Ford’s survival may depend on the U.S. success of the European-designed Focus and Fiesta. An embattled GM agrees with FoMoCo's "world car" strategy, talking up its "global platforms." Meanwhile, Honda and Toyota’s dominant Camcordias were designed predominantly with the North American market in mind. Does success in the brutally competitive American market demand specifically tailored designs? Or are “world cars” the salvation to Detroit’s passenger car woes?
Detroit has been vacillating on this subject since the fifties, when they imported Opels and Euro-Fords. After 1960, these “captive imports” took a back seat to home-grown compacts, on the assumption that the hometown team knew better what Americans wanted: lazy six-cylinders and soft suspensions.
When these “compacts” became obese in the sixties, GM resumed importing the tin(n)y Kadett. By 1969, the Opel was the number two selling import. Turns out Americans really did like genuine Europeans– even if they were sold at the Buick dealer. So in its usual hubris, Detroit decided it could “leapfrog” the imports. Hence the Chevy Vega and Ford Pinto.
Suffice it to say, that didn’t work out so well. Meanwhile, the Japanese invasion became a tsunami. GM’s GEO resumed importing captives from Isuzu, Suzuki, Toyota and Daewoo, with varying degrees of success. Ford’s European imports were a mixed bag. The “baby Mustang” Capri and the little front wheel-drive hatch Fiesta were genuine hits (for a while). But FoMoCo struck out with the [Bob Lutz-championed] Merkur-badged XR4ti and Scorpio.
Detroit’s big leap into “world cars” began in the late seventies, in response to expensive gas and inexpensive competition. First up: Chrysler’s 1978 Omni/Horizon twins. Designed in Europe, the “Americanized” Omnirizon (a.k.a Simca) was a success. But it didn’t receive the continuous development that the Japanese and Europeans lavished on their small cars. The models finally died in 1990, essentially unchanged from their original incarnation.
Ford’s global 1981 Escort was heavily (and dubiously) touted as the first “world car.” In its home market, the European Escort was a decent Golf-fighter. The U.S. version was flawed in the usual Detroit way: soft suspension, lousy gear ratios and cheap, ugly Americanized interiors.
GM committed its version of the crime on an even grander scale with its highly-promoted world car J-body of 1981. Known (and then despised) as the Cavalier in these Land of the Free, GM of Europe successfully adapted the same basic car as the Opel/Vauxhall Ascona.
These three world cars demonstrated that The Big Three were perfectly capable of designing world cars that could compete with Europe’s home grown best (e.g. the VW Golf and Passat). But it was their “Americanization”– especially reliability issues– that doomed them to declining market shares.
Even VW made the same deadly miscalculations. The Rabbit arrived in the US in 1975 as a totally unadulterated crisp German import. In 1978, the falling dollar inspired VW to open the States’ first transplant factory (sound familiar?) to build a U.S. version.
Former GM exec James McLernon was hired to meet the 200k annual sales goal. His solution: “Malibuize” the Rabbit with cheaper and softer plush seats, softer suspension, dorky full wheel covers and (!) a smaller 1.4-liter engine. The result was largely a disaster, at least from the typical VW buyer’s point of view. The plant closed in 1989.
Meanwhile, the Japanese were happily selling their “world cars” in the U.S. It helped that seventies Japanese designs were closer to American tastes (think vinyl roofs, heavy chrome grilles and weird C-pillars). But Toyondissan’s ever-growing reputation for reliable, economical transportation transcended taste. That alone is a huge lesson.
Ford essentially repeated its Escort mistake with the Mondeo/Contour/Mystique mid-size world-car. Designed jointly with the Europeans, the American version was flawed by being too compact, not to mention the usual reliability issues.
By the mid nineties, the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry were split from their home-market versions, due to the Japanese tax on vehicle width. But the “American” versions were– and are– also sold globally and in Japan, under different names.
The old rationale Detroit used for “Americanizing” their world cars or global platforms is now essentially dead. Taste in design was once provincial; it’s now global. We all shop at IKEA. Yes, some parts of the world prefer trunks while others hatchbacks. VW solved that problem decades ago with the Golf/Jetta twins. And European cars have grown to world standards (the new Mondeo is huge).
Ford and GM’s adoption of true world cars is economically obvious and long overdue. But their success hinges entirely on the exact same criteria that have always been the life-or-death determinants in this country: design, utility, price/value relationship, reliability, marketing and dealer support. That is, versus the competition. Which is… brutal.
The idea of a world car is, IMHO, a mistake. One-size-fits-all only works in very narrow circumstances. It will only work when the product is best of class. There are many examples of companies that try to bring successful products/services to the US and fail miserably.
If you ignore what the local market wants, no matter how good it is at home, it will fail.
Another mistake is when they make a product for a market that is sub-standard, or becomes sub-standard. That is what happened to Detroit. They made American cars for American tastes. But then they sat on their duffs while the competition improved. Americans noticed the difference, and switched.
The global products that succeed are the best in any measure, in any market, in any time. In cars, there is Toyota Corolla, BMW 3 series, Mercedes W124 platform. In electronics look at Apple and Dell. In films look at the Hollywood. In aircraft look at Boeing 747.
Thanks, I didn’t know that the Mondeo (EUCD) now is the size of a Camry or US-market Accord. The new US-market Mazda6 is about the same size, but on a different platform (CD3-derived) – Ford platform convergence is still a ways off, which saves even more when done correctly.
Mondeo: 190.7″ long, 74.3″ wide, 59″ high, 112″ WB
The Corolla is hardly a “world” car. Close inspection of the three versions, US, Japaneese and European will reveal that they share few parts save the badge. Things seemingly simple as door latches are different for each of the three major markets.
3 series BMWs may all look similar, but again there are major differences between US and Euro versions. The Munich plant is an amazing plant that builds each car to individual standards, even building RH drive cars on the same line.
In my opinion, and I’ve been in this business 40 years, the world car is a losing proposition. No car is going to be best in class in the thtree major markets.
Bob
In the early ’80s, Japanese automobiles were loudly castigated as being “copies.” They did catch on thanks to superior reliability and dependability. However, the “copycat” stigma stayed with them for some time, even when they clearly weren’t copying from Detroit.
Why doesn’t Detroit make some good copies? Essentially that’s what Kia and Hyundai are doing to good results. If you can make a sedan that sells in NA and Europe and Japan as different models and fits different segments, so be it. Why try to invent a totally NEW strategy when you can’t possibly afford another failure?
That is, if Toyondissan is beating your brains out with a particular strategy, maybe step 1 is to level the playing field by using their strategy and step 2 is to devise a (hopefully) better strategy.
this is one area where multiple brands can actually prove useful….a chevy can be the more value/comfort/US oriented offering and a opel/saturn can be the more premium/sporty/eur0 offering…all based on the same platform and sold in all markets.
IMO the successful companies (you know who they are) have delivered products when they are ready to be competitve in their categories AND are prepared to continuously support that product whether it is currently in fashion or not.
Thus, when fashion/need changes they have a product that is ALREADY in the publics eye as a good choice.
Nearly everything they make is at least a “good” choice in it’s category. They have very few bowsers.
Add in flexible manufacturing to correct production and you fill hit a lot more runs in.
Bunter
I ran out of room for another significant example, the 2000-2007 Focus. The best example yet of a true Big3 world car: very small differences from the Euro version. But two things hurt it in the US: quality glitches, and the fact that Ford couldn’t command a decent price for them. I don’t believe that the current Focus is selling better because it’s “Americanized”; the market shifted drastically in its favor.
I am intimately familiar with both the US and European Focuses ca 2000, and I can definitively state that there are fewer than 10% shared parts betwene the 2. The Focus is not a world car. It is 2 cars that share a few exterior components.
For example, the door skin is the same, but non of the other door components are the shared. Latches, hinges, glass, window regulators, handles, trim are all different.
The entire structure of the car forward of the windshield is completely different, as are the engines and transmissions.
The Focus would have been a better car if it had been designed solely as a US car.
Bob
The last generation of Escort was pretty reliable and economical. Ford killed it for the Focus which turned out to be recalled for issues.
In the current market the NA divisions of Ford and GM would be wise to turn over to the Europeans the reins. They build what is need here and that is small reliable economy cars.
I had a Dodge Omni in the late 80’s, and it was a well-concieved car, just poorly made and not very durable. If they had kept at it, though, They’d have a present-day Golf/Rabbit competitor in showrooms NOW. The same with my subsequent car, a ’90 Escort GT, a cool little ride that was basically coming apart after 7yrs and only 55k miles — Ford could have stuck to their guns with real improvements, but instead bailed out to the Mazda platform, which was stone-cold boring-looking by comparison. (So they let it rot.)
I know, I know, no money to be made in small cars – it’s a shame that our automakers don’t keep designs in their “back pocket” for times like these, when they would probably sell like hotcakes.
I’ll bet Dodge wishes it had a Neon to sell…
A world car only makes sense if a company can save money by sharing componentry and design costs. Further hampering a “world car” are the complex differences in safety and emission standards across the three major markets. You would think that the G8 could just sit down and agree on these standards — which would end up saving alot of money.
However, many of the sub-suppliers in the three markets make money generatng market-specific componentry.
But even if there were such a thing as the “same car everywhere” — the economics and logistics of building it would be a nightmare. Would you assemble the exact same car in different markets, yet use local suppliers making a part to the same standards? Take into account shipping and the stresses of on-time manufacturing.
At the end of the day, a world car may only really save resources in the design of the vehicle.
The only true ever existing world car: Original Volkswagen Beetle.Sold in over 160 countries for more than 30 years.Try beating that.
My dad had a Merkur XR4ti (long known as the exrati) back in the day. For the time it wasn’t that bad a car with impressive specs, the weakest link being the turbo Pinto 4cyl. If the name was different (and, my god, what mental defective ever thought that was a good name) it may have been more of a hit.
The story goes that due to cost-cutting and infighting between Ford’s Euro and U.S. divisions, the eventual 1981 ‘world car’ Escort wound up with precisely six interchangeable parts. Two of which were the badges.
I’m with relton on this one – the entire premise of a ‘world car’ to be sold essentially unchanged across the globe does not, cannot, work. The so-called world cars that achieve success might as well be different models for all the cross-continent commonality they have in reality.
Speaking of Foci; I jokingly use this plural form for Focuses; what about the Mazda3, S40, Euro Focus C1 platform that I have come to love and know so well?
I used to own a Mazda3 and that car I believe is doing well in all 3 markets, and all assembled in Japan I think. At least the US ones were.
They should have brought the Euro Focus here. That C1 platform is simply fantastic.
“American tastes (think vinyl roofs, heavy chrome grilles and weird C-pillars)”
LOL, well put.
The 70’s were a dark age for car styling and engineering.
I have a 2005 Focus ST with 77K on it and my wife and I love it. It is fully optioned and Ford at the time was practically giving them away. It is sporty, handles well, revs like a charm and is darn near invisible to the cops. If Ford could have sold more of them at list price we might not have the Focus we have now but the Euro Focus. I believe that North Americans are ready for a world car, as long as it is not dumbed down.
Mr. Niedermeyer, this part is wrong:
GM’s GEO resumed importing captives from Isuzu, Suzuki, Toyota and Daewoo As far as I know, GEO didn’t sell Daewoo cars.
They sold: Geo Storm (Isuzu Impulse or better yet, Isuzu PA Nero), Spectrum (Isuzu I-Mark or Gemini), Prizm (Toyota Mehrolla), Tracker (Suzuki Sidekick/Vitara/Grand Vitara), Metro (Suzuki Swift/Cultus).
GM did in fact: late 80’s Pontiac LeMans, which was a rebadged Daewoo Racer, which is, after about 1995 (here in Venezuela) a facelift of the second gen FWD Opel Kadett (before 1st gen Astra)
I think the problem is not global cars per se.
Toyota is selling almost the same Yaris as the one being sold in Europe and the rest of the world. The Corolla, it’s a bit different, same platform with bodies tailored for target markets. Something similar happens to the Civic.
The problem is the americanization of the car, and modifying so it can be sold in your market.
Selling the Fiesta and Focus in the US is a good idea. Cheapening the Focus to suit the US target price is not. And I honestly don’t understand how europeans pay 30K for that kind of cars, but we also do here so…
Selling for example the Opel Vectra, maybe not, but using the platform to build the current Malibu, yes.
One thing for sure has to be considered. In order to get scale economies, a platform must be designed so it CAN be used with minor variations all over the world. You have to assure yourself the flexibility of changing the skin (body panels you see and touch everyday) and content for target markets (example, you can’t sell a lavish Corolla down here in latin america, but in europe can be done).
I don’t think the global car is dead. It’s alive and kicking hard. Just it has to be well implemented.
And for that, Toyota, Honda, and to some extent GM with the Corsa/Barina/Chevy and Aveo are examples to follow.
World platforms make plenty of sense, and products will be highly individualized by market or only slightly so as the local market demands. The Mercedes range is an example of cars which are as close to identical in their various markets as can be done.
What is crazy is building cars of similar dimensions and target markets from a different floor-pan, power-train and suspension.
At first, I thought the title read “The Word Car is Not Enough.”
And the hideous picture.
What a tortuously boring looking car. Imagine a horrible world where that was the only car available. There would be NO pistonheads. And no need for automotive cheerleaders.
The age-old problem with this debate is one of specificity. “The Euro version of X is almost the same as the American one, apart from some minor differences.” Define “minor”. Do you mean simple things like indicator lenses, catalysts, equipment levels? Do you mean more involved elements, like seats, trim parts, differences in engine management systems and suspension tuning? Or do you mean the full works, like platform modifications, major differences in chassis structure, different running gear, and beyond looking broadly the same, being essentially unique underneath? Because all three have been tried by various manufacturers at various points, and indeed all three approaches are constantly revisited. There’s usually a common thread though, which is that the manufacturers which make the most significant and expensive changes to adapt their cars usually do best.
I had an 80 diesel rabbit. The interior was trash and the hubcaps were cheap. The vent window was ‘glued to its’ top and bottom mount and didn’t have a metal frame. It broke after the warranty went out. The replacement part was very expensive. Didn’t use the vent window any more. But I foolishly bought another midsized VW and sold it not too long after I bought it. Can’t remember the models but it was alot nicer than the Golf. Just will never buy another VW product ever again. Love VW and owned many models. But enough is enough. Toyota and HOnda take good care of me. Enough Detroit and enough VW.
Why are we talking about this? GM and Ford are moving to world-wide platforms like Honda and Toyota. We haven’t even SEEN the product of this program yet, and already we have filleted them for a job poorly done. While Honda and Toyota have supposedly perfected it. I just don’t get it. I understand the sentiment at past efforts, but I don’t think we have the authority to comment on what is coming. The current efforts, by all internal accounts leaking out, look nothing like even the most recent efforts in 2000.
The 2000 Focus recalls weren’t about decontenting – it was about squeezing suppliers too tightly and getting junk as a result, not having quality manufacturing practices and expediantly making changes to get it ready for the U.S. instead of testing things thoroughly. But none of that is happening in the new Focus program. So what are we going to complain about now? Pick something different, because it just sounds like we’re piling on GM and Ford for the sake of doing so and not for actual problems that have been revealed.
Problem with a world car from the D3 is that something designed (so far) for NA can’t compete eslewhere because of the low gas price in the US ($5 gallon is cheap by Euro standards) and size – most Euro cities have ben around a while and aren’t designed for everyone having their own transport (peasants had to walk in those days).
As for Euro cars being taken to the US – whatever the guys at the top say, the local engineers, marketeers and stylists have to ‘protect’ their part of the empire (even as it falls apart), and ‘tweak’ the import for US tastes – despite FMCs new drive to get the Fiesta & Focus to NA, I’ll bet they’re different to the ones the rest of the world gets – and of course that ‘localisation engineering’ has to be paid for. The alternative to import direct from Europe – look at the Saturn Astra – how much does GM make on each one (maybe the creative beanies tried to justify that program as a tax offset – ooops, silly me, the General doesn’t make any money to pay tax on).
RobertSD: Why are we talking about this? GM and Ford are moving to world-wide platforms like Honda and Toyota. We haven’t even SEEN the product of this program yet, and already we have filleted them for a job poorly done.
Robert, did you actually read it all? I say that GM and Ford moving to world cars “is obvious and belated”. I think its a good move. That’s the gist of my editorial. With the caveat: the cars have to avoid the “Americanization” pitfalls that Detroit consistently fell for in the past: cheap interiors and other parts, iffy quality, taste-less styling changes, etc.
Bring on the world cars! The Cobalt should have been the Astra all along. The Focus should have been the Euro Focus. Execution is the key.
Dave: “…whatever the guys at the top say, the local engineers, marketeers and stylists have to ‘protect’ their part of the empire (even as it falls apart), and ‘tweak’ the import for US tastes.”
Yep, this is the sort of sub-optimization that Bill
Ford realized he couldn’t overcome so he recruited Alan Mullaly.
If i am not mistaken, the Mk I Fiesta, Project Bobcat, was entirely designed by Ford NA for the european market. So Fords american engineers can obviously design a small car when they want to.
Another interesting tidbit is the thing about different safety standards. One reason that the japanese makers make three different version for the JDM/Europe/US markets is that the different standards make loopholes for different solutions. European versions is better made, with more and better safety features, more weldspots, and so on. And they are accordingly more expensive than the versions sold in the U.S. I don’t know if this is true, perhaps someone in the know has something to say on the matter?
The only true ever existing world car: Original Volkswagen Beetle.Sold in over 160 countries for more than 30 years.Try beating that.
The Model-T ?
@drifter: That is no longer true of the Civic and Corolla. The US models are no longer similiar to those sold in other countries (mainly Europe or Asia). This change started occuring in the late 90’s. Same with the Accord and Camry.
Of all the Japanese companies, the models that are not made in the US yet sold in the US and other countries are still similiar around the world. Such as the Jazz/Fit, various Mazda and Nissan models, the Yaris, etc…
In regards to the Mazda3, I would say that is Ford’s closest thing to a “world car”. There is a plethora of powertrain options in various markets, trim levels, and different features. And alot of it is plug-n-play hardware with little to no wiring. Obviously there are also items that would require a bit more change. No different than a Mercedes, BMW, or Volvo that is manufactured in Europe and sold around the world.
Maybe we should just say that Ford’s C1 platform is the closest there comes to a domestic companies’ “world car” as you could include several Ford products, Mazda products, and Volvo products.
There’s nothing wrong with “Americanizing” products. If anything, it’s a great idea, modifying products to serve major target markets makes a good deal of sense.
The problem has been with the execution. It seems that Detroit misunderstands its own customers so much that it views them as cartoon characters, rather than as real people with tastes and wants.
Detroit seems to believe that Americans only buy small cars when they are too broke to buy something bigger. Therefore, the small car buyer is expected to quietly accept his plight by buying a rolling penalty box until he can do better. It’s a compromise, and beggars can’t be choosers.
If the 4-banger sucks, too bad — you shoulda had a V8, so until then, deal with it. If the interior sucks, too bad — you’ll get a (slightly) better one when you can afford a Buick or a Lincoln. If it’s ugly, too bad — styling costs money.
Toyota and Honda changed the US market because quality came standard with every model, instead of being an expensive option. Finesse and high tech cost money, but reliability and fit-and-finish became standard equipment.
When customers realized that good things could come in small packages after all, they bought from those who delivered the best small packages. When those same companies started selling bigger, more expensive packages, the customers knew from their previous experiences with the smaller ones that the larger ones would not disappoint. Before you knew it, you had the parent’s Lexus parked in the driveway next to the kid’s Toyota.
The Japanese have gone out of their way to Americanize their products and have been rewarded handsomely for it. They understood, better than anyone in Detroit, what proper Americanization was all about. Detroit could have easily lead the way, had they just understood their own countrymen.
What’s more important than building a world car is being world flexible. I’ll use a real-world example to show what I mean.
When Toyota created Scion, they believed that the fairly normal-looking xA would sell twice as well as the funky, boxy xB. So, they made initial production plans accordingly.
Of course, what actually happened was the xB sold twice as well as the xA. Opps. So, clearly, at least in the short term, they had a surplus of xAs.
Now, if this happened to Ford or GM or Chrysler, they would have to dump thousands of dollars on the hood of the xAs to blow them out. But Toyota doesn’t think that way.
Suddenly, seemingly overnight, a “Toyota xA” appeared in a half dozen Middle Eastern markets. Supply problem solved. Keep in mind that the Japanese market name for the car was the Toyota ist, not the Toyota xA. Clearly, they merely sent cars originally planned to be sent to the US to the Middle East, after swapping the Scion badges with Toyota ones.
Toyota is “world flexible” enough that they can do things like this, so every dark cloud has a very large silver lining. GM, Ford, and Chrysler, well, aren’t.
You guys are talking about who designed and built the best deck chairs on the Titanic or who made the best linotype machines.
History is good to read, so we don’t make the same mistakes over again but what is coming is going to be so different and so amazing.
We will be designing our own cars on our own computers. The designs will go to small local machine shops that will cut our cars out of blocks of epoxy with machine tools that operate like 3 dimensional printers.
The days of burning oil to make mostly heat and noise and a tiny bit of power to move forward are coming to an end.
Charlie Rose interviewed Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute yesterday and he said we now have the technology to make our cars so efficient that we wouldn’t need ANY foreign oil.
Huge auto factories will soon be dinosaurs.
As long as you are busy discussing who makes the best heavy ugly crap the auto companies can keep selling this crap to you.
@ Paul Niedermeyer
But your article implies that they’re going to screw it up yet again. That’s my only critique. There’s no doubt that everyone is trumpeting the “world car” approach, but the article’s obsession with the failures of old of GM and Ford implies they’re in danger of failing yet again. Until we actually see the results of their new world car programs, we won’t actually know what they’ve learned or not learned. For future reference, the Fiesta is not actually the first of Ford’s world cars. North America joined late, which is why it is signficantly delayed here. The C1-2 Focus is the first real world car. Similarly, I believe the Cruze will GM’s first real effort.
So, I would contend that a valid observation may have been: the 2000 Focus met the standards of design, value and utility, but it failed the reliabilty test with 10 recalls in the first year, a testament to internal politics and engineering failures. However, with Ford’s climb in the quality metrics (I’m sure that four different sources can’t ALL be wrong) and Mulally at the helm, there is hope that the 2011 Focus is exactly what we’ve been hoping for.
Folkdancer: Charlie Rose interviewed Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute yesterday and he said we now have the technology to make our cars so efficient that we wouldn’t need ANY foreign oil.
Hmmm, as good as Lovins sounds, there’s a huge flaw in his proposal. His ultra-light prototype car is made out of carbon fiber. In addition to being expensive, it’s utterly un-recyclable. How environmental is that?
ZoomZoom
that boring car in rs500 form (450+) was the car to have in the mid 80 European touring car championships.
Even won the Japanese touring car champs 87 & 88, it had M3’s for mid afternoon snack.
Great car even in just rs form. 204hp in 87 wasn’t bad from a 2.0. in comparison the best a mustang had was 179hp
its incorrectly labeled in the picture as a murker xr*&$HG*^$^wHo cares
Relton, “The Corolla is hardly a “world” car. Close inspection of the three versions, US, Japaneese and European will reveal that they share few parts save the badge. Things seemingly simple as door latches are different for each of the three major markets.”
Relton, “I am intimately familiar with both the US and European Focuses ca 2000, and I can definitively state that there are fewer than 10% shared parts between the 2. The Focus is not a world car. It is 2 cars that share a few exterior components.
For example, the door skin is the same, but non of the other door components are the shared. Latches, hinges, glass, window regulators, handles, trim are all different.
The entire structure of the car forward of the windshield is completely different, as are the engines and transmissions.”
My question so is this a good thing? Whether its Toyota or Ford , are the markets so different that door latches and minor trim items must be designed differently for the European and American markets?
The only true ever existing world car: Original Volkswagen Beetle.Sold in over 160 countries for more than 30 years.Try beating that.
Dynamic88: “The Model-T ?”
Not even close. The Model T was sold “only” for 19 years. However the 1960’s Fiat 124 in all of its forms was quite a world car: it was built in Italy, Spain, Egypt, India, South Korea and of course Russia, where it’s produced even today as a Lada.
“We will be designing our own cars on our own computers. The designs will go to small local machine shops that will cut our cars out of blocks of epoxy with machine tools that operate like 3 dimensional printers.”
Ah, the holy grail of Mass Customization. Contrary to all predictions from the past several decades, it has so far come to almost nothing. You still can’t get a custom pair of jeans at a reasonable price let alone something many orders of magnitude more complex like an automobile. Dell is struggling in the PC market because cookie-cutter PC producers are finally beating one-at-a-time custom configurations from Dell.
I’m 48 and hope to live a long time, and I’m pretty sure I will not see the custom automobile.
I would love to be able to simply custom configure my next car and have it show up at the dealership within a month, but the sales culture in the US is so heavily invested in selling off-the-lot that even this very reasonable expectation is likely to continue to be dashed.
Whether its Toyota or Ford, are the markets so different that door latches and minor trim items must be designed differently for the European and American markets?
The various markets around the world are sufficiently different that it took GM 18 months to Pontiac-ize the Aussie Holden Monaro. If it was just a nose job… And GM says they “fast-tracked” it. Can you imagine the time lag had they went about it at a normal pace?
Didn’t Donald Petersen intend to have all Ford products engineered to global requirements? Bet once he left the building the luddite NIHs in Dearborn (and Koln, to be fair) nuked that idea as fast as possible. Alex Trotman went about it in a slightly different fashion, but the results were largely the same.
All the world’s car companies might be better off if all the world agreed to a single set of “major” regulations (safety, emissions, etc.) while letting their local divisions handle the local styling and trivia/minutiae requirements.
Lastly, if it was slightly cleaner looking and was named “Ford Sierra” instead of “Merkur” and if it wasn’t sold by LM dealers, betcha it would have sold in reasonable numbers. Loved the XR4Ti’s biplane spoiler!
Paul Niedermeyer Says:
Hmmm, as good as Lovins sounds, there’s a huge flaw in his proposal. His ultra-light prototype car is made out of carbon fiber. In addition to being expensive, it’s utterly un-recyclable. How environmental is that?
Sorry, the car idea was mine, however I did NOT say the car would be carbon fiber or ultra light.
Lovins comments were about making our cars, trucks, homes, planes, and business about 3 times more efficient than they are and Lovins said that the technology exists now to do this and if we use that technology we won’t have to buy any foreign oil or drill for any more oil.
Lovins also said that oil companies DON’T want to drill on the north slope of Alaska or along our coast! The expense is very great, there would be little profit AND the Alaskan Pipe Line is at the end of its useful life and will require great expense to keep it repaired. AND the pipe line is extremely vulnerable to attack.
My comments were meant to open minds up about imagining totally different kinds of cars. Maybe they will be made of carbon fiber with electric motors or maybe cheese cloth impregnated with Elmer’s glue with fly wheel motors we wind up with wind power at night.
Lovins also said (sorry not his exact words) that our present ICE’s have to be extremely powerful because 80% of their energy is used to make heat and noise and we only get the remaining 20% to move us around.
Ok, here are the differences between european and american car tastes.Firstly americans are more emotional and a bit simpler, so they generally prefer cars that are flashier and have practicality in them. So a huge chrome grille that would allure americans in dodge showrooms would not necesserily do the same in europe.Europeans are more reserved, accent oriented and have taste in quality- texture and fit and finish. So that`s why a simple but precisely fit Skoda Octavia is a hot seller in Europe but probably would lack emotional cache for NA market.
Europeans also prefer more hatchbacks ,small cars and diesels . Because european communities live closer to their workplace they generally consume less fuel individually , so that is why gas is so expensive in europe, meaning you can ask higher price if they don`t need to waste gallons of fuel every day. Americans are different , they travel a lot every day to their offices, and charging 8 dollars a gallon wouldn`t be possible, because people simply couldn`t afford to do it. The high fuel prices has also made europeans love diesels, which has given them false illusions of saving money on it. Love for diesels has made them widespread, and that is why diesel prices are so high- because there are enough sheep to trim. becaue of this saving mode in Europe , people are also more rational than emotional, so they wouldn`t buy a seperate truck or minivan to haul some picknick goodies , they would combine that in a single car purchase- meaning, here is the answer to popularity of wagons and hatchbacks in europe.
World car failure- one of the biggest failures was Mondeo launch in 1993 , and its siblings contour/Mistaqe US versions. Not that it failed in sales, it just failed to justify 6 billion dollars spent on the global car. After checking closer both versions, one could conclude that Us contour version had some emotional , simplistic accents, while neglected, more quality and chic accents. Contour had chrome bumper inserts and chrome radio antenna base, while such elegant version as Ghia package group was excluded completely. Contour had cheaper leather interior, cheaper plastics, and lacked a lot of accents. So basically contour coincided with the NA needs, but it was not competetive enough with japanese and german cars that offered precisely fit interiors. And even if they seemingly didn`t matter for customers, there is one catch. High quality interiors GIVE PEOPLE PRESUMABLE CONFIDENCE in cars reliability, and if they trust the interior fit and finish, they also presume that engine would be assembled the same way. The same principle scares away customers from Detroit showrooms. So it is possible to sell a previous generation Ford focus in NA if its exterior is flashy enough, while europeans are buying the nex gen Focus with more quality and cache, such as dash gauges with several digital screens and Ghia package groups. So Focus being a mananeuverable car on narrow twisty european roads, scores points while tested on race tracks by Clarksons or Hammonds, while Americans don`t seem to bother that. And why should they, if rodas in America are as straight as Arnold Schwarzennegger`s orientation?
So while americans care more for simple and practical package groups= cup holders, chrome accents, cooled fridges , ipod jacks , europeans are tended towards luxury gizmos- foldable power mirrors ( cramped european narrow roads),self parking system( the same), trip computer( gas prices),premium sound systems( cramped enough communities to be heard ). Unfortunately the falling dollar and Bernanke`s printing spree will teach a trick to Amricans that smaller displacement engines are not necesserily self- esteem killing. The era of Supersize me is going to an end. The evolution teaches us that when the biggest food consuming animals have wasted most of the resources, they either die giving way to smaller more adaptable animals, or they adopt themselves becoming weightwatchers.
Not even close. The Model T was sold “only” for 19 years. However the 1960’s Fiat 124 in all of its forms was quite a world car: it was built in Italy, Spain, Egypt, India, South Korea and of course Russia, where it’s produced even today as a Lada.
The Model-T was the first world car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_T
@jurisb:
while europeans are buying the nex gen Focus with more quality and cache, such as dash gauges with several digital screens and Ghia package groups
While I agree with many things you said, the Ghia package is simply horrible in it’s tastelessness. Acres of fake wood. Do I need to say more? Ghia is for grandpa, everybody else takes the Titanium package.
Europeans also prefer more hatchbacks, small cars and diesels.
Oh really?
Wait, let’s look out of the window: There’s my shiny new small diesel hatchback.
You’re probably right.
Sherman Lin,
Door latches and glass are not “minor trim items”, they are regulated and tested by various government bodies. So is the door structure and the door handles. So, the short answe5r to you question is, yes, all these parts have to be different.
So many other parts, like seats, aree different because of differnet tastes in different continents.
I don’t belive that Europeans are superior to US buyers, just different.Is this a good thing or bad? Neither.
The point is that successful cars are never “world” cars, it just seems that way to the uninformed.
As always, the key to success inthe car business is making cars that people want to buy, no matter where they are made or sold.
Bob
Garak: Not even close. The Model T was sold “only” for 19 years.
Doesn’t matter how long it was sold; what matters is whether it was easily adaptable to driving conditions in other countries. The Model T met that criteria.
Good article and I understand that space limitations required you to leave important vehicles out of your presentation (200-2007 Ford Focus). But if you had room for the Chrysler Omni/Horizon twins I would have like to have heard your observations regarding the development and affect that the Neon had in the marketplace. Wasn’t the Neon developed as a world car? I believe the engine was based on a Mitsubishi design modified for markets around the world.
Mullholland:
“But if you had room for the Chrysler Omni/Horizon twins I would have like to have heard your observations regarding the development and affect that the Neon had in the marketplace. Wasn’t the Neon developed as a world car? I believe the engine was based on a Mitsubishi design modified for markets around the world.”
There is some truth to that. The Neon made it’s debut not at the Detroit, Chicago, or NY auto shows but at the Franfurt or Geneva show in Europe. It’s 2.0 liter engine was designed with displacement taxes that other countries place on larger engines. And it was designed to be built in right and left had drive versions. The engine was developed by Chrysler but it had it’s exhaust manifolds facing the front of the car like the typical Mitsubishi arrangement (Mitsu used the engine in it’s Eclipse sport coupe). But it was not based off a Mitsubishi design. A 1.8 liter version was also made for export markets.
The Contour/Mystique/Mondeo get a bum rap. When the Mondeo came out it was at the top of the midsize class in Europe. When the car arrived in North America, it had some premium features not offered or quite rare in its class at the time (Traction Control, Micron Filter A/C, 24 Valve V6). My faves were the lights over the inside door handles, the 24 hour clock, the ‘luftfilter’ label on the air filter box. This car was criticised for being small in the backseat. It was right sized for Europe (with as much room as an A4 or 3 series) but I guess we are just a nation of wide a$$es so we found it small.
The $6 billion dollar investment was long range. In that development budget was a an all new V6 family, still being used today in a variety of Fords (the Duratec 30, 35 etc are all descended from that engine), new transmissions, factories renovations. Its like a long term investment that Ford can amortize over the long term, not just the lifecycle of the car.
And, think of what it replaced….Topaz/Tempo. I think it started to go downhill when they decontented and dumped it into fleets. Typical….