like your Post Cincinatti, and I agree with most of it except:

"The reason was cost. GM couldn't pay the domestic-made premium because the consumer wouldn't. Joe McWalMart would be driven to the foreign competition immediately if the domestic counterpart had a $2,000 add-on because it was 100% domestic. "

The costs of all products, save maybe that 10 pack of bar soap priced below $5 at Wal-Mart has stayed the same and /or risen with the normal pace of inflation. That means as consumers we are paying the same for that Automobile, coffee maker or Vacuum cleaner, as we did in 1990 when most of the manuafacturing was right here in the good ole USA. Where did all that money go companies saved by not having to pay an American a living wage, so they could instead pay a 15 y/o girl in China .30 cents an hour?

It was actually Wazootyman's post, but we agree he was on the mark for the most part.

[Det_ard]

Sigh....Darwinism, do you bring anything useful to this site besides re-affirming and amplifying what someone else has posted and throwing around juvenile insults and baseless claims of lying? $26K for a 2010 Taurus base model, adjusted down for inflation in 1990 Dollars is about $16K, best I recall that's what a base model Taurus was selling for back then, and yes you could have airbags and ABS around that time. So the argument you are getting more car for your money now is at best true to a very marginal degree. Not every car comes with On Star you know. I'm still not seeing the benefit as a consumer car buyer between GM paying someone 20 bucks per hour at it's parts plant in Flint vs. 0.30 per hour for the Delphi plant over seas.

Hey, I gave you the Rock Auto thing but now you're just talking out your ass. If anyone even remotely connected with the industry can't see the difference between a 1990 vehicle and a 2009 vehicle they're either lying because they're afraid to lose face in an argument or their ignorance of the industry borders on incompetence and negligence.

Besides, the facts are against you here. The only data you've posted was shown to be cherry-picked. The facts posted by those arguing against you are linked, verifiable, pertinent and compelling.

[CountrySquire]

Hey, I gave you the Rock Auto thing but now you're just talking out your ass. If anyone even remotely connected with the industry can't see the difference between a 1990 vehicle and a 2009 vehicle they're either lying because they're afraid to lose face in an argument or their ignorance of the industry borders on incompetence and negligence.

Besides, the facts are against you here. The only data you've posted was shown to be cherry-picked. The facts posted by those arguing against you are linked, verifiable, pertinent and compelling.

You mean like help install assembly tooling at Ford Chicago Assembly plant in 1994/5 to get it running for the new model Taurus in 1996, where I was responsible for all the statiscal data collected on the plant floor while the launch team ramped up the new model? Would this make me qualified to speak on Ford Tauruses through the years? I did not realize some here were that lazy that I needed to populate my posts with links for information that I easlily allude to where they could find more info themselves. Besides post on this site I work full time at an OEM supplier as an Engineer and am pursuing a gradute degree, so excuse me If I don't have the time to put into these posts to make them more intersting for you. 1990 Taurus vs 2010 Taurus, what are the major upgrades that make it stay beneath the radar of normal inflation in your opinion? Oh and thanks for Rock Auto BTW. And when you get a chance tell us how you are qualified to speak on the auto industry.

[Det_ard]

I realize that you're in the industry, that's why it's so strange that you seem ignorant of the major improvements in automotive technology over the last 20 years.

For starters, the base 1990 Taurus had a 4 cylinder that put out 90 h.p. It had a 3 speed auto. It didn't have port fuel injection. It didn't have ABS. It didn't have airbags. ABS was optional as was a driver's side airbag, but they were very costly options back then. They were also first generation designs, unlike the much more advanced designs today.

No standard power locks. No standard power windows. Much less sophisticated engine management hardware and software. Much higher level of defects. Noisier. A/C is optional, not standard. AM radio is standard, FM and tape are optional. CDs? In Town Cars, not base Tauruses. Fuel efficiency is higher per horsepower and emissions are lower. Durability is better. Manufacturing processes are less variable resulting in higher quality parts at lower cost. The list goes on and on.

Ask one of your older supplier coworkers if there's a difference in technology between 1990 and now. It's night and day. It's great you're furthering your education but your position on this thread belies a level of ignorance about basic truths in the industry that you ought to be aware of. If you have a chance, talk to someone at the car company about this. They do year over year comparisons of content, technology, performance, efficiency, things formerly optional made standard, betterment of components like when ABS went from 2 channel to 4 channel, all so that they have an accurate picture of the yearly product change when they make their introductory pricing decisions. Since it's a compelling value story, this info is communicated to dealership sales managers and salespersons. It's pretty common knowledge. I've been in the industry since the 80's and the inexorable march toward better value every year was apparent and readily acknowledged back then.

[darwinism]

Sigh....Darwinism, do you bring anything useful to this site besides re-affirming and amplifying what someone else has posted and throwing around juvenile insults and baseless claims of lying?

Being that I am not telling lies, that is already bringing a hell lot more than you could count. What you consider as juvenile insults are known as calling you out for lying ? And YES, throughout these 5 page thread so far, evidence of your lies have been presented time and again.

You mean like help install assembly tooling at Ford Chicago Assembly plant in 1994/5 to get it running for the new model Taurus in 1996, where I was responsible for all the statiscal data collected on the plant floor while the launch team ramped up the new model? Would this make me qualified to speak on Ford Tauruses through the years? I did not realize some here were that lazy that I needed to populate my posts with links for information that I easlily allude to where they could find more info themselves. Besides post on this site I work full time at an OEM supplier as an Engineer and am pursuing a gradute degree, so excuse me If I don't have the time to put into these posts to make them more intersting for you. 1990 Taurus vs 2010 Taurus, what are the major upgrades that make it stay beneath the radar of normal inflation in your opinion? Oh and thanks for Rock Auto BTW. And when you get a chance tell us how you are qualified to speak on the auto industry.

Frankly, I wouldn't believe a thing in that post. Sounds like someone just fishing for credibility in desperation. By the way, there is sure a lot of time available to make up lies, but somehow no time to provide credible facts such as links and citations. Doesn't that make fellow DetroitYes audience wonder about the claim of a graduate degree being pursued ?

I realize that you're in the industry, that's why it's so strange that you seem ignorant of the major improvements in automotive technology over the last 20 years.

For starters, the base 1990 Taurus had a 4 cylinder that put out 90 h.p. It had a 3 speed auto. It didn't have port fuel injection. It didn't have ABS. It didn't have airbags. ABS was optional as was a driver's side airbag, but they were very costly options back then. They were also first generation designs, unlike the much more advanced designs today.

No standard power locks. No standard power windows. Much less sophisticated engine management hardware and software. Much higher level of defects. Noisier. A/C is optional, not standard. AM radio is standard, FM and tape are optional. CDs? In Town Cars, not base Tauruses. Fuel efficiency is higher per horsepower and emissions are lower. Durability is better. Manufacturing processes are less variable resulting in higher quality parts at lower cost. The list goes on and on.

Ask one of your older supplier coworkers if there's a difference in technology between 1990 and now. It's night and day. It's great you're furthering your education but your position on this thread belies a level of ignorance about basic truths in the industry that you ought to be aware of. If you have a chance, talk to someone at the car company about this. They do year over year comparisons of content, technology, performance, efficiency, things formerly optional made standard, betterment of components like when ABS went from 2 channel to 4 channel, all so that they have an accurate picture of the yearly product change when they make their introductory pricing decisions. Since it's a compelling value story, this info is communicated to dealership sales managers and salespersons. It's pretty common knowledge. I've been in the industry since the 80's and the inexorable march toward better value every year was apparent and readily acknowledged back then.

Excellent post, straight-to-the-point and solid understanding of the industry plus a thorough knowledge of specifics.

[CountrySquire]

I realize that you're in the industry, that's why it's so strange that you seem ignorant of the major improvements in automotive technology over the last 20 years.

For starters, the base 1990 Taurus had a 4 cylinder that put out 90 h.p. It had a 3 speed auto. It didn't have port fuel injection. It didn't have ABS. It didn't have airbags. ABS was optional as was a driver's side airbag, but they were very costly options back then. They were also first generation designs, unlike the much more advanced designs today.

No standard power locks. No standard power windows. Much less sophisticated engine management hardware and software. Much higher level of defects. Noisier. A/C is optional, not standard. AM radio is standard, FM and tape are optional. CDs? In Town Cars, not base Tauruses. Fuel efficiency is higher per horsepower and emissions are lower. Durability is better. Manufacturing processes are less variable resulting in higher quality parts at lower cost. The list goes on and on.

Ask one of your older supplier coworkers if there's a difference in technology between 1990 and now. It's night and day. It's great you're furthering your education but your position on this thread belies a level of ignorance about basic truths in the industry that you ought to be aware of. If you have a chance, talk to someone at the car company about this. They do year over year comparisons of content, technology, performance, efficiency, things formerly optional made standard, betterment of components like when ABS went from 2 channel to 4 channel, all so that they have an accurate picture of the yearly product change when they make their introductory pricing decisions. Since it's a compelling value story, this info is communicated to dealership sales managers and salespersons. It's pretty common knowledge. I've been in the industry since the 80's and the inexorable march toward better value every year was apparent and readily acknowledged back then.

Sorry, you are plain wrong on a few of your points and show your ignorance and still evade my basic question as to why you feel a few of these improvements like passenger side airbags make the new cars stay beneath normal inflation. In 1990 The Standard engine was not a 4 cylinder, you are thinking Escort, you had a choice of two six cylinders, a 3.0 liter and a 3.8 Liter. The standard radio was not an AM, it would have been so in maybe 1980, by 1990 it would have been an AM FM Stereo, AC would have been a standard feature. Standard power locks / windows, I believe you would be getting these in 1990. Manufacturing processes are more robust creating higher quality? True, but Ford received numerous quality awards in the late 80s and Early 90s for its Taurus Line and it was on par with the imports of the time. And so what? As a consumer why do I care about the machines that build my car so long as the final product is what I want? Why would Joe consumer want to pay more for a car simply because it was built with more state of the art automated tooling than the next car? You do point out a few things like the two channel ABS but most of your paragraph is laden with conjecture. I still want to know where is my significant direct savings Ford has realized by putting hundreds of thousands out of work [[which includes indirect people dependant on Auto industry) and awarding that work to lower wage countries. Why doesn't that 2010 Taurus cost $11K? That's what I would expect as a company like a Ford is so much leaner now and cut out all that unnecessary fat.

[CountrySquire]

Hey Darwincynisism, you mean like Rock Auto? Even when it was pointed out to you that it was a real company that other people had heard of, but that you had accused me of making it all up. You mean those kinds of lies? What other types of lies do you hear through out your day? Maybe a lie like the earth is round and is not the center of the universe and that all planets in our galaxy orbit around it.

[EMG]

Chrysler May Not Make It Another Year:

http://247wallst.com/2009/10/01/chry...-another-year/

This guy tells it like it is.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Chrysler May Not Make It Another Year:

http://247wallst.com/2009/10/01/chry...-another-year/

This guy tells it like it is.

GM isn't out the woods either. The only one that looks like it might turn things around is Ford.

[darwinism]

Hey Darwincynisism, you mean like Rock Auto? Even when it was pointed out to you that it was a real company that other people had heard of, but that you had accused me of making it all up. You mean those kinds of lies? What other types of lies do you hear through out your day? Maybe a lie like the earth is round and is not the center of the universe and that all planets in our galaxy orbit around it.

Sure sounds like I'm not the only one seeing your lies here, liar .....

Hey, I gave you the Rock Auto thing but now you're just talking out your ass. If anyone even remotely connected with the industry can't see the difference between a 1990 vehicle and a 2009 vehicle they're either lying because they're afraid to lose face in an argument or their ignorance of the industry borders on incompetence and negligence.

Besides, the facts are against you here. The only data you've posted was shown to be cherry-picked. The facts posted by those arguing against you are linked, verifiable, pertinent and compelling.

[CountrySquire]

Darcynisism you got that right you are not the only one here that is denser than a sack of wet concrete.

[Det_ard]

Sorry, you are plain wrong on a few of your points and show your ignorance and still evade my basic question as to why you feel a few of these improvements like passenger side airbags make the new cars stay beneath normal inflation. In 1990 The Standard engine was not a 4 cylinder, you are thinking Escort, you had a choice of two six cylinders, a 3.0 liter and a 3.8 Liter. The standard radio was not an AM, it would have been so in maybe 1980, by 1990 it would have been an AM FM Stereo, AC would have been a standard feature. Standard power locks / windows, I believe you would be getting these in 1990.

Hey, I went to Edmunds and a couple other sites to do my research, maybe they're all wrong, but probably not. The 2.5L 4-cyl was std on L and GL lines. The radio be AM/FM but no cassette, no CD [[no XM, no Sirius, no IPOD adapter, no SYNC system, no HD radio, no in-car hard drive, get the idea, progress has been made in the last 20 years). A/C, power brakes and windows weren't standard on a base Taurus according to Edmunds.

But that's not the main point I'm making. The point I'm making has to do with the how cars have continually improved. Even if the price stayed the same you're getting far more for your money.

Manufacturing processes are more robust creating higher quality? True, but Ford received numerous quality awards in the late 80s and Early 90s for its Taurus Line and it was on par with the imports of the time. And so what? As a consumer why do I care about the machines that build my car so long as the final product is what I want? Why would Joe consumer want to pay more for a car simply because it was built with more state of the art automated tooling than the next car?

No, we don't care how it's done but we do care about the result. The result of better manufacturing processes is higher quality and lower cost, two items that consumers care very much about. The improvements in quality, measured over time by companies like JD Power in terms of defects per 100 vehicles, have been tremendous. Cars twenty years ago likely had three times as many defects.

You do point out a few things like the two channel ABS but most of your paragraph is laden with conjecture. I still want to know where is my significant direct savings Ford has realized by putting hundreds of thousands out of work [[which includes indirect people dependant on Auto industry) and awarding that work to lower wage countries. Why doesn't that 2010 Taurus cost $11K? That's what I would expect as a company like a Ford is so much leaner now and cut out all that unnecessary fat.

If you look at the automotive offerings today it's clear that manufacturers chose to put the savings into more competitive products. They could produce a '90 Taurus today for a realtively low price. Who'd buy it? The market has shown that a very inexpensive car won't succeed if it's beset by uncompetitve levels of defects and is very unrefined and poorly equipped compared to the competition [[think Yugo.) By today's standards, a '90 Taurus is a Yugo.

I've made my point as well as I can. I think it ought to be clear what I'm saying. I'm sorry if you don't get it but I'm not inclined to invest any more time in this. Good luck with your automotive career.

[CountrySquire]

Nice points Det_Ard. Yeah I think Edmunds is steering you wrong. The 2.5L was a GM engine and that would have been the standard on the Chevy Celibrity or Olds Cierra. I do agree with you that the 2010 Taurus is better car then the '90 Taurus. Too bad it won't see the sales volumes that the '90 did. This is directly due to cost cutting measures put into place by companies like Ford that helped detroy our economy which makes buying a 2010 Taurs an impossibilty for most.

[EMG]

Asia trumps Big 3 quality - and trounces Chrysler - once again, according to this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33495183/

[[Ford at least got some honorable mention. But Chrysler finished dead LAST out of 33 brands with over a third of Chrysler models "much worse than average.")