For the sake of discussion, thought I would answer your last post.

Probably we will not agree, but I do understand your point. The reason I disagree has to do with the consequences of your suggested response to good competition.

Because American cars were commonly pretty bad in the 70's and early 80's, Americans (who enjoy the most freedom to chose of anyone in the world...an important point right now) chose to take their business elsewhere. I am glad your Econoline ran well for you, but hey, I drove a Pinto, and knew people with late 70's Mustangs, and people who bought Ford trucks that weren't even completely painted.

Because Americans exercised that right to chose, (a right that many Japanese do not have as much of, because of their often closed market practices), GM, Ford and Chrysler all took major hits to their profitability and their market share. Who wants a car with poor fit and finish, poor reliability, and guzzles gas (remember when $1.50 a gallon was really, really, expensive?) when they could have a well built, efficient, long lasting car for less money?

The result of taking this hit was that they had to improve their act or die. The short version of the story is, they did. We are all the better for it. I now own some seriously beautiful Detroit iron that is efficient (twice the gas mileage of my father's 1980 Suburban) and that I can expect to last 200K mi without major repairs. Heck, I don't need a tune up for 100K!

If we had not decided to buy good cars (btw not made here), Detroit would have had no incentive to improve, we would have wasted a lot of money fixing or replacing the junk we bought here, and NOT had the money to spend on whatever else we decided we wanted. In the end, we would still have gawd-awful quality in the cars we so blindly purchased.

Ford was perhaps the first of the Big 3 to get the message. They started incorporating Japanese manufacturing processes in the early/mid 80's, and by the time the Taurus came out, the quality was vastly improved. Chrysler almost went bankrupt, recruited Iacocca from Ford and also figured out how to improve. GM, I am sorry to say, was the last to repent. They had to wait until Roger Smith had left to start doing some serious rethinking. Their cars are much better than before, but I still hold their previous mistakes against them. It will be a long time before I give GM any more of my money.

Ford is one of the most successful foreign auto companies in Japan. They control Mazda, to the point where Japanese working for Mazda feel they are working for an American company. They sell into Japan vehicles that the Japanese want, and there are many blue ovals in Japan, much more than GM or Chrysler vehicles.

I think that brand and national loyalty is important to a point, but the Japanese did not win the hearts of Americans for very long. Only long enough for the American companies to wake up.

I could go on and on. Look at Harley Davidson. Exactly same story. Nearly bankrupt, nearly put out of business by rice rockets. But, the company learned how to do it, and now no one wants a Honda if they can get a Harley. Again, we lost some early battles, but open markets and American ingenuity won the war. The thing is, you cant enable the ingenuity without the competition.

I mean this by way of friendly discussion. Perhaps I should have started a new thread.

TS

 

^ True.

Look at radial tires which the japanese first brought over here to the US. People running bias ply tires that were changing tires 3 or more times a year due to flats said "Aw hell, screw those foreign pieces of s_it tires--they look flat all the time!" Nowadays, you cant find bias ply tires, everyone has radials. We still have alot to learn from them about how to make an excellent little, cheap car. Go to consumer reports and see.

Anyways im done. Nice ZX3 hope she enjoys it and you wont shell out any more 4 word phrases for me.

 

Not quite true. AMF corporation tried and did run H-D into the ground. If it weren't for the Harley's and Davidson's buying them back, there would be no H-D today. As for the American car companies, they would've had to improve the quality of their cars regardless of the competition, since the EPA has passed more stringent emissions controls since 1977. It just took GM and DMC longer to get their quality up to snuff.

 

Yes, AMF screwed with HD pretty badly. But when the employees bought it back, the first thing they did was try to find out how the Japanese were managing to get so much better quality, while keeping the costs so far down. Japanese labor is not cheap, I can tell you. HD's implementation of Just-in-time manufacturing techniques have become case studies in MBA courses all over the world.

Yes, the EPA required more stringent emissions performance, but that is quite a bit different than improved quality. Basically, the US manufacturing companies were completely caught off balance with the Japanese "invasion".

You can disagree, but I have no confidence that the US companies would have ever tried to give us better cars unless we had demanded them (by buying better cars that were available). I have had friends who worked as engineers at Ford in the '70s (before Ford woke up and saw the light). The emphasis was only on reducing cost. "Here, take $2 out of this brake design..."

At the same time, if you remember, there was a general anti business attitude, and inflation running 5-10%. When Ronnie became president, and started implementing policies that 1)stopped inflation and 2) forced the car companies to start improving and 3) avoided extensive protectionist policies while otherwise promoting business, the car companies were in a position to turn around their slow dance to death.

Buy the best, it is usually American, and if the best isn't American, it is because Americans don't care to be the best for that item. Americans don't need protections any more than minorities need priority employment or college admissions (any more). Isn't it an insult to American ingenuity to say that American industry needs the protection of trade barriers to sell its goods? Can't support that concept.

Again, just my 2 cents worth...

 

Apology accepted Green, I'm ready to move on.
I'm not a grudge holding type anyway, you pissed me off, I said what I said, and now we can be pals again.

01XLT, to answer your question...
Yes, I did take it for a drive a few nights ago, and it feels well put together, nice and tight, and handles well for a small car.

I have the 2nd key fob (or whatever you call it) on my key chain, but I can't bring myself to drive it when I have my truck here. (it's a mental block I need to overcome)

I've owned my truck for just over a year, and the honeymoon period is far from wearing off, I'm sure you guys can understand that.

As far as acceleration for the Focus, when you first gun it, acceleration is not inspiring, but after you get up a few RPM's, it really kicks in, I was surprised by the amount of pep it has.

I have no illusions, it's a small econobox, fitted with many nice options to make it comfortable, and it wasn't expensive. I think for city driving, and back and forth to work, it will serve its purpose nicely (for my wife)

As far as reliability, and how will the car stand the test of time, well, it's too early to know, but time will tell. I'm optimistic that it will hold up pretty well.

I'm happy about the MPG though, at least one of our vehicles won't be a pig on gas.

She wants to line the car up against my truck to see what happens (she thinks she can take me)
Well, I don't think so, but maybe I'll let her win to make her feel better, and if I really do lose, then I'll tell her I let her win; either way I can't lose!

Habibi

 

TexasSteve
Everyone who lives in this GREAT country is entitled to their opinion.
I just happed to believe you should support the country you live in. Hey, call me crazy. But best wishes in whatever products you decide to spend your hard earned money on.

And since the Harley/AMF debate was brought up. Let me give everybody here a little insight that I have on the deal. IF AMF had not bought Harley in the 80's, quite possible Harley would not exist today, but surely would not be producing the fine motorcycles that they do today. The reason? Harley knew that they had to upgrade their manufactoring line, but did not have the capitol to invest. The only way to upgrade, was to sell to a large corporation. I have heard that when the deal was signed, the buy back was written into the deal. I don't know if that was true, but heard it from a couple dealers many years ago

 

F G ,you are right about the AMF/Harley deal but your timeline is off.They bought Harley in@1969 I could be off a year or two.They sold it back in the early eighties@ 82 Im not sure exactly.

 

Tuna

I grew-up in the 70's. Iam lucky to remember my name
BTW..I bought a 1980 Sturgis brand new, sticker was something like $6080. Took delivery for $5200, out the door, tax, title, helmet and t-shirt. That bike was 1 of 900

 

You grew up?

I thought you were just some kid with a little gray hair...

 

hehe

 

LOL!

 

Man if you ONLY knew how blasted I was then

 

F G ,not to worry memories are very overrated anyway...LOL

 

Very true...but I remember this

 

while looking around I found your car on the net.

http://www.focusfrenzy.com/zx5project/index.html