11-02-2009, 11:12 AM | #45 |
Major General
3588
Rep 9,788
Posts |
Lol I kind of agree since the LExus LS costs like 40k more than the gas version. However, people do care about mileage even if they're driving a $100k+ car. Heck I wish the 335 gets more mileage than it does but whatever.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 01:12 PM | #46 |
Bimmer Love
16
Rep 362
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 01:45 PM | #47 |
Second Lieutenant
4
Rep 280
Posts |
True. Look at Tesla and Fisker. Audi and Porsche are looking into electric and/or hybrid vehicles; Panamera already has stop/start. BMW will be selling a 7-Series hybrid and MB has a hybrid S-Class in Europe. Speaking of which, diesels even in the upper levels of premium brands sell decently there, due to not just lower consumption and C02 and higher regular fuel prices, but because of tax breaks that go along with it. There are some incentives to having more fuel efficient cars in the US too, though less so. People think differently when gas goes up to $4+/gal, however...
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 01:55 PM | #48 | |
I am Gundam
189
Rep 1,211
Posts |
Quote:
This is an honest question. I keep on seeing people come on here and say the Taurus, Mustangs, etc interior is cheap and crappy. But, from what perspective are you using? Has your BMW's interior influenced or set your standard of what is a good interior or not? There are a lot of kids here on the board that their BMW is their very first car so I am wondering if having a BMW has messed with their perspective. Comparing the Taurus to your BMW's interior, yeah the Taurus's interior is cheap. But, the Taurus is not aiming to be a luxury car. It is a mainstream full size family sedan. It is not going to have as nice of interior as a Benz, Audi, or BMW. So I am just wondering, how do you judge if the interior is cheap or not? Do you compare it to the competition or by what you already drive? Last edited by quagmire; 11-02-2009 at 02:13 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 02:03 PM | #49 |
Colonel
343
Rep 2,118
Posts |
Partially correct. If left on its own GM would likely be out of business as it took the government bailout to make them restructure as severely as needed. The embedded GM culture would never see how bad they screwed up. I have a friend deeply involved in the financial restructuring and the reason the Feds fired Wagoner was he did not understand how much change was needed.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 02:07 PM | #50 | |
I am Gundam
189
Rep 1,211
Posts |
Quote:
The only thing Wagoner did that helped GM tremendously was bring in Bob Lutz to replace this idiot. http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...fall-gm-84774/ |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 02:11 PM | #51 | |
Colonel
343
Rep 2,118
Posts |
Quote:
Thanks, Mike. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 02:13 PM | #52 |
Colonel
228
Rep 2,077
Posts |
I like how every car these days are getting the fender "chrome piece" getting ridiculous. Its a good thing that American companies are improving, makes the Europeans have to step up!
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 02:20 PM | #53 |
Brigadier General
405
Rep 3,288
Posts |
After reading through this thread, and seeing it mentioned that the new taurus is cheaper but still comparable, even if in their own mind, to other high end luxury cars. And after hearing all the CTS-V vs. M5 hype with it being near $30k less money is anyone else just fed up that Americans always make the cheaper underdog car? Why didn't GM put the extra $30k (or at least $25k to be competitive) into the car and blow the M5's socks off?
Why isn't the new Taurus a true competitor to these other luxury brands? Whats with all the exceptions and for-instances in their car line ups. Mind you this is just some random thoughts that ran through my head reading previous posts. So they are most likely wrong/flawed/not fully thought out. I'm just getting tired of American brands using the 'For substantially less money' caveat. Make a true competitor please, improve your quality across the board, and stop being the eco-boxes you've been for the last decade GM/Ford. (Although, I think Ford is certainly better off than GM atm.)
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 02:26 PM | #54 |
Brigadier General
405
Rep 3,288
Posts |
Whats more, I can see the logic in saying that people that want to buy a $60k luxury car would be happier paying only $40k for it's equal. And while this situation is certainly applicable I'd like to point out that people looking to buy a $60k are willing to pay $60k for it. So why not give them the equal of a $90k car for only $60k. Why not make a $90 with the equivalent of a $150k car. etc.
Once again, just conjecture. Part of it might just be my distaste in all the random crap and BS that gets sold and fed to us here so often in all aspects. But it is at least something to think about, if I described it accurately enough.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 02:52 PM | #55 | |
Bimmer Love
16
Rep 362
Posts |
Quote:
Don't however get me wrong, I LOVE American cars...as long as they were made before 1975. Other than the technological miracle that is the ZR-1, the new American cars are trash. ALL cheaply made, and not up to what I think (my opinion) the standard should be. I mean look at the CTS-v. Hell of a car, but really, I had the opportunity to drive it, and the performance was excellent. However, the interior was rattly, and felt cheap. That car is NOT cheap, they spent all the money somewhere, but other than in the engine, I don't know where all that money goes. Certainly not on fit and finish. And back to the ZR-1, GM got this one mostly right, but again, for $100,000 can't I at least get SOME kind of nice feeling fabric. I guess that is the end of the rant. I just think they need to step up the interior, and fit n finish game. It's hard to NOT compare them against my other cars, BMW, Maserati, even old VW. The little touches just aren't there. BTW, this is all just my opinion, and am NOT here to argue. Just state my opinions. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 03:50 PM | #56 | |
Colonel
343
Rep 2,118
Posts |
Quote:
Regarding the Taurus, this car is Ford's bread and butter large sedan. It doesn't and never has competed against the foreign competition. If Ford built it to be world class, the market would be much smaller and their profits would suffer. I'm sure they could make a world class car that would have a Lincoln nameplate but Ford or even Lincoln is not Mercedes, BMW or Lexus in terms of prestige and the public and Ford know that. Last, this is not the time for an American car company to commit time and effort towards a very expensive niche vehicle. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-02-2009, 04:10 PM | #57 | |
Brigadier General
405
Rep 3,288
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-03-2009, 09:48 AM | #58 | |
Colonel
343
Rep 2,118
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-09-2009, 02:10 PM | #59 | |
7er
9
Rep 409
Posts
Drives: 1998 BMW 740iL
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Pikesville, MD
|
Quote:
1) How big is the market for expensive cars worldwide vs cheaper cars? Where do large companies make their bread and butter? That's right. NOT expensive cars. 2) when every car is an expensive car, how many people will buy a new one? Are you so jaded that you think everyone makes $100k a year? 3) Cars in America are a way of life for every economic level, and a lot of American thought is anti-royalty and anti-classism, especially in the 3000 mile wide section in the middle of the country, vs the coastal cities. Europe has always treated the automobile as a luxury item. With nations sometimes as small as states in the US, cities that are close together and have been populated for a thousand years+, multi-generational households, and few people actually NEEDING cars to effect a living, as well as centuries of fuedal society to impose a class system (that while it may no longer be official, still resonates in the various cultures), car manufacturers are more able to aim for the luxury market and charge more for their cars. 4)OTOH, how many entry level European cars do we see in the US? BMW wont' even sell it's base level cars here with cloth seats and tiny diesel engines. We dont' se basicl European cars like Pugeots and Cirtroens, Seats and Skodas. Why? becasue it's not cost effective to import them to the US as the price would rise so much as to make them uncompetetive with the already more costly luxury cars due to lack of content/refinement, and uncompetetive with the identically equipped and quality cheap Domestic cars due to that price difference. How many Skodas are as nice inside as an Audi? They are both from the same company, but you don't expect the Skoda Octavia to be as nice as an A4. Why? Because they aren't priced the same and are for people who don't want to spend on the A4. So, the US gets only the higher content, and higher priced cars from Europe that don't sell very many units in comparison. The best way to compete with those cars is to do it on value, not try to go after a small market with identical level cars. It's better to go after the larger market that consists of people that won't/can't spend the money. Cars like the Taurus and the new Malibu are as nice and priced about the same as anything in their class from Japan, too (and Japanese companies, incedentally, did the same thing: build in content for the dollar: think Lexus LS400 vs Mercedes as a prime example). Again, the basic idea is that spending money for the sake of spending money is not something we, as a whole, think is valuable (and why we give the bling bling crowd such a bad time). If you can get the same for less, why is that a bad thing? Leave the "get the same for more" to the niche makers.
__________________
1998 740iL
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-09-2009, 02:13 PM | #60 | |
7er
9
Rep 409
Posts
Drives: 1998 BMW 740iL
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Pikesville, MD
|
Quote:
Ability to retain value? A BMW owner commenting on another marques ability to retain value? Hello! Look at 7 series prices lately? Top of the line, best of everything BMW has. Loses half it's value in the first two years. Mercerdes S class is not far behind. When I bought my 740iL at 8 years old, it was only a tenth of the price it had new! Thank God I never bought a BMW new...
__________________
1998 740iL
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-09-2009, 03:00 PM | #61 | |
Brigadier General
271
Rep 4,470
Posts |
Quote:
Ah, Ford isn't talking to BMW owners (who they probably doubt would willingly move to a Ford), they're talking to the slightly less affluent middle America that would like to be able to buy a BMW or Mercedes. They very much want to convince their bread and butter buyers that a Taurus is almost as good and a much better value. It's all marketting. Time will tell if the hype will move the product. I think they'd stand a much better chance if the car didn't look so boring.
__________________
135i, SGM, Coral, Sport Package, Auto, Premium Hifi, USB/ipod, Apex EC-7s, PPK Stage II
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-09-2009, 03:10 PM | #62 |
Lieutenant Colonel
40
Rep 1,917
Posts |
I understand where you are coming from, but think about the cars that sell ~200k cars/year (Camry, Accord, Civic, etc). They are all pretty boring looking. Cars in this segment that are mass sellers are pretty boring. I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind this, but i bet it has something to do with no wanting to burn out the looks too quickly for a car that you will see 40times/day.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-12-2009, 03:41 AM | #63 | |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 39
Posts |
Quote:
epic fail, you must have not been or even touched a LS460 before. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-12-2009, 06:19 AM | #65 |
Lieutenant Colonel
40
Rep 1,917
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|