s13lover

Wasn't the fox platfrom used from the late 70's up through 2004. Do you mean the pre '94 models are the ones you find ugly or do you mean the new '05's look better than the out going model.

mysql101

fox body was made from 79 to 93.

EyeBall Fixer...(o)(x)

I like the looks of the stock GT better then the Saleen version...
The Saleen seats have got to go... cookie-cutter interior
Can't see myself in a Ford product again.
I had a 96 GT with a M/T 4.6L POS engine (should have got the 95 w/5.0L)...
My wife had a 98 M/T V6 Firebird that could keep up with my GT off the line....
The Firebird didn't have the throaty V8 sound but neither does our 8
Torque or no torque... I'm Glad I'm drivin' my 8

chinx

i used to be soooo obsessed w/ saleen's cars. but they're wayyyyyyyyyyyy overpriced and are not really all that great esp compared to the later cobras, realized that you're basically paying for saleen's nameplate and ego and not that much performance. i used to think saleen is the modern day shelby. well they're still nice but i just don't think they justify the price. c'mon, 38k for a 'stang w/ only 25 more hp than stock? 45k for the sc? i'd rather get a c6 vette

Japan8

You summed up my feelings completely. Ever checked out the pricing on the Rousch Mustang at some dealers? Even worse!

bean438

I think it is ugly, plus it is a Ford so I would not buy one. I prefer to own reliable cars, well built cars. That would exclude pretty much anything American, as well as most German made cars. That leaves Japanese carsas my cars of choice.
I almost bought a Mustang 3 years ago. Fortunately I rented one on my Mauii vacation, and realized how poorly built it was. I was very dissapointed. I always liked the way the Mustang looked, but couldn't get past the poor quality. Now they are poorly built AND ugly.

Japan8

Riiight. The USDM Honda Accord is built where? How about the Toyota Camry? BMW? Dodge Neon? The list gets even longer. The point is... it's not so simple to define what is American and what is Japanese anymore...

bean438

Actually it is very easy. Regardless of where they are built, Ford, GM, and CVhrysler are American.
Mazda, Honda, Toyota are Japanese.
Mercedes, BMW are German.
Where it is built is only part of the deal. Engineering and corporate decisions are made elsewhere.
Now a days when you buy a VW you are paying for German engineering and Mexican assembly. Not exactly something I would be interested in.

Japan8

And what the hell does any of that have to do with buying a car? With the quality of it? nothing! Even Camry's built in the US aren't up to the exact same level of quality as JDM.

SHOWOFF

Just be sure to get an automatic tranny so you can be just like every other 50 year old going through their mid life crisis.

I hate Vette's.

bean438

It has everything to do with quality.
American cars = poor quality
Japanese cars = good quality
It really is that simple.

picosrx8

Here some errors to your formula....
Ford owns the controlling percentage of Mazda. My 6 is buit in Dearborn, MI. The Mazda 3 shares the same platform as the Focus and Volvo S40. Also, I would never group Mitsubitshi and Isuzu into your Japanese=good quality. :D

bean438

Isuzu is an American made brand with a Japanese name. You are right Isuzu is not the same quality as a Japanese car. My point.
If the Mazda 3 shares the same platform as the focus then why is the 3 a good car and the focus a poorly built car?
Have you driven a Ford lately?
The quality simply is not there.
It really is that simple.

PoorCollegeKid

Clicky (will download a .pdf file. If you don't want to dl a .pdf, click here instead. Fords at least equal (if not out do) the inital build quality of Mazdas, which is clearly shown even if you don't strictly believe J.D. Powers rankings. In fact, according to their surveys, Hummer is the only American brand with worse initial build quality. Out of the top ten ranked nameplates, 4 were Japanese, 1 was Korean, 4 were American, and 1 was German. This just goes to show that saying that a brand of cars is well built or not well built simply based on where the corporation is located ignores all of the different variables that go in to making a quality car. It's very hard to make a blanket statement saying such without seeming either unreasonably biased or ignorant, even if you are neither of these (which, after your Japanese = good, American = poor post, is probably not the case with you).

BlueEyes

Rousch in red
Steeda in yellow

RX8_Buckeye

The Mazda 3 shares the platform of the next generation Focus, not the current one. Initial quality of the Focus is actually quite good, and it has consistently made Car & Driver's 10 Best. Yes, there were a lot of recalls during the first model year, which were due to a rough transition bringing the car over from Europe, but since then it has been very reliable. Now if you're going to argue that initial quality is not a good indicator and that long-term reliability should be used instead, how can you make any statement about the Mazda 3?

Yes, I have driven many Fords lately, and in all of the newer vehicles I perceive very little gap in quality between the Fords and the many Japanese vehicles I have driven (my previous 3 cars were a '90 Acura Integra, '92 Mitsubishi 3000GT, '99 Accord Coupe V6). I actually own a 2004 Mountaineer and I don't have a single negative comment to make about it.

PoorCollegeKid makes an excellent point about initial quality. For all of the talk about Japanese cars being far superior to American cars in quality, the numbers just don't support it. Yes, the Japanese cars have a slight edge, but the bad rap that most young people give to American cars seems to be based solely on the poor vehicles they produced during the 80's and early 90's, or the vehicles that have yet to be updated (like the outgoing Mustang). Trust me, it is not as simple as American = poor quality, Japanese = good quality. I have seen the quality data gathered on the '04 RX-8, and it's not something you'd write home to Mom about.

Japan8

As others have already alluded to. If you actually believe that... well I had better not saying anything... no need to light a fire in here. :p

s13lover

I remember reading not to long ago in Automotovie News Weekly about a study in initial vehicle quality done by a respectible soure (JD Powers maybe)on cars sold in the USA. Cars where seperated into 3 categories: American, Asia (Japanese and Korean), and European. I do not remeber the exact numbers, but the test was something like number of complaints in the first 12 months per 100 vehicle. And guess what......Asian cars where the best. They had a complaint average around 11 while American cars came in 2nd around 19, and the Europeans last around 21.

So, the "stereotypes" are true. American cars do not have initial quality on par with the Japanese.

BlueEyes

Well that is not what Bean is saying in ever single thread on this forum related to a non-japanese car. The sterotypes are not true, they are sterotypes. There is no black in white on these issues. Do you happen to remember the difference between japanese and american cars in initial quality. Just because american cars weren't the best doesn't mean they are bad.

I just got a test back the other day where I got 91%, my buddy got 94% does that mean I am stupid?? no.

Bean is a fanboy.

RX8_Buckeye

11 problems vs. 19 problems per 100 vehicles does not constitute a huge gap in quality. In fact, those are very good numbers--we should all be thankful that we have such good products on the market. Do the Asians car have a slight edge? Yes.

The fact remains that it is not logical to draw statement 2 from statement 1:

1)
2)

s13lover

I wasn't myself saying that American cars are bad, but that Japanese cars on average do in fact have better initial quality than American cars. This has been a validly researched and documented fact that I've read numerous times. But, as mentioned, it does not mean that American cars are bad. The article I was referring to was actually about how American cars beat European cars in initial quality for the first time in several years. I wish I could remember exactly which magazine I read that in so I could get some quotes. People may not like to hear it, and may not like to acknowledge the fact, but currently Japanese cars are built more reliable despite the progress of American manufactures over the past decade. Sorry if that upsets anyone.

BlueEyes

I don't think it would upset anyone that japanese cars are more reliable. What upsets me is beans claims that american cars are poor quality, because they are not.

s13lover

Okay. I just looked through 3 months of back issues of Automotive News Weekly and searched the entire JD Powers web sight. I could not find my previously mentioned article.

Anyways here is some other information that I did uncover from JD Powers:

Number of Complants per 100 Cars in the 1st 12 Months of Ownership (a car can have more than 1 complant & these are grouped so that all divisions count towards the main company & list is out of 16):

1. Toyota - 207
2. Honda - 210
3. Porsche - 240

4. GM - 262
7. Ford - 275
9. Chrysler - 302



Number of Complaints per 100 Cars over 1st 3 Years (list out of 36 because divisions are independant):

1. Lexus - 162
2. Buick - 187
3. Infiniti - 189

The top 10 had 5 Japanese companies, 4 American, and 1 German.


Initial Quality Average per 100 vehicles

1. Japanese - 111
2. Korean - 117
3. European - 122
4. American - 123



Now, before the comments are made, I know the numbers don't seem to match between the first 2 survays and the third. Although they both claim to be measuring what JD Powers says is PP100 (problems per 100) the first two are from a VDS (vehicle dependability scale) while the third is from a IQS (inital quality scale). I don't know what the difference is between the scales.

PoorCollegeKid

On average, Japanese cars do tend to be more reliable than American cars. However, the gap between the two realms is quite small, and it really comes down to brand vs brand. The thing that got most people riled up was bean's blanket statement that all American made cars are of poor quality while all Japanese cars are made well. What was especially amusing was that he was accusing Ford (specifically, the new Mustang) of being of terrible quality when they haven't yet been released and are also being made in the same plant as the Mazda6, a car that he said was a well made, reliable car. It's not that we believe that a Taurus is as reliable as an Accord, but that such willful ignorance and blatantly false statements will draw flak, regardless of what he was trying to say.

About your last post, maybe the 3rd survey was based on where the cars are built? That would make most Mitsubishis, many Mazdas, and quite a few VWs part of the American section, lowering that average and raising the Japanese and European averages.