"American" vs. "Import"

[Nayr747]

In the constant debate between domestics and imports, what most people don't realize is that in many cases the only American, Asian, or European thing about them is the name's heritage. Many "American" cars are not built in the U.S. and their chassis are usually taken from some other manufacturer. Many "Asian" cars are also not from Asia. Many times they are built in the U.S! So when people talk about supporting our economy, buying an "Asian" car would have the same effect, and in some cases more. Cars also usually share platforms. A Mazda may have the same platform as a Saturn, a Pontiac the same as a Volvo, etc. Take the Hummer H2 for example; it's just different body panels/interior on top of some Chevy truck along with the Chevy's engine. It's just an image that it's a different manufacturer or even a different car for that matter. And this is true of most autos today. You're not supporting a country; you're supporting a particular corporation (that could give a rip about whichever country they're in).

So really there are no "domestics" and no "imports" built today, it's just an image.

[Muscletang]

I predict a quick death for this thread.

[Jimster]

It's the truth but not a comparison, I'll shift it to the Cars I love/Cars I hate forum whenever I feel like it.


I play by nobodys rules. Not even my own.

[Nayr747]

Originally Posted by Jimster

It's the truth but not a comparison, I'll shift it to the Cars I love/Cars I hate forum whenever I feel like it.


I play by nobodys rules. Not even my own.

Thanks. I was hoping this was the right area.

[kman10587]

Originally Posted by Nayr747

A Mazda may have the same platform as a Saturn, a Pontiac the same as a Volvo, etc.

You got that mixed up; Mazda and Volvo are both in collaboration with Ford, and Pontiac and Saturn are both divisions of GM.

And I'd like to say that I completely agree with you (I can't argue with the validity of your facts), but I know damn well that as of right now, I'd only buy a car with a Japanese name on it.

[Nayr747]

I forgot to mention that my car is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. It's an "import" but where was it made? Normal, IL.

Originally Posted by kman10587

You got that mixed up; Mazda and Volvo are both in collaboration with Ford, and Pontiac and Saturn are both divisions of GM.

Yeah, they were just examples. I didn't want to spend the time reading through my Consumer Reports and Sport Compact Car mags to find all the exact ones. But it's more common than not so if you just guess you bound to get some right. I know this is just a way for the companies to save money, but to me, it takes away from the image of the car. I don't want my car to have the same chassis, engine, etc as three other cars that are supposed to be different. It kind of just turns what car you choose into what image you want to portray to others since there is nothing in reality separating two very different *seeming* cars.

I also don't like that almost all of the car companies are in only a couple hands. One corporation owns fifteen or so manufacturers. And another owns half of the rest. They are all supposed to have their own particular angle to bring to cars, and I think that is lessened by this. And isn't there something about trust laws and monopolies and making capitalism work by not having one part of the market in only a couple hands?

[Broke_as_****]

Originally Posted by Nayr747

I also don't like that almost all of the car companies are in only a couple hands. One corporation owns fifteen or so manufacturers. And another owns half of the rest. They are all supposed to have their own particular angle to bring to cars, and I think that is lessened by this. And isn't there something about trust laws and monopolies and making capitalism work by not having one part of the market in only a couple hands?

When you start listing it out there is still plenty of individual makers, probably 3-4 truly massive ones like the Diamler-Chrysler mass, Ford or GM and then 6-7 smaller but still independent builders like Mazda or Suzuki. Now granted there is a lot of swapping going on between all of these companies but usually they all have at least a few unique models to their name. I think really the cause of all this is quite the opposite of a monopoly, it's more that there is so much competition in the market. There really is just too many people trying to build cars. I believe it was an Autoweek issue that stated if all the car plants in the world were producing to their full capacity there would be over twice the supply of cars then the demand at the time. Profit margins can become so thin that there is little money left for the R&D budget to build manufacturer specific models. So if you can take a chassis that is already crash tested, has tooling available and has generally been sorted out so it's ready to build and swap in a different drive train and body panels, you can bring a fairly independent car to the market for a lot less money.

Originally Posted by Nayr747

It kind of just turns what car you choose into what image you want to portray to others since there is nothing in reality separating two very different *seeming* cars.

Well really it's always been about the image. Whether it's two completely different cars or two that are built off the same platform, you bought it because it meant whatever to you. I mean hell, they're all cars. They all got four wheels and an engine. I wouldn't think that sharing a chassis or interior bits would matter too much. I can see where direct copies like a first generation Talon and Eclipse can get disheartening. But then one must ask an Eclipse owner if they are proud of their car because it's a Mistubishi or because it's theirs.

A good example of well executed cross platforming might be the current Dodge Magnum/Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger/Upcoming Challenger/probably another car I'm forgeting. They all ride on basically the same chassis but differ in available engines, suspension, exterior and interior pieces. Having been in a Magnum and a Charger I can tell you that they come off as very different.

The thing that varies alot is how each sub-brand operates. Example would be Saturn, which operates very independently of it's parent GM compared to Lincoln whose cars are all direct copies of Ford cars with different body work and interior pieces. Then you have Land Rover, also owned by Ford, that doesn't have any direct cross overs (to my knowledge).

Anyway, as for the anti-trust laws, yes they do prohibit one company from gaining control over a whole market. That was the big stink with Microsoft since it makes up something like 95% of the computer software market in the US and just slightly less than that in Europe. Or way back when one company, Bell, controlled all of the phone networks in the US. It was broken up and we had eighteen million smaller companies that are now merging and consolidating once again (if there is a monopoly in progress it is definately the media business, as 4-5 huge companies control just about all of the radio, music, movie, phone and television companies in the world). However it would seem we are very far from seeing an automotive monopoly any time soon. If one were coming I would say it will arrive around the time fuel cell cars and other forms of propulsion do, as the research cost that comes with this type of technology is enormous and is currently being lead by only a few major manufacturers.

[BP2K2Max]

you could almost hold the same argument about calling american cars "domestics". a lot of part manufacturing is outsourced to like mexico japan korea etc. look at this pic for example:


a good old american harley carbeurator, made in Japan.

[cousincletus]

It's a pretty complex subject but GM employs more Americans than all the foreign transplants conbined. http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/cont...db-autos.shtml Here's a pretty good site that explains more than I ever could. But basically if you are concerned with American jobs look at the window sticker and look for a high domestic parts content. It is more important to have a high domestic parts content than where the final assembly is located. GM models have a good parts content. A lot have 90% or close to it. The highest Toyota has is 70%, with most models ranging from 0-60%

[pimprolla112]

We where talking about this today at work. Well i work for a billet parts manufacturer, and we get a lot of parts from Ford. Almost everything we get is made is canada, or mexico, Fords been doing it for a while everything is made out of country then assmebles in the U.S. Gm, chrysler, and anyone affiliated with them does, hell even some of the asain market guys make there parts in mexico and canada. Saves them a ton of money, even some of the vehicles are assembles and shipped back from else where. I read somewhere about 2 years ago that the only car to be almost fully produced in america, is the honda accord . So anyone just cause they employ the most doesnt mean shit, there still sending stuff out of country just to make a few extra bucks on a part.

[zx2guy]

i figure as long as we tread softly this thread could last longer then we anticipate.

but to the topic, when i think import or domestic, i ussually look at the badges. and yes i am biased towards domestic, but that doesnt mean i dont look at hondas or mits and dont say "that looks cool". im a fan of certain makes, certain models. and i really dont look at heritage. (well unless you call heritage... thier line of cars from the past.... say the old skyline, chevelles, early porshe, bmw. )

[DinanM3_S2]

I think that one of the biggest mistakes people can ever make is to classify cars in terms of just "import" or "domestic." This leads to massive misunderstanding of the auto world. What often happens is that people will transfer attributes of one specific car or make to all of the others from that country.

An example of this can be seen in Mitsubishi reliability and quality. According to the general "import v. domestic" debate, all Japanese cars will last forever. This is grossly inaccurate when it comes to Mitsubishi cars. People only expect them to be like that because they are Japanese like Toyota and Honda. Just because a car is from Japan does not mean that it is reliable.

There is also an assumption that all European cars are reliable, which again, is terribly wrong. According to JD Powers dependability survey, the only European makes that are above average are BMW and Porsche. Volvo, Jaguar, Benz, Saab, Audi, Mini, and Land Rover are all pretty far below the industry average, with Mini and Range Rover scraping the bottom. Again, people assume that because Benz and Volvo were reliable cars back in the day, all European cars are reliable now.

Yet another example of this is the idea that all American cars are gas guzzlers. Compare the C6 Corvette Coupe to the Benz SLK350 and Audi TT 250. The Vette' has a big American V8, while the Benz and Audi have 6-cylinders, so the Vette should use much more gas right? wrong. The Corvette gets 18/28, the SLK gets 18/25, and the TT gets 19/26.

My bottom line is that people shouldn't be concerned with "import and domestic" but "company and other company," or better yet, "car and other car." Over generalization only leads to misinformed purchases. Just because your Accord comes from Japan doesn't mean that the Mitsubishi Galant you are looking at will be anything like it. Judge a car based on its own merits, not preconceptions about its country of origin.

[kman10587]

Originally Posted by DinanM3_S2

I think that one of the biggest mistakes people can ever make is to classify cars in terms of just "import" or "domestic." This leads to massive misunderstanding of the auto world. What often happens is that people will transfer attributes of one specific car or make to all of the others from that country.

An example of this can be seen in Mitsubishi reliability and quality. According to the general "import v. domestic" debate, all Japanese cars will last forever. This is grossly inaccurate when it comes to Mitsubishi cars. People only expect them to be like that because they are Japanese like Toyota and Honda. Just because a car is from Japan does not mean that it is reliable.

There is also an assumption that all European cars are reliable, which again, is terribly wrong. According to JD Powers dependability survey, the only European makes that are above average are BMW and Porsche. Volvo, Jaguar, Benz, Saab, Audi, Mini, and Land Rover are all pretty far below the industry average, with Mini and Range Rover scraping the bottom. Again, people assume that because Benz and Volvo were reliable cars back in the day, all European cars are reliable now.

Yet another example of this is the idea that all American cars are gas guzzlers. Compare the C6 Corvette Coupe to the Benz SLK350 and Audi TT 250. The Vette' has a big American V8, while the Benz and Audi have 6-cylinders, so the Vette should use much more gas right? wrong. The Corvette gets 18/28, the SLK gets 18/25, and the TT gets 19/26.

My bottom line is that people shouldn't be concerned with "import and domestic" but "company and other company," or better yet, "car and other car." Over generalization only leads to misinformed purchases. Just because your Accord comes from Japan doesn't mean that the Mitsubishi Galant you are looking at will be anything like it. Judge a car based on its own merits, not preconceptions about its country of origin.

I absolutely can't argue with that on a factual basis, but shallow as it may be, the name on my car (and the heritage of that name) is really important to me. Likewise, I'll be more inclined or disinclined to buy a car based on its maker's country of origin, whether or not that really has anything to do with how good of a car it is.

[Nayr747]

I agree, expecting something of a car just based on it's *supposed* country of origin is wrong. Although according to consumer reports, "Imports" do seem to be the most reliable of the manufacturers, at least for now. For five year old reliability from least problems to most it goes: Lexus, Toyota, Acura, Honda, Infinity, Subaru, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Buick, Ford, Isuzu, Saturn, Mercury, Lincoln, Audi, Hyudai, Saab, BMW, Jeep, Chrysler, Chevy, Dodge, GMC, Volvo, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, VW, Cadillac, Mercedes. Mitsus get a bad rap because some of them had problems. But if you look at their reliability rating in CR, their worst car (the Endevor) scores an above average and their best car (the Outlander) scores the highest rating.

For mpg, I believe V8's get a bad rap because they are always put in heavy ass cars, while 4-cyls are usually put in light cars. I think in the same car, with the same hp, they would get about equal mpg (although the with the V8 the car would have to be slightly lighter to make up for the engine's increased weight over the 4-cyl).

[DinanM3_S2]

JD Power dependability survey