• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ford tops safety list, followed by honda

Heard about this on the radio this morning (on my way to Detroit, of all places). I used to really want to love Chrysler, but I've given up. They still have some OK cars, but there are so many better choices that it doesn't make sense to buy one. Sad.

 
chrysler needs to die (screw you 1990 plymouth voyager) , but i'll reluctantly give auto bailout money to gm and ford since they are trying
 
Chrlser had 5 also rans but for the lack of better headrests didn't make the cut
Now how expensive is a headrest really?
 
Originally posted by: evident
chrysler needs to die (screw you 1990 plymouth voyager) , but i'll reluctantly give auto bailout money to gm and ford since they are trying
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
The problem with Volvo is that all you get for your money is a Ford with a bit of extra padding and a reinforced frame. It's simply not in the same league as Lexus, BMW, or these days, even Hyundai. Strictly speaking, a lot of those Fords, Mercurys, and Lincolns are the same car.

However, I'm quite pleased to see that Ford and GM is making an effort. It's nice to see top-notch safety in an inexpensive car like the Fusion, especially considering that its Toyota counterpart - the Camry - hasn't pulled it off. Furthermore, two of the three safest convertibles - the Saab 9-3 Aero X and the Volvo - are products of GM and Ford, respectively.


That said, I'm annoyed that the Big Three (big two?) haven't focused their research on where it matters most - small, cheap cars. If you want something small, cheap, and safe, Honda pretty much has the whole category to itself with the very good Fit. Parents will ignore fuel economy, looks, comfort, and reliability in favor of a really safe car every time.

I'm also wondering where the Mazda3 is on this list. It's a very, very safe car, both in the ratings of EuroNCAP (who are more stringent than the IIHS) and my father, who can personally vouch for the side-impact protection.
 
Originally posted by: MBrown
Originally posted by: evident
chrysler needs to die (screw you 1990 plymouth voyager) , but i'll reluctantly give auto bailout money to gm and ford since they are trying
Click to expand...
I agree.
Click to expand...

No no no!

Autos don't have anywhere the same potential impact on the economy if they fail, so you can't compare financial bailouts to that.

It's also important to understand what Chaper 11 really means for a company, before wading into this debate.

Lastly, if you want an economic stimulus, the last thing you want is billions upon billions of dollars locked up in inefficient, unprofitable dinousaurs that are very limited (outside of Chapter 11) in terms of how they can restructure and get back on their feet, the fact they're trying (or appear to you to be trying) is irrelevant, if they were succeeding they wouldn't be where they are now).

You also open a door to every other dead-beat manufacturing industry that was already going down the tubes before the financial turmoil struck if you bail them out. All the financial crisis did was speed the process up...

Anyway, my 2c I guess 😱
 
Volvo is a bit more than just a Ford with padding. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of parts/platform sharing -- Ford does own them, afterall. But Volvo is able to do quite a bit on its own. I wouldn't call them a luxury brand, but they're sort of in between. I'd say kind of like Acura. I'd say kind of like Saab with GM. They aren't luxury, but they aren't exactly entry-level.
 
Originally posted by: Cheesehead
The problem with Volvo is that all you get for your money is a Ford with a bit of extra padding and a reinforced frame. It's simply not in the same league as Lexus, BMW, or these days, even Hyundai. Strictly speaking, a lot of those Fords, Mercurys, and Lincolns are the same car.
Click to expand...

the larger volvos are on volvo designed platforms. ford has had its engineers use the platforms for some fords and a mazda. that means you've got it backwards.

That said, I'm annoyed that the Big Three (big two?) haven't focused their research on where it matters most - small, cheap cars. If you want something small, cheap, and safe, Honda pretty much has the whole category to itself with the very good Fit. Parents will ignore fuel economy, looks, comfort, and reliability in favor of a really safe car every time.
Click to expand...
new fiesta is coming here quite soon.
 
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: MBrown
Originally posted by: evident
chrysler needs to die (screw you 1990 plymouth voyager) , but i'll reluctantly give auto bailout money to gm and ford since they are trying
Click to expand...
I agree.
Click to expand...

No no no!

Autos don't have anywhere the same potential impact on the economy if they fail, so you can't compare financial bailouts to that.

It's also important to understand what Chaper 11 really means for a company, before wading into this debate.

Lastly, if you want an economic stimulus, the last thing you want is billions upon billions of dollars locked up in inefficient, unprofitable dinousaurs that are very limited (outside of Chapter 11) in terms of how they can restructure and get back on their feet, the fact they're trying (or appear to you to be trying) is irrelevant, if they were succeeding they wouldn't be where they are now).

You also open a door to every other dead-beat manufacturing industry that was already going down the tubes before the financial turmoil struck if you bail them out. All the financial crisis did was speed the process up...

Anyway, my 2c I guess 😱
Click to expand...

theres nothing with what you said that i don't agree with. if it was up to me they would rot, i hate all of them and all their shitty cars out right now with a few exceptions. i hate their stupid patriotism brainwashing commercials and their inept management. but if they fail so many middle class people will lose their jobs, and not by any fault of their own, but of their stupid management. most are good hard working people (even though alot of them may be union lazy assholes too) and would devastate middle america and crime would most certainly increase in alot of places . it's a double edged sword, and in the end normal americans are gonna lose bigtime 🙁
 
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: MBrown
Originally posted by: evident
chrysler needs to die (screw you 1990 plymouth voyager) , but i'll reluctantly give auto bailout money to gm and ford since they are trying
Click to expand...
I agree.
Click to expand...

No no no!

Autos don't have anywhere the same potential impact on the economy if they fail, so you can't compare financial bailouts to that.

It's also important to understand what Chaper 11 really means for a company, before wading into this debate.

Lastly, if you want an economic stimulus, the last thing you want is billions upon billions of dollars locked up in inefficient, unprofitable dinousaurs that are very limited (outside of Chapter 11) in terms of how they can restructure and get back on their feet, the fact they're trying (or appear to you to be trying) is irrelevant, if they were succeeding they wouldn't be where they are now).

You also open a door to every other dead-beat manufacturing industry that was already going down the tubes before the financial turmoil struck if you bail them out. All the financial crisis did was speed the process up...

Anyway, my 2c I guess 😱
Click to expand...

Stick to the cameras would be my advice. Or at least figure out what you are talking about before you post.
 
Some guy told me once that Ford is pretty bad ass and does a lot in terms of army US vehicals. He said that many of the vehicals (not hummers) use all wheel drive technology by Ford. They must be doing something right because their pickup trucks (F150) are industructible.

Id consider a ford for my next car, it's just too bad they don't have a price advantage over other makes here in Canada, not to mention their value goes down like nuts if you want to sell it.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Volvo is in same league as Lexus ES 350, which is based on Camry. Ford platforms are also much more fun to drive.
Click to expand...

The ES350 is a what you buy because you want to have a Lexus. All you're paying for is the badge. It's a silly car.
 
Originally posted by: radioouman
Heard about this on the radio this morning (on my way to Detroit, of all places). I used to really want to love Chrysler, but I've given up. They still have some OK cars, but there are so many better choices that it doesn't make sense to buy one. Sad.
Click to expand...

Ya. Chrysler always had a nice sense of Styling when they wanted too, unfortunately they couldn't match that with Engineering and Build Quality.
 
Originally posted by: Cheesehead
Originally posted by: senseamp
Volvo is in same league as Lexus ES 350, which is based on Camry. Ford platforms are also much more fun to drive.
Click to expand...

The ES350 is a what you buy because you want to have a Lexus. All you're paying for is the badge. It's a silly car.
Click to expand...

Camry looks like a pile of ass compared to the ES350. Yes their platform and engine are the same, but the Lexus is a MUCH better car.
 
Originally posted by: BassBomb
Originally posted by: Cheesehead
Originally posted by: senseamp
Volvo is in same league as Lexus ES 350, which is based on Camry. Ford platforms are also much more fun to drive.
Click to expand...

The ES350 is a what you buy because you want to have a Lexus. All you're paying for is the badge. It's a silly car.
Click to expand...

Camry looks like a pile of ass compared to the ES350. Yes their platform and engine are the same, but the Lexus is a MUCH better car.
Click to expand...

I drive an ES, it's an awesome car, and the ES 350 got amazing reviews. My friend just bought a 09 highlander fully loaded. It's a nice ride, but for an extra 3 grand he could of been driving an 09 Lexus RX. Even though the ES is based off the Camry, it's still a lot more refined inside, I couldn't be happier with my ride, plus any part that breaks a Camry part can replace it, so you save in that aspect too. I'm pretty sure if you stepped it up a notch and got yourself a Lexus GS you would be paying a shitload for parts.
 
I've been saying for the last year or two that the American car companies were starting to finally get it and react. I wouldn't hesitate to buy some of the GMs or Fords (or even a Jeep, but nothing else in the Chrysler lineup). The thing is, the American consumer shares some of the blame with the problems the big 3 have had with their lineup. They got into this huge problem because they were actually selling what Americans wanted. WE wanted bigger SUVs. WE didn't care about fuel economy when we were car shopping. WE bought what they were selling. They lacked foresight and let the rest of their lineup languish, but they made what we were buying. The foreign makers were selling small cars worldwide because most other countries wanted small cars. They had the designs and the factories for it when Americans suddenly decided we wanted small cars. This wasn't necessarily better planning, it was more that they had aligned themselves with markets that were focusing on small and fuel efficient cars for years while the big 3 were focusing on selling cars to us Americans.
 
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: MBrown
Originally posted by: evident
chrysler needs to die (screw you 1990 plymouth voyager) , but i'll reluctantly give auto bailout money to gm and ford since they are trying
Click to expand...
I agree.
Click to expand...

No no no!

Autos don't have anywhere the same potential impact on the economy if they fail, so you can't compare financial bailouts to that.

It's also important to understand what Chaper 11 really means for a company, before wading into this debate.

Lastly, if you want an economic stimulus, the last thing you want is billions upon billions of dollars locked up in inefficient, unprofitable dinousaurs that are very limited (outside of Chapter 11) in terms of how they can restructure and get back on their feet, the fact they're trying (or appear to you to be trying) is irrelevant, if they were succeeding they wouldn't be where they are now).

You also open a door to every other dead-beat manufacturing industry that was already going down the tubes before the financial turmoil struck if you bail them out. All the financial crisis did was speed the process up...

Anyway, my 2c I guess 😱
Click to expand...

Stick to the cameras would be my advice. Or at least figure out what you are talking about before you post.
Click to expand...

Rather than abuse me, why don't you correct me, if I'm so wrong? 😉

There is plenty of room for differing opinions and reasoned debate.

As far as any vauge knowledge of the topic is concerned;

1) I have an economics degree (not that it necessarily means much, but at least it's somewhat topical 😉)
2) I'm not saying anything that plenty of respected economic commentators aren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top