there's a common misconception among people that non-US cars aren't as safe as US cars because cars destined to be sold here have to go through lengthy certifications and modifications for them to be road legal (costs up to $2 million per car)... major modifications such as bumpers make people think that when someone else imported a JDM bumper, their car is instantly unsafe when it is installed... I've seen the "don't do it" posts everywhere on the internet, have you?
Specifically, within the context of this conversation, I have not seen anyone state or imply that a european car is less safe, simply that different safety standards require different production standards, and this costs money.
When I make the point earlier in the thread that different regulations have different vehicle requirements and meeting these different requirements costs money, and you eventually respond to that idea with "Don't think that the requirements are 'less safe'" I have no idea why you are bringing up a rebuttal to a point that I did not make.
Perhaps you should argue what is said in this forum, and not ones that have been made on other forums by other people.
I don't make s*** up, simple as that
I, uh, don't believe I said that you did.
preventing vehicle importation/exportation through regulations effectively limited the big 3's options on what and where it could sell without incurring huge costs
In what sense? Be specific here. I can think of at least one case where importation regulation in the 90's prevented Japanese automakers from trying to get in on the U.S. SUV craze for many years, allowing the Big 3 to corner the largest growing market segment (at the time) in the world's biggest car market. In that case, the regulation effectively allowed the Big 3 to make billions and force the Japanese automakers to incure huge tariffs for shipping fully built vehicles classified as light trucks into the U.S. This made it virtually impossible for them to sell their vehicles in the U.S. (at least at first) at competitive pricing, effectively keeping them out of the SUV market for a very long time.
(at that's a simple fact... never mind that in the past 15 years there was the SUV craze... there were people overseas that wanted them too...
Not to the same extent as in the U.S. Go look at automotive market share broken down by vehicle type in each major market. SUV demand is/was much higher in the U.S. than anywhere else.
you argue that different markets demanded different types of vehicles, so what about the japanese?
What about them? They were entirely unable to make inroads in the U.S. until the first oil crises, lost ground during the 90's when oil prices were low again, and are once again benefiting from severe fluctuations in oil prices. I'd say that this is a fairly clear indication that when cost is a limited factor in vehicle upkeep (IE: fuel costs) Americans prefer American cars.
WHY were they able to build "world cars" that could be sold anywhere in the world with few modifications?
Because they globalized. I never said globalization was bad, simply that localization in their product offerings was a fantastic strategy for the U.S. companies for a very long time.
the bottom line is, the big 3 didn't care to do any of this s*** (ford tried half heartedly with that a few times in the past 30 years)
They didn't care to do any of this s*** because they didn't have to. They built cars made for Europe in Europe and made a lot of money off of it. They built cars and trucks and SUVS made for North America in North America and made a lot of money off of it.
and their overhead costs were enormous because of that...
Their overhead costs have only become enormous
recently.
you can also say that their so-called "world cars" didn't sell well in one market because it wasn't meant for it...
Not because it's not meant for it, but because no one wanted it. Selling a car like the Ford Ka in the U.S. 10 or 15 years ago would have been suicidal.
I think it's a very good excuse. They were making money hand over fist all of 10 years ago. It doesn't make sense to sell something in a market where it won't sell. Ford wanted to sell the Euro Focus here all of one vehicle generation ago, but decided that Americans are too fat to fit in it comfortably, so they built one two inches wider specifically for the different needs of the market, for example. Smart move? I have no idea. But there was at least a rational behind it.
it's just more the reason to put more effort into designing a better car that can sell everywhere... WHY has the toyota corolla and honda civic been so successful?
You're looking at this in a kind of strange way. Look back real far and you'll notice that in the early 80's the Big 3 got beaten to the small car market segment punch by Japanese companies, which allowed them to get a foothold in what is ultimately a xenophobic market. In the 90's, the small car segment was shrinking. Now it's growing again. Those two cars are in part successful now because of a long standing reputation they have built upon and in part because the Big 3 have never really tried to move into the segment with any sort or urgency, always making enough from trucks or minivans or SUVs. They've never really had much to offer in these segments, at least in the U.S. The Focus competes very well with these cars elsewhere in the world, however. The Honda Civic is also a singularly bad example to use because it is yet another car where Europe gets a different version than the Americas.
http://www.motiontrends.com/2005/m08eng/honda/civiceu.shtml
Most companies do stuff like this. The U.S. doesn't really like hatchbacks so they don't bring over a lot of hatchback vehicles here where as in Europe they love them. Small cars don't sell well so we don't get things like the Mazda2, and it took forever for Smart to try selling the fortwo.
because those 2 companies put effort into making a car that sold equally well here as in asia...
I don't think you really understand how many differences there are between vehicles on a market to market basis.
hell, even the germans have been able to build and sell their cars all over the world with great success... it all comes down to competition... detroit limited their competition on purpose in hopes that they can keep selling their buckets of s****
If Detroit limited its competition on purpose in hopes that they can keep selling their buckets of s***, they would not also have been developing cars either under their own brands or under other badges they owned for various other markets. And yet, the cars they have built that are good that you seem to like were still being developed.
There are a lot of factors that dictate what products are feasible in any given market that you are ignoring. There are the tastes and priorities of American drivers to consider (things like "buy American" and "I want a bigger car because I feel safer in it" and "I want something I can tow a boat with to my cottage" and "I want something big enough for me, like so many other overweight Americans", and on and on it goes), the differences between American roads and European roads (3 lane highways that go everywhere as opposed to needing to use a B-road to get to where you are going), different fuel price pressures (2 bucks a gallon versus 8 pounds a gallon), on and on and on the list goes. Different insurance systems and different rates play into it. Gas guzzler taxes aren't as oppressive in the U.S. You do not pay taxes on vehicles based on their carbon footprint in the U.S. The availability of credit plays into it. Xenophobia plays into it. What everyone's parents drove plays into it. Not wanting your neighbours to think of you as unpatriotic plays into it.
It's not some massive stupid conspiracy that globalization of the automotive segments hasn't quite reached American shores. It's also not something unique to the Big 3, as I just showed you with the European Civic.
