Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:13:26 -0500 From: "Hugh" <hug3r0nopsamail.com> Subject: Re: Saab or GM?
US buyers want features, European buyers want quality of ride. I have owned American, Japanese and European cars and they are all different. My 1992 Camry and 1995 4-runner were the most reliable cars. Absolutely nothing but gas or oil. No warranty work whatsoever after 100K on each. 1997 Audi A4 - while living in Europe. A few annoying issues - lights in the dash 2x, and the lower A-arms in the front suspension. all under warranty under 50K. Very solid drive and very quite. 1999 Saab 9-5 - love the car, but there is along list of non-drivetrain related failures that have all been replaced under warranty. The latest was a 1-week repair of the entire climate control assembly under the dash. All under 50K Also a very solid ride and very quite. 1999 Saturn SW and 2002 LW300. OK - boring, but really no problems, although low mileage (wife's cars) less than 30K. The build quality is/was poor on both of these, lots of gaps and a few squeaks/rattles on rough roads. Wind Noise, bad, noisy OE tires that I replaced, and ergonomic faux pas (French for: mistakes) , such as no remote trunk release for the wagon on the LW300, low placed electric window controls, badly labeled stereo (AUX for CD). and the DVD, while a great option obscure the dome light so you cant see where to put keys in the dark. I think American cars get more features for the $$$ so naturally they are going to have a cheaper feel. Mostly due to the quality of the plastics/fabrics etc... The build quality is also in part related to the speed of assembly, which for many US cars is many times faster than for a Saab or Audi. I would also say that drivetrain components on American cars are not as high quality, such as starter motors, head gaskets, electronic ignition etc... Purely from watching my mothers 1996 and 1999 GrandAms. The European cars drive much better. The suspension is tuned and often more complex, so the overall stability and ride quality is neither harsh nor soft for a firm controlled car. The trade-off is all those little bits that make it a luxury car, are not as reliable as the suspension/drivetrain. The Japanese cars, although boring in that they engineer the driving pleasure out of a vehicle are fantastic cars if your are looking for zero maintenance vehicles. -Hugh 1999 Saab 9-5 SE 2.3 2002 Saturn LW300 "Bob" <uctraingNOSPAMersnopsamanet.com> wrote in message news:e1i60vkbk7bvvo2aru2htco90hecq8ovm4nopsamcom... > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 01:07:21 GMT, "Brent Goodwin" <no-nonopsamam.net> > wrote: > > > >When autos represented the pinnacle of technology, Americans made as good an > >auto as anyone (even so, the Japanese who know a thing or two about making > > I can agree with that... but the American manufacturers steadfastly > refused to improve in the 70's when the Japanese were showing the > world the light and the way. > >with the result that > >American technology is _across the board_ the best at *those things*, while > >"behind" in other areas like the auto industry. > > I disagree. It's as if you're saying that there's some relationship > between the industries or the engineers that populate them. The auto > business has some terrific engineers, they're just badly managed. > The same is unfortunately true in the defense/aero business. > However, there are some good results produced there in spite of poor > management. > > >It's the reason the U.S. > >"lost" leadership in wind-up tin toys, textiles, TVs, autos, & toaster > >technology, but dominates and defines 21st century technology. > > Many of these industries suffer from "can't beat cheaper labor" > problems. Others are as cited above. Because of the cost of > production in the USA, I see more and more industries in the US > being engineering only, with production handled offshore. > > Bob > > >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
