Oct16 Amazon Fashion nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Electronics Holiday Gift Guide Starting at $39.99 Halloween Candy Cozy Knits Book 2 or More Hours of House Cleaning on Amazon pbskids pbskids pbskids  All-New Echo Dot Starting at $89.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Cycling on Amazon Fit for Fall Save on select BOB strollers, Car Seats & Accessories
Customer Discussions > Automotive forum

buying foreign cars and other products

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-249 of 249 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jan 15, 2011 10:39:30 AM PST
C. Nicholas says:
Why do people post about a thread being disgusting? If you find it disgusting, don't care or don't agree don't read it. I like participating in discussion with people that agree and disagree with me. I think name calling would better be left out. So a Tundra is made in USA, I know that many Toyotas are, I also know that overall as brand US sold Toyotas have a lower domestic content than the US based companies. I am not questioning anyones patriotism. I am arguing that the constant bashing of American companies is unfounded. Quality ratings, power, fuel mileage, crash safety, and durability are every bit as good as any of the Foreign companies. If you look at sales figures the number one car in the US is a Toyota American consumers don't show loyalty to the American based companies, but the number one and two selling vehicles are Ford and Chevy trucks, I wouldn't think a almost a million people a year (between the two) "though away money" they are buying the best made trucks in the world. One place they may lag is owner loyalty, but that is because Toyota and Honda have a lot of loyal owners who won't consider anything else regardless of how good the others are they just keep hearing the same myths about their brands superiority and won't even look at another brand. Even if their brand has been exposed as hiding a major safety problem for years. GM needed a bailout because the fine folks on wall street and CEOs of banks collapsed the economy and walked off with billions. No one was buying cars, and no one was lending money. AIG was bailed out to the tune of over 100 billion dollars, while GM was forced into bankruptcy over 30 billion. The government is now selling of stocks and will likely make a profit, so get over the government motors garbage. Toyota receives loads of support from their government in Japan, like government healthcare for their workers and huge subsidies as do the European brands. It makes it pretty tough to compete without government help when the other companies all have it. If you think a Tundra looks cool buy it, just don't justify by bashing the American companies. It is free country thanks to people that fought for freedom both by those in the military and by those who fight with words against people who would require patriotism to look a certain way. I thank those in the military and those who protest when the politicians try to take away freedoms to increase our safety.

Posted on Jan 15, 2011 12:10:33 PM PST
No, C. Nicholas, it's NOT a free country if my taxpayer dollars are stolen from me and given to a mismanaged corporation (whether AIG or GM) because they screwed up. GM should have been left to die as a result of its bad management mistakes, and its remains could have been sold off to other companies that would have done better things with them. As for our military, they don't fight for our freedom, they fight for multinational corporate profits. They haven't fought for our freedom since WWII.

Posted on Jan 15, 2011 12:23:53 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2011 12:27:31 PM PST
cactus says:
your tax dollars are stolen every time a politician is bought off by a lobbyist. ive been very torn about the gm bailout. in the end i have to say that it saved lots of little people their jobs. i dont like it, but thats the picture im looking at.
i also hate to say this but, ive noticed that foreign companies are building their plants in parts of the country that will work for far less money. for now.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2011 12:54:26 PM PST
If saving jobs by having governments give money to corporations is OK, why not just make the corporations all government-owned, and then the government can make sure EVERYONE has a job? Everyone can work for the government, and be guaranteed a job and a place to live. The government can make sure everyone gets a fair wage, and that no one is severely overpaid. After all, this model worked really well for the Soviet Union.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2011 1:02:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2011 1:04:52 PM PST
Joe Average says:
Daniel W - you are correct about the military. The troops may not realize that and they may have their own reasons for it but that is what the military is being used for.
I still have mixed feelings about GM. I figure it was about saving the butts of alot of very rich people though we regular folks related to it at the worker level. GM will not change unless it is allowed to fail is how I currently feel.

Who are those big wigs? They are the big money players in the stock market. If they left GM to fail and the banks too the stock market would have crashed big time taking their fortunes with it. We hear about jobs. They just sleep better knowing their billions of dollars of stock is safe and backed by the gov't bailout.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2011 1:06:55 PM PST
Joe Average: Exactly: it sucks for people working there, but that's the pitfall of a private-enterprise system: if your employer screws up, you have to pay the price (but not as bad as the investors, who lose their money; you just have to go find a new job). Ideally, companies stay small, and layoffs only affect small numbers of people at a time. The GM debacle shows why companies shouldn't be allowed to grow too large; that's one thing I'd support government interference in: keeping companies smaller and preventing them from getting too big, via anti-trust regulation.

Excessively large and interconnected companies is exactly why the real-estate collapse had the effect it did.

Posted on Jan 15, 2011 2:31:48 PM PST
C. Nicholas says:
I think we have gotten of the subject of American cars. However I like lots of debates. Should government bailouts happen I don't know I can see a lot arguments against them. I think AIG should have been let go they got into trouble purely because of greed and a lack oversight. Wall street and its CEOs are sucking the American public dry while paying politicians on both sides to help. The federal reserve manages funds to prop up the stock market, not for the benefit of the overall American economy. GM maybe should have been let fail, but as I said before all there problems were not self induced the collapsing economy wasn't caused by them, and they might have been able to tough it out if they could have gotten loans. They we sent into bankruptcy instead of loaned money for only reason, to weaken or break the union. As for investors they gambled on stock to make money without working I have no sympathy for them (including me I lost some money on GM stock, it means nothong compared to loosing your job). Some people blame unions for lots of problems, and I won't say don't go a little overboard sometimes. But if you think multinationals run everything now (I do), then it would be 100 times worse without unions over the past 100 years. As for "stolen tax dollars" the cost of letting GM fall apart the government will most likely get back every penny invested, and if they hadn't done it it would of cost far more tax dollars in lost taxes paid by workers and unemployment costs. They likely wouldn't have easily just found jobs in this 9% unemployment economy. As for taxes stealing our money, get over it, the USA has the lowest taxes of any developed country a bunch of liars keep telling us they can lower taxes and balance the budget, it can not President Reagan and President Bush2 proved if you lower taxes it increases the deficit. The only way lowering taxes helps the economy is if government spending isn't decreased. The government spends those taxes(maybe not wisely) that means they go back into the economy they don't just disappear. If you give millionaire tax cuts they hide it offshore or invest it a third world country that has low labor costs. It is time Americans woke to what is happening to our country and why it is happening. It isn't because of taxes, they are part of living in a society. I think schools, infrastructure etc. are pretty important. So called "handouts to the poor" are made necessary by the continual shipping of good jobs to low paying nations and by places like Walmart that won't pay a decent wage and have a goal of reducing full time workers to avoid paying benefits. They bully companies like rubbermaid into shipping production into China, and then tea partyers vote in politicians who will give the Waltons a tax cut. So after we make laws to keep the overly powerful multinationals under control, then we talk about how people should support themselves.
It is hard to argue with what recent wars have been about, but the men and women who serve in our military deserve our gratitude even if war mongers(presidents) started wars they shouldn't have. But that does bring up another reason we to support GM, in WW2 GM, Ford, and Chrysler were all essential to our efforts. If we let all our industry collapse and go to other countries we will be helpless if a true world war starts.

Posted on Jan 15, 2011 3:02:40 PM PST
BS. GM's problems WERE self-induced. If your business can't handle a recession, because you haven't saved for a rainy day, then you deserve to go out of business. GM geared all their production to bloated SUVs when those were hot, and then as soon as people stopped buying SUVs, they collapsed because they couldn't shift towards smaller cars and still had to make tons of pension payments (which were a bad idea too).

Other companies didn't put all their eggs in one basket like the morons at GM, so they had no trouble when the economy fell. Look at their counterpart Ford: they didn't need a bailout. They were able to weather the storm just fine. You can't even blame GM's problems on the economy, or unions, or anything of the sort, because Ford is just as old as them, just as "American", yet they didn't have the same problems. Gm should have been allowed to die, so Ford could buy up all their assets. We don't need 3 automakers in this country any more, since there's so much foreign competition (and we're not very good at making cars anyway: look how butt-ugly GM cars are).

As for the stuff about tax cuts for millionaires and them hiding it offshore, I agree with all of that. I just don't like the idea of the govt effectively taking over a failing industry just to save a bunch of jobs. If the government needs to invest in something, how about investing in a NEW technology, to build a new industry that we can be the world leader of, instead of desperately trying to hang on to an old industry that we've already bungled away? We could be leading the world in solar power, for instance (the southwest where I live is a great place for it!), but instead China is beating us to it, and US solar manufacturers are now moving all their operations over there because of govt incentives. China is also the world leader in wind power, something else we should be leading in. There's lots of other cutting-edge stuff the government could be incentivizing (to borrow some manager-speak), but they don't. The Chinese are much, much smarter about identifying strategic priorities and funding them than we are.

As for industry needed for war, we still fund that handsomely. Defense contractors (which are basically "welfare for engineers") have huge profit margins, and I know lots of fellow engineers who work at them and get paid plenty of money to do basically nothing, as they're so inefficient that very little ever gets done. However, this is irrelevant to Chrysler and GM, because in a future war, we're not going to need tanks, and those companies can't build advanced fighter jets and missiles. We already have all the tanks we need, we already have companies building Bradleys and stuff like that, and we have companies like Boeing building aircraft. Even if we did need tanks, GM and Ford have already moved tons of their manufacturing to Canada and Mexico, so I don't see how it helps keeping them alive. Keeping their suppliers alive probably won't help much either; tanks don't use automotive gasoline engines and other parts for passenger vehicles, they use gas turbines. I don't think there's going to be another world war, not like the past ones. The future wars will either be nuclear, or more likely, purely economic. Countries don't seem to be very interested in stealing territory from each other any more, which was the sole motivation for WWI.

Posted on Jan 15, 2011 3:42:22 PM PST
C. Nicholas says:
Not ALL their problems were self induced as I already said, some certainly were. I don't know if Ford had good management or got lucky. They sold Jagaur and most of Mazda just before the recession, that is why they had cash reserves. SUVs have many times the profit family cars have they would have been damn poor managers if they hadn't built them. Toyota spent a huge pile of money on new plants for big SUV that they can barely sell. They are subsidized by their government also. As for ugly, that is a matter of opinion, the quality ratings of GM have been very close or better than the Japanese, the BS is all the people that refuse to admit that GM makes good cars because they worship Hondas and spontaneously accelerating Toyotas. As for military apps. you are probably right and as far as government investment in new industry I couldn't agree more. But I still don't think with our trade deficits (loosing the economic war) we can afford to give up an industry as big as the auto industry.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2011 4:15:13 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2011 7:30:10 PM PST
Joe Average says:
C. Nicolas - "then it would be 100 times worse without unions over the past 100 years."

They were valuable. They may not be as valuable in the future. Just because they worked in the past doesn't mean they are the best solution in the future. On the other hand not to have them allows the upper level management to run rampant.

"They likely wouldn't have easily just found jobs in this 9% unemployment economy."

Well the unemployment is really closer to 18%. What's scary is that the Great Depression unemployment stat is estimated at about 25%. Not much different than now. I guess the real difference is that at least now we have some gov't safety nets. Back then they had soup kitchens and shanty towns. The gov't reports the U-3 stats which are the number of people collecting unemployment. That does not mention the people who have run out of unemployment or accepted lesser jobs than they had before to get by. I think the mainstream media ought to report the 18% stat. The gov't provides the numbers for them easily enough. To me that implicates the media in a consumer confidence machine that favors their advertisers (retailers) more than it's public citizen viewers. A few other interesting numbers: Spain has nearly 40% unemployment in their 20-something age bracket. In the USA a high school degree means you face 15% unemployment, a bachelor's degree puts you in a group of folks with 4% unemployment. Right or wrong (whether people are more useful with educations or not) these are the stats.

As for lowering taxes - once again that favors the top layer of American society. They lower my taxes and I might see $250 more in my pocket a year. They lower taxes on Warren Buffett and he's seeing millions of dollars back into his pocket. Of course the rich of America want us to believe that lower taxes offer a long, long list of benefits even if those benefits are smoke dreams. They'll do whatever they can to get them from time to time. Tell me I might be able to collect millions of dollars every few election cycles b/c my favored political party was going to get power and I might be real eager to help that happen and tell a few lies too. Since I personally have so little "skin" in the game - I'd like to see the tables leveled for all of us and the gov't FIXED and the budget balanced and the deficit gone. I look at our current deficit and wonder if the guys/gals at the top see something else on the horizon that will make the deficit land in some else's lap - just like the housing bubble. Perhaps other countries defaulting on their deficits and loans will make the American currencies go up in value and thus the deficit will repair itself - and probably make someone besides us working folks rich. Or maybe the deficit will somehow allow the USA to declare bankruptcy somehow and thereby make somebody at the top richer in the process. Nothing is done by accident at the top - there are too many smart people, too much data, and too many number crunching computers to let our economy simply react to capitalism accidentally and automatically. Somebody steers it every step of the way.

Yes fear multinationals b/c they take the corporate money machine and stretch it across borders so they can control even more of the global markets. They will be remembered as the Robber Barons of the 21st century - in another 100 years if we are still free to talk openly... I see the TN Tea Party is already trying to force the state to buy textbooks that minimize the negative episodes the minorities faced over the past 200 years. We'll focus even more on the founding fathers and the pilgrim and less on information that is useful - like everything that actually happened in the 20th century thereby guaranting that there will be another generation of kids blinded by flag waving and nationalism and having very little useful information to connect the dots of history with. Beware these extreme right wingers. They'll take the country away from the rest of us. I supported the Tea Partiers when they said our gov't was broken (and not because Barack Obama was in charge). Then I began to see them as more of the very problem they were supposedly pointing out.

Posted on Jan 15, 2011 4:36:31 PM PST
Joe Average says:
We need to emulate some of Europe's choices where they spend less on military might and more on taking care of our citizens. We could afford healthcare benefits and better educations without spending so many billions on military equipment and not increase our gov't spending at all. We could change how we live for the better.

I've long felt that there ought to be a better economic system than laissez-faire capitalism. It's too cut throat. We are told that the cut throat competition fosters efficiency but I think it may be wrecking our society and how neighbors take care of each other. What we need is capitalism with a conscience and a heart. How do we make this happen? I have no idea.

I hate spending more on gasoline but I seriously thing in the long term it would mean better things for us in America. We'd be forced to plan better, think harder about what we make, and probably be smarter for it. It would help the environment b/c we'd consume less fossil fuels. It could mean that we weren't so transportation intensive, and a little more interested in building what we need and can afford instead of alot of wasteful - make as much as we can and drive down the price so that we use stuff up and throw it away.

I've lived in Italy for three years and while the place was far from perfect those people did live good lives there - though not expensive lives. They had homes and cars but they seemed to have a more long term outlook where money was concerned and a short term outlook where enjoying the moment was concerned. In other words they saved more money but savored their moments more.

You'll notice the tea parties and conservatives using name calling to steer us away from a set of choices that might lead us towards some of the same choices Europe has made. They've labeled them socialists and communists and marxists without really discussing what that means. I'd hazard a guess that the sock-puppets that parrot FoxNews and conservative talk radio (is there any other kind?) don't even know what these terms means or what Europe is really like.

Somebody here will now encourage me to just move to Europe and leave America the way it is. This is my home and I want to see American prosper again but we seem to be continuing down a rocky path with more hardship and tears ahead. We have time and opportunity for changes with long term benefits. I'd rather be here where my family and friends are. We are making more frugal choices at my house and some folks around us are noticing. We're happier unplugged from the consumerist society. We're watching less TV. We don't frequent the malls. We spend more time together with our family and friends and enjoy those moments more.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2011 6:30:30 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 15, 2011 6:40:27 PM PST]

Posted on Jan 15, 2011 10:02:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2011 10:55:40 PM PST
our problems can be attributed to the fact that we have moved away from pure capitalism not because of it. And the euro model doesn't work. Not to mention it is our military spending keeping the peace that allows such attempts at social engineering.

Posted on Jan 16, 2011 9:22:04 AM PST
C. Nicholas says:
We spend more on "keeping the peace" with our military than the rest of the world combined. Why should we defend these places all over the world? Few of the wars fought in the last 50 years made America safer. Some, but not all, have made other countries safer. If S.Korea wants to be protected, they can pay us since we already have the ability, or they can let Hyundai industries switch to making more military equipment and start spending there taxes and people to defend themselves. Then we can spend that money balancing our budget.
"Pure capitalism" maybe I am unsure of exactly what it is, but it seems to me many of problems come from it. With a lack of regulation it seems to favor greed and profit at all costs our banks, investment firms and insurance industry are good examples. Without regulation our environment would be trashed. I am not for pure socialism either, work and success need to have rewards. But that doesn't mean those rewards need to be untaxed, and that the government doesn't have a place help the unfortunate and regulating industry. I think in most cases those that believe that something should 100% one way or another are usually wrong.
Most of Europe,Canada, and Japan have better (based on life expectancy) health care systems than we do and they all cost less. Our new plan probably won't help much, no public option, if you want to cut cost, take out those making the most profit (insurance companies, not malpractice lawyers contrary to what some would have you believe they are an extremely small part of it). As to death panels, before somebody brings up that bogus argument, I trust government bureaucrats more than insurance company executives. Not that I want either one making my decisions, but maybe spending a million in medical cost to extend someones life by three weeks, at taxpayer expense, is a bad idea.

Posted on Jan 16, 2011 9:33:24 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 16, 2011 9:44:02 AM PST
Joe Average says:
No but the European choices represent a zero-growth economy model that we may need to give a serious look at. We can't go on expecting for our economy and nation to grow forever.

I have made the mistake of giving the impression that I think the whole set of European choices works. They don't. Their welfare system is too big. They'll give benefits to just about anyone that goes there.

What we have is the benefit of watching, learn and picking and choosing what works and adopting those parts here. The PIGS countries are a mess and we don't want to emulate their gov'ts. I wish we did look towards Sweden and Germany more though. I wish we did adopt more of an export economy like Germany to go along with our current Wal-Mart Chinese import frenzy economy. I wish we'd divert some of our military money to building up green tech which would lower our demand for fossil fuels. Not replace it - I don't think we can do that anytime soon. But supplement it. I'd like my local government to have the funds for more bike paths so I didn't have to drive my car everywhere. And bike paths because the times I've tried riding my bike to work it was simply not safe. We don't even have sidewalks in most parts of town. I'd like to see our education system improved. Rather than build expensive schools and buy expensive subscriptions to multimedia teaching aids, I'd like to see more of an open-source model where teachers across the country are encouraged to work together and openly to share teaching methods and their teaching syllabus. That would of course put a hurt on the textbook companies but I don't care. They are a big part of why education is so ******* expensive. Why reinvent the wheel every few years with new books at $80 a pop?

And my list goes on and on and on... It would involve changing alot of things that make a few people very rich and thus would be very tough to change in the land of capitalism.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2011 9:53:03 AM PST
Joe Average says:
C. Nicholas - good post.

Posted on Jan 16, 2011 10:30:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 16, 2011 10:31:51 AM PST
That's the thing their health care model isn't less expensive overall in all cases. You know what insurance companies don't make that much money. People can get art them but all they are are administrators. Your COMPANY is not paying this or that . Not the insurance companies. This thread us tly hitting too many issues. While i could address them all in detail I'm glad joe average that do recognize the problems in europe as well. Ill just summarize my point the socialistic model is failing this country. Many of the problems we have now can be linked to too much government involvement in the process. (the housing problems? Ever hear of the great government agencies of fannie mae and freddie mac?) Governments push to make housing affordable to people who probably shouldn't have a mortgage to begin with?

Regulation has its place and so does some socialism. But right now MORE of it is not the answer. We need to get out of completely insolvent entitlement programs in order for us to see clearly and get our head on straight. Then apply the ones that are workable. You can't see the tide coming in if your head is in the sand.

Posted on Jan 19, 2011 9:04:16 AM PST
M P C says:
I'm still buying American and bought a GOVT subsidised, tax credited, GM 6.2 Ltr 403 HP AWD four door, gas gussling, nice looking, 1ST new vehicle I have ever owned.

I knew some day I, an average working American, would get a break on a vehicle, and I did.

I did quite a bit of research on trucks before I bought mine, mostly internet, unlike other countries that ban or regulate the internet (thank god I am an American),and drove several brands US and others ( In the US we have a choice), and bought an American brand Mostly US parts. I do what I can to buy and promote American because in my opinion, we need to support our way of life as best we can.

In my opinion, we can still buy American, even clothes and shoes, and I can find them on the internet and in America. Cost more, maybe, but we are worth it in my opinion.

It is funny that some say "the Plastic" is an issue on American vehicles. I have been to three vehicle shows in the last 6 months and I never looked at or in a vehicle that did not have plastic! It is what it is.

America is more important than any one of us although we are all important. We set a different standard than the vast majority of the world and do more for the human condition than most. Buying forigen cars will not kill us because of this simple reason,forigeners are buying our cars, even in China!! America helps keep a balance in the political, religious, and monetary world. Some forigen vehicles may be "better" in some specific area,but in the aggregate they cannot be that much better because they must compete in it class, but hey, it's your money and no American can tell you how to spend it!!
That's my .02 and I am sticking with it, and as American as I can!

Posted on Jan 19, 2011 9:14:49 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 19, 2011 9:20:48 AM PST
Joe Average says:
Mike - will probably be a very good vehicle if you treat it right. I find that though I seem to prefer vehicles that Detroit doesn't put much effort into, all cars these days are pretty good if treated right.

I'm going turbo diesel VW next time I've decided. Am confident that I'll be paying for for fuel over the next ten years (I keep a car a decade or more) and that the diesel mileage will pay off. At $5 per gallon a 40 mpg TDI saves me about $25K in fuel alone over an 18 mpg minivan burning $5 gasoline over 215K miles - the number of miles on my current Honda. There are some sloppy numbers in there. The TDI we've picked out gets more like 48 mpg on the highway and the minivan probably gets more like 24 on the highway. Gasline will likely be closer to $6 per gallon near the end of the VW's 215K miles.

Gasoline has doubled in cost over the ownership of our current CUV so I feel confident that it will double again during the ownership of the VW. I've had several VWs over the years and I have heard all the horror stories. I generally have very good luck with them - I've had problems but annual repairs costs have been about $100 for me. Just dinky plastic stuff that VW shouldn't have made out of plastic.

Congrats on the new truck. Love those new cars too.

I drove a 6.0L GMC 3/4 ton 4WD pickup for a while. Very tough truck but my needs weren't nearly that demanding (commuter duty) and in the end I got tired of the MPG.
Your reply to Joe Average's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 19, 2011 10:07:01 AM PST
M P C says:
Hi Joe A, I know 3 people who have or had the VW turbo Diesel, and overall they really like them. If one gets a bad tank of fuel (gasoline too) then it can be a problem, but not because of VW. I bet you will really like it from what I hear. The goal of saving money is a very good one and I agree with you that you will most likely save much on fuel. It sadly, was not my goal, and I will pay, probably what you save, or more!

My wife will be looking for an economical vehicle for us in a few years and I will look at the VW turbo, but will probably settle on one of the American branded products.

I am rual and do little commuter driving.

Another good thing on diesel is if we have another gasoline crunch we will still have diesel and it will not be near as high as gasoline under that senerio. That is due to processing of crude and distillation of the diesel process stream.

If it gets bad, I'll put the truck in the garage and drive the tractor (Diesel), slower, but it will get me there! Go! John Deere Go!

Posted on Jan 22, 2011 7:39:07 AM PST
Powerman says:
Stupid, self destructive Americans. Take down American companies and we're done... Enjoy it when you're living in your Toyota...

Posted on Jan 24, 2011 5:12:42 AM PST
Goat Herder says:
I'll drive American vehicles when I feel they are superior to other offerings. My 2005 Chevy 3500 Duramax dually has treated me well and so has my Australian built 2006 GTO. But I've also had good luck with the Hondas, Toyotas and Subaru's I've purchased. I still prefer my late 60's musclecars for what they are, classics. But I wish we could build a quality motorcycle that offered what the imports offer. Oh I can see the fire that will come out of that comment...to bad, I don't care. I'll vote with my dollars and when we build a motorcycle that offers the same quality and horsepower then I'll buy one. HD is getting better but they need to create something new and unfortunately they are forced to stay with their current offerings except the V-Rod which is a good step in the right direction. I refuse to buy anything due to peer pressure, name calling or whatever else someone thinks is a valid reason to force someone else buy an American motorcycle. If you like it, fine buy it. It's your money and if you're happy then right on and you're voting with your cash. Victory engineering is on target but I am not enthused with their designs especially the touring line. Patriotism is all well and fine, Lord knows I've put in 23+ years serving in the military and have as much of the right to voice my opinion as anyone else.

Posted on Jan 24, 2011 9:19:28 AM PST
Joe Average says:
The traditional American motorcycle rider seems to think in terms of V-twin engines. That's unfortunate b/c the import four and six and the BMW boxer twins are good designs too. I've owned a Suzuki, Kawasaki Concours, and a Honda 900 Custom with the 10 speed tranny (5 speeds plus high/low). All were good bikes. We've had Harleys in the family and they are fine but represent many shades of one basic style. Currently my father rides a Goldwing. Way too heavy for my taste. I lean towards sport tourers, dual sport and BMW bikes but I can appreciate that flat-six on the GoldWing. NICE engine. Harley has come a long way too but I zero interest in loud motorcycles (unfortunately the style these days around here) and as good as it is now - I don't want a V-twin engine.

Glad we have all the variety to choose from here in America - V-twins and the imports.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 27, 2011 8:47:46 PM PST
K. flier says:
You know, you didn't say what year it was... My brother had a Dodge Stratus from '94 it was sold with 255,000 miles on it. Sure it looked like crap, but it ran like a dream.

As to the topic, I find foreign cars to be over priced, and cannot hold up to the hype of having any better quality than any other car in general. In fact in my personal experience it has been the American cars that held up longer than Hondas or Toyotas.

Case in point, my last honda went about a year before any serious problems occurred. Compare that with my current car, a Chrysler Sebring with a 2.7l engine (look that engine's reputation up...) has been going strong for five years with no major, or really even minor problems.

The "American cars is bads!!!" point is really just a case of media hype in my opinion. The only criticism I usually agree with is that American cars have much cheaper interiors, a point which has been raised probably hundreds of times in the past ten years alone. Our dear domestic car makers finally seem to have taken notice in the newer Cadillacs.

Speaking of Cadillac, they tied with toyota in reliability in, at least, 2004. Currently at the bottom of the list in reliability are the much often considered relaible, or at the very least upscale: Mercedes, BMW, and Audi. Almost all American car makers clean the floor with these upscale Euro brands in terms of reliability, but you probably didn't know that since most of the car mags are owned by European countries... Even Ford is making gains on the Japanese.

All in all it's a matter of preference. Some folk like to think that by purchasing a foreign car they are either making an investment due to a higher resale value, or purchasing something of higher quality. Hell look at Toyota's semi-recent troubles, and the constant decline in quality of european cars like Mercedes, and you'll see anything can happen, and there are no gaurantees as much as foreign auto makers would like you to believe. So buy whatever car you want. There's always a chance someone f'ed up when they generated the reliability ratings for your cars a month before it even hit the market.

Bite me, and thanks for your time.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Automotive forum (328 discussions)


This discussion

Discussion in:  Automotive forum
Participants:  74
Total posts:  249
Initial post:  Jul 9, 2010
Latest post:  Jan 27, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers