It is interesting that the discussion is about "European" makes but almost all references are to German makes. There are lots of other European makes that at one time were sold in the US but were so unsuited to the US market that they are no longer here. Anyone want their old Renault back? No, then how about a Fiat, or Sterling, or Citroen? These cars are certainly better today than when they last were sold here, but it takes a long time for the public to forget.

The original Japanese cars offered (for the most part) reliable, affordable cars. Toyota and Honda adapted quickly to the needs of the American market with great success. Thanks in no small part to this adaptation, even modern American cars have become more reliable just to compete.

I see the Korean automaker(s) beginning to adapt their products to the American market and offering good value like the Japanese originally did.

For me, the unknown is the effect the giant Chinese market will have. It is certainly driving designs already including Buicks. I don't expect to see the Chinese waiting much longer before launching a massive internal automotive design and manufacturing sector of their own.

Do the German luxury makes get a pass on design? Absolutely! Mercedes could release the ugliest design in the world and it would be accepted simply because of the prestige of the Mercedes name. What is more, other manufacturers would probably rush to copy it!
Steve

 

As of right now I'd have to agree. Infiniti is going through an Identity crisis and Acura is still a couple years away from the NSX which to me is their Halo and a make it or break it.

Germans do one thing well, and that is expand. Whether it be their product line or Ferdinand Piëch trying to take over the automotive world

 

At one time some of those mentioned automakers were sold internationally. I believe we're referring more to German makes simply because they garner all the attention as well as compete on a larger scale with American and Asian makes.

Something I've argued for awhile now, but also feel is not particularly relevant and some ignorant views are just stuck in the past simply because an automaker made mistakes in the past does not mean they are the same now. Like I referenced on an earlier post, I could buy a Honda and it could be a total lemon, and I could buy a BMW and it could be a total peach. The line between good and bad is blurring. Your 93 Taurus is not the same as a 13.

Korean's seem to have taken the Japanese formula and implemented it well since 2009. Because of their quick expansion we saw a decline in quality, increased TSB's, and questionable longevity for their turbo applications. That said, major props must be given to them for offering a large line-up of Front, Rear and All wheel drive vehicles. Most importantly is the Genesis coupe and sedan in a time when RWD is seemingly becoming harder to find. Also I don't find the addition of the Equus as a threat to Lexus or Mercedes or any of them simply because they are established brands in a different market. The latter(s) is/are far more refined and of course carry those esteemed badges. The Equus should be viewed as a great alternative for a large full size sedan that offers many amenities and feature content for a good price. Because they don't have a true Luxury line though, I don't see them taking much away from European makes (lux) other than VW Jetta's.

China is already booming, and it's only going to get bigger. There's a huge business case for Buick/GM, Ford, and European makes to be there.

Not many liked the R-Class (though I do love the R63 AMG).

 

Agree. The lines are blurring. There isn't that much difference between Ameican/European/Japanese/Korean models anymore (many are interrelated), and the whole industry itself, of course, is global. Honda, though, overall, despite some cost-cutting and cheapening of the interiors, still seems, at least to my senses, to assemble a car at the factory than any other manufacturer. Their factory quality control is superb. They also use excellent hardware.


Again, to my senses, the best Korean cars were done between 2000 and 2010. Since then, the styling has gotten weird, body sheet metal/glass thinner, and interiors with a lighter, flimsier feel. Reliability, though, seems not to have dropped.....I'm not sure I agree with the argument that overall quality has decreased, though their new models, at least to my tastes, are distinctly less-pleasant and less solid-feeling..

 

It is kind of interesting. When people mention great quality brands, the German luxury cars are almost always talked about. But one thing i keep asking is: What makes a great quality car?

In my opinion, it is one that is the best built. It seems to me that the autoworld is the only industry in which people perceive greatness as "luxury/prestige" instead of "quality". When you look to buy a TV, are you seriously looking for "brand image", or are you more interested in quality/dependability.? Same thing with home appliances, does it matter whether or not you have a luxury brand honestly (for the majority)? Probably not, you want something that will work. Cars are just consumer appliances (in the stricted sense of the word). Sure we love them, and they make a statement about who we are (sometimes), but at the end of the day, it is something that gets you from point A to point B.

Sure Toyota/Honda are very cheap cars compared to those luxury brands. Sure, they lack leather, comfort, navigation, etc. But one thing that they almost ALWAYS have over anyone else is build quality/reliability. They may be cheap, but they WORK.

Cars in every other category, be it lower end (GM) or higher end (Ferraris), all lack the reputation for reliability. The only real exceptions are the major Japanese manufacturers. It is kinda wierd. The Germans may have the RACING pedigree, but the Japenese certainly have the QUALITY pedigree.

Think about a luxury make, you imagine a high prestige level, and alluring badge. Think about those japanese cars, and they are the ones who swarm US roads because as a country we commute frequently. So many of us want to buy makes that are at least PERCEIVED as reliable.

In my awkward, augmented state of reality, the major Japanese brands would be the makers of the BEST cars in the world. Cars of the highest quality, that break down the least.

 

Great writing!

Lexus/Toyota is the last Japanese to hold the fortress. Just look at the outdated Acura/Infiniti engines, they are using 20 years old stuff. How can they compete in today's market? Only way is to sell the bigger and cheaper cars as they are doing now. What's more! Little effort can be seen to change that. I feel that even GM and Korean will do better than those two in a few years.

German quality is the design, material and fit and finish that you can see and feel immediately. Not that kind of reliability which Japanese are gunning for.

 

That's true in some cases, Hoovey. But, as I also see it, a fair amount of what we saw in yesterday's vehicles is actually better than what goes into today's cars. I would not call it ignorant to say that, but sometimes just speaking from experience.

 

Absolutely. Honda design may be a little ho hum and vanilla, and some interiors like on the new Civic (pre refresh) have some cost cutting materials, its the assembly and fit and finish that is still essentially bar none

 

Some good points about A to B, and perceived quality. Perception is the key word here as although some may be hesitant to purchase a badge which has a poor image, the likelihood of someone buying a Land Rover over a Jeep is greater based on that badge, not necessarily the cars merits. In hindsight that may be a poor example as they are both excellent off roaders lol. But both are considered reliability risks, and even though the Jeep is cheaper, that fact that it's European and more luxurious may sway people towards that green oval. To the Jeep's credit though it does have MBZ ML underpinnings

 

Thanks.

Some good points in here. Lexus is certainly doing the most, maybe in part because they are a larger manufacturer though their products are taking their sweet time to hit dealer lots (I'm getting impatient lol). To their credit though the extra time is being used to go over each vehicle with a fine tooth comb. Acura has a whole mess of sedans that share too many similarities, no coupes/verts, two good CUV's and one that needs to be burned with fire. The NSX (if it ever comes to fruition) needs to happen. Like the LFA did for Lexus I (IMO) believe the NSX will do for Acura. Infiniti seems to be the opposite of Acura. Too many CUV/SUV's and not enough sedans. They have the sporty platforms but lack any leading flagship. The Q50 (gawd I hate saying it), seems like a great product and is still a wild car in it's segment as no one's driven it or seen how it stacks against the IS, C, A, 3, ATS. Well like you mention, the Americans and Koreans have volume on their side when you compare them to Acura and Infiniti. I believe it's all in the product. The ATS has revolutionized Caddy and will continue to make waves. The next CTS should be a threat to the 5-Series. Hyundai is on a roll with their RWD vehicles and putting pressure on the competition. Not necessarily taking sales away but enough for them to take notice due to the Korean's similar performance and lower price tag.

Good way to phrase it.

 

Not arguing, just curious if you have an example?

 

Yes.....a number of examples. For the most part, yesterday's vehicles rode more comfortably on bumps (but didn't always handle as well), had somewhat thicker sheet metal that resisted dings/dents better from things like nuts falling off trees, often included a real spare tire, had body-side mouldings for at least some parking-lot protection, had much-less-complex controls in the stereo/entertainment and climate-control systems, had ignition keys that were much easier and cheaper to replace if lost, had underhood-designs that were easier for DIY-ers, and generally had more squared-off rooflines that gave better rear headroom and ease of entry/exit. There are many more, of course, but I don't have time to list them all in one post.

 

Oh, I think were talking about two different things. When I used the word "Ignorant", I was referring to people who stick to that old song that American cars are bad yada yada. I mentioned:

As to your response. Some good points to be made about older cars vs newer ones. Older heavier metals seemed to withstand impacts better than the newer aluminum/CF stuff but at the cost of weight. Remember Saturn and their "plastic" designs. I remember seeing commercials of shopping carts being rammed into the sides of Saturn's lol. Suspension has certainly become more stiff and sporty mostly because thats what "the younger future crowd" wants. I do miss the full size spare tire, but I also understand it is a weight savings/space/cost cut when designing the vehicle. At least Lexus is still doing a donut and not doing what Cadillac is with the "fix-a-flat" in the back. Some steps that should be simple be it for the Audio or HVAC have become a bit more complex for certain. Engine covers do make it harder to get into the engine bay but I also understand they also act as sound suppressants, as well as help keep dirt and dust out. They do retain heat though which is a con. With most automakers doing their own "fluidic" designs, visibility has certainly took a back seat to design. Thankfully Blind Spot Monitor (BSM) is a very nice feature - that I hope to have on my next car.

 

Problem is, many of today's older, more traditional buyers are still the ones with the most disposable money to spend on new cars...automakers tend to forget that. And, while their tastes may not totally be like the two-and-a-half ton, marshmallow-suspension luxury cars their parents drove in the 50s and 60s, they still don't want every car to ride and handle like a 911.



I was a big fan of the plastic-bodied Saturns....especially the S-series with the easy, screw-off transmission filters. That was one area where getting rid of heavy sheet metal did work. I owned a 1999 Saturn SL2 (along with my Celica) for a few years, and loved it....though the 4-speed automatic was a little compromised.

And never mind the shopping-cart commercials...there were even more impressive ones. At the D.C. Auto Show, for instance, a favorite display of the Saturn reps there was to take a baseball bat and whap the plastic side-doors as hard as they could....without a single dent. I even tried it myself to insure to see that it was legitimate and not a staged-action. Of course, under some circumstances, the patented water-borne paint job would scratch and chip. The paint had to be flexible to move in and out with the plastic, but was not scratch-proof. But the body panels themselves were extremely hard to dent. And, of course, they didn't corrode.

Saturn, IMO, started its long drop into ruin when they moved away from that excellent S-series...but that's a another whole story, and we've discussed it in other threads.

 

Yes and no. Automakers do realize the money is there, but they also recognize to lower the average age of their consumers they need to make more attainable vehicles. This in turn (IMO) is diluting the brands especially the luxury automakers. The Mercedes Benz CLA is a great example. They are advertising it as base $29,XXX CLA250 with the CLA45AMG starting around $50,000. BMW is another great example. They just love to fill those niches where it may not make a huge business sense but they offer a model for nearly everything. Be it an X1, 3GT or the new 320i trim in the US. Cheaper and smaller but still has that "badge" people want so much