Ovaltine

Hey Wingbender! Your post about Ford's use of plastic(s) caught my eye. I've been railing about their composite intake manifolds for quite awhile on here. My neighbor just got the final word on whether Ford would reimburse him for the replacement of the composite intake manifold that cracked, emptied his cooling system, and almost fried his motor while driving down the highway in the Detroit area. My neighbor ended fixing the manifold on his own dime, since it was long after the original warranty. Ironically, the new design composite manifold has a *metal* portion now where the radiator hose attaches. When the class-action suit for getting repairs and reimbursements for repairs made was announced, my neighbor's hopes were raised that he'd get some of his repair costs back. Guess what? *ZZZZZzzzzzzttttt* He's getting Zero, Zip, Zilch, Nada. Ford worded the settlement so that they only had to fix or reimburse repairs that occurred *less than* seven years after the car's initial warranty period started. Since his car is a '96, that means that his 7 year warranty on the manifold ended in 2003. What year did the failure and repair occur? 2004. Mileage at the time of the repair? Approximately 80-85k. Totally average. Now you tell me that Ford didn't have someone in statistics and engineering spin the service/repair database around a few times and crank THAT stat out. I would lay money down that engineering figured out that the manifolds were good for at best 7 years on average, so that's where they drew their line in the sand to minimize payouts. So the $735 my neighbor deserved is down the crapper. The irony is.... he works at Ford. My years spent working for a small company that did dealership and marketing analysis for Ford definitely makes me feel that the data analysis scenario I describe above for determining the timeframe for repairs/reimbursements is plausible. Only the people in Dearborn really know for sure. -Ovaltine

Yes..... we do think. My thoughts at the time when I was attempting to purchase an decent, affordable, and feature laden economy car were: "Geez..... I hate the Neon. The PT Cruiser looks like an underhood maintenance nightmare and costs too much. I don't like the Focus and the treatment I've received in the past at Ford dealerships. I don't want to pay a premium for the Civic. The Corolla is too boring. Hmmmmmmmm. I WONDER what my alternatives are???" Then.... I read THIS article: http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...article_id=8206 The rest is history. So to answer your question, yes drivers of Hyundai's and KIAs DO think. They just think thoughts relevant to the main topic at hand..... buying an automobile. The thoughts of who made the parts and who screwed them together comes second. Sorry.... but's that's just the way the world works. Find me another product category where the consumer base acts differently, besides domestic purchases mandated by the government due to national security. -Ovaltine

Does this mean that the entrenchment of Ford Motor (and VW and Chrysler) in Mexico is destroying Mexico's industrial base? And that being said... would you rather the Mexican Ford workers purchase Mexican-made Volkswagens or Chryslers instead of Mexican made Fords? And before you say that Mexico doesn't have an industrial base to destroy.... who's to say that it's not the presence of VW/Ford/Chrysler down there that is preventing a true Mexican domestic car industry from being created? Here's a good little essay compliments of the "Auto Prophet". I think he makes some very good points in it. http://theautoprophet.blogspot.com/2005/12...y-american.html Rethinking "Buy American" "I have always been a "buy American" advocate. But I am seriously beginning to rethink this position. It is becoming hard to defend simply, and I hate convoluted explanations. "Buy American" is a difficult position to explain nowadays, because there is no such thing as a purely American made car. Our "domestic" automotive companies are all multinational behemoths, with divisions, plants, suppliers, customers and shareholders scattered over the globe. For example... Is a Chevrolet Equinox an "American" car? The engine is made in China, and final assembly is in Canada by CAW organized labor. Is a Ford Fusion "American"? It is assembled in Mexico by non-UAW workers, and because it is a platform-mate of the Mazda6, probably has significant Asian parts content. Is a Mazda6 "American"? It is assembled in Flat Rock, MI alongside the Mustang from a mix if domestic and Asian parts. Since it is built by the UAW, UAW members are allowed to buy them. But 2/3 of the profit goes to Japan. A Saab is built from European sourced parts by Swedish unionized labor. Profit goes to GM. OK to buy, and still feel patriotic? Chrysler is now owned by Daimler, if you take home a 300, are you buying American or German? How about a Honda Civic? Assembled in the U.S., with 70% domestic parts content, but the company is headquartered in Japan, and the workers are non-Union. (Dennis Kucinich says "not American"). I had convinced myself that the key was to follow the profits. For example, since GM is headquartered in Detroit, has (mostly) American shareholders, and pays taxes in the U.S., buying GM was the patriotic choice. The American companies support our communities directly. But then again, where does Honda buy all those domestically sourced parts from? The domestic carmakers want the benefits of my patriotism without any sort of return commitment. A company can't wrap itself in the flag and shout "Buy American!", while at the same time offshoring as much business as possible, laying off blue and white collar workers. Ford closes plants in the U.S., while increasing capacity in Mexico. All of the big three lean on their suppliers to move production to China, to cut costs, or risk losing business. Or they refuse to pay fair prices, and drive their American suppliers into bankruptcy. Who do they expect to buy their products if they help to decimate their customer base, the lower middle and middle middle class? Who will remain committed to their product? As the global trend continues, the picture will get even more fuzzy. You will walk into your Chevy dealership, and be offered a compact car designed in Korea by GM Daewoo, built in Canada, from mostly Korean and Chinese parts. Or you may walk into a Lincoln dealership and buy a luxury car based on a Volvo platform, with a Japanese sourced engine, assembled in the US. Eventually, the new Chrysler you are interested in may be assembled in China from German and Chinese parts. I am still rooting for Ford and GM over the foreign-headquartered competition. So much of Michigan's economy relies on their success, it is suicidal for me not to. But "Buy American" is becoming a harder case to make to anyone who lives outside the industrial midwest." -Ovaltine

I thought *this* part of the forum was entitled: BlueOvalForums > Product Development Center > The Competition I guess you want it to be renamed: BlueOvalForums > Product Development Center > Why The Competition Sucks and Ford Doesn't -Ovaltine

C'mon guys. It's an E-zine test. In the world of publishing, I think the term "long term testing" qualifies on *any* report where the driving goes beyond a few days or weeks like most articles are structured around. I think the longest "term" I've seen in any magazine is around 40k miles. That's about all the miles you're going to see a publication willing to invest into *any* testing. Soooooo.......... we'll qualify the term "long term test" as used in the article I contributed as being a "magazine long term test". Using that standard, then YES, your 2002 F-250 is an example of "long term reliability". And keep in mind here, the initial article was dealing with a *Korean* car. I DO think that 15, 20, 30, 40k miles without any problems are good benchmarks to indicate "long term reliability when contrasted to other Korean cars from the not too distant past. -Ovaltine

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=105138 Here's a editorial that best describes the surprise of auto writers regarding KIA's apparent conversion from POS makers to manufacturers of decent little cars. And on a side note, many of you on here may be interested (and possibly inspired and/or comforted) by this recent turn of events in S. Korea: Hyundai, Kia assembly lines halt as union goes on strike http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/01/hyundai...goes-on-strike/ Members of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) went on strike this week, shutting down various Hyundai and Kia Motors factories in Korea. According to a KCTU representative, around 150,000 members of the 800,000 strong organization have abandoned their posts in protest to a new government bill allowing employers greater use of sub-contracted and temporary workers in the workplace. -Ovaltine

Ya mean somethin' like this? "The Audi in turn influenced the Ford Taurus, an American made sedan from 1986." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_5000 1985 Audi 1986 Ford Taurus And for the record... I *liked* the '86 Taurus when it came out!!! -Ovaltine

From the description of the article below, Michigan is suffering from much of the same economic problems as Georgia (if not more!) Why couldn't Michigan be a consideration for KIA? From what I've read, a southern location is probably more viable due to the proximity to Hyundai's southern Alabama plant suppliers. But is that the ONLY reason why KIA couldn't locate up here? -Ovaltine http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/...173.A10076.html Georgia Gets Kia Nod? South Korea's second-largest automaker, Kia Motors, is considering building its planned U.S. plant in the state of Georgia, not in Mississippi, a local report from the latter state said. Since last year, Kia Motors, an affiliate of South Korea's top automaker Hyundai, has been looking for a site in the U.S. to set up a production line. Company officials were quoted that Georgia is the most probable candidate, unless other states offer unprecedented incentives. Georgia has been a frequent loser in the bidding for new automotive plants. Just last year, DaimlerChrysler officially quashed plans to build a Sprinter plant outside Savannah. Ford had identified a site in Meriwether County on which had intended to build a new plant, only to cancel plans and eventually, announce the closing of its Atlanta plant. Last year, Kia officials were said to have chosen a site in eastern Mississippi for the plant, but that may have been done to encourage other states to sharpen their bids. If Georgia does win the battle of state incentives, it will be out of keen economic need. The state is faced with the loss of about 5000 jobs in the next two years as Ford closes the Hapeville plant that builds the Taurus and the Doraville plant that builds GM minivans. Both plants are in the metro Atlanta area, while the site of the new Kia plant would likely be a Greenfield location on the I-85 corridor linking Atlanta and Montgomery, Ala., the site of Kia sister company Hyundai's new assembly plant. Georgia is also facing the bankruptcy of Delta Airlines and the loss of a huge military base within the city, Fort McPherson. -Peter Chang and Marty Padgett

Here's one of my favorites from the era being discussed! Here's what the Chevy's look like that they're thinking about copying.... (Again... my favorite of the era) -Ovaltine

Hey everybody.... get ready!!! I'm going to post something *negative* about an Asian product!!!!! (Note: I've been accused of pledging "allegance (sic) to the asian automakers" in the Competition forum) Okay...okay.... here GOES! Maaaaaaannnnnnn......... that Tundra is one *nasty* (i.e. ugly) looking truck!!!! Blech!!!! I'll say this much regarding the "asians" on this topic..... they can kiss their chances of competing goodbye until they hire some honest-to-goodness North American stylists/designers for the bodywork. I'm not sure what it is, but they (collectively) haven't had a decently "styled" truck since the old Datsun days! The Chevy "Luv" was sort of sharp too. I always thought that it had more style than the old Ford Courier. Remember those? -Ovaltine

First off, I hope everyone understands that my 'FATWA' reference above regarding Kev's post was due to the irreverent reference to 'God'. My comment had nothing to do with Kev's opinion of Asian cars. I figured that this would be obvious in light of the Muhammad cartoon business these days. Secondly, could someone PLEASE show me the post where I state *or even allude* to my desire that the U.S. auto industry fail????? I think Tim's statement above is a good example of a classic "Strawman Argument" in the world of logic and critical reasoning. Here's how it works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument. One can set up a straw man in the following ways: Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation. If someone were to retrieve all of my posts on this forum and line them up, there is not ONE example of where I write or allude to what he accuses me of. I guess you can infer your thoughts regarding my posting motives, but that's ALL they would be... inferences, and misguided ones at that! Just because I've posted some points critical to Ford Motor Company and it's products does NOT necessarily mean that I want Ford to fail. Several others who have posted here and written me personally with supportive comments have a much more accurate grasp of what motivates me. After working at Ford (and vendors working for Ford) processing quality-related data, I understand more than most people how important critical feedback about a company's products is! Again... if anyone bothers to take the time to reread my posts, the criticism is offered up in a way that *should* be deemed as constructive. The one thing I *have* seen on this board is a huge prejudice and totally inaccurate perception of competitor's vehicles. If I appear to be a huge defender of lowly KIA, it's only because much of the commentary on their most recent products is inaccurate and simply prejudiced rubbish. To underestimate the strength of one's "enemy" (or ignore your *own* weaknesses) is one of the most fatal mistakes opponents make in "warfare". Read this section of Sun Pin’s Art of War:, and apply to the concept of automaking, and I think you may start to see why criticisms of your company's own weaknesses CAN'T be ignored: In a section entitled "military defeat," Sun Pin notes again the need to adhere to yin and yang. For example, to "contend with the enemies strength" instead of striking at his weaknesses brings about defeat through the "maltreatment of one's own forces." Furthermore, even if one has knowledge of tactical formations, knows the terrain, and seemingly has the spirit of the people behind him, it is still possible to fall into a trap or difficulty because of ignorance and lack of understanding of the limits of national strategy. (National strategy can be defined as the goals or objectives of the politico-military posture of a state. If the national strategy does not complement the actual political reality of a state, there develops what is termed in the modern world a "credibility gap." Disaster and defeat, according to Sun Pin, are imminent when a state has a positive and forward national strategy and there exists within that same state a political situation that will not sustain and support such a strategy. Other aspects that lead to defeat are listed as the failure to take advantage of opportunities, ignorance of one's mistakes and errors, lack of insight into changing circumstances, doubts and anxieties, lack of comprehensive preparations, and politico-military policies that are not in harmony with the psychology and desires of the people. Regarding my "allegiance" to Asian automakers......geez...... I've purchased *one* KIA after 27 years of domestic ownership. I've still got 3 domestic vehicles at home, 2 Chevy's and a Ford. I thought that I made that point pretty clear in several posts, but I guess I have to again. Please try to not assume where my "allegiances" lie without a few more facts available than a handful of posts on BON, okay? So far the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr trio are keeping their noses clean defects-wise, and there are many accolades being posted by owners. THAT IS GREAT NEWS!!! The 500/Montego twins get an undeserved rap regarding their styling, and again they seem to have the quality boogyman at bay. That info, coupled with their safety ratings make me think that these are truly fine cars. THAT IS GREAT NEWS!!! The new Mustang is a kick-ss car, and I've even expressed interest on these boards about selling my '88 LX 5.0 and getting a new Mach I if they ever come out with one (AND I can afford to). THAT IS GREAT NEWS!!! There.... I've compressed into 3 statements the same positive things I've said about Ford in my previous posts. But objective reporting is a double edged sword. I *still* think my KIA Spectra is also one great little car, and that impression was thoroughly confirmed by 5 days recently spent in a rental 2004 Nissan Sentra while a scratch on my car was being fixed. The Sentra was basically late '90s technology, and I loathed that car. And it wasn't due to it being a rental..... it was due to the design of it really sucked from my perspective, esp. when contrasting it to my newer design Spectra. I guess Nissan's got a new Sentra coming out next year, so even THAT comparison won't be accurate in just a few months. Funny how perceptions work, eh? So... no one's uninformed comments about "Korean sh-t" is going to nullify what my own experiences show me. And getting back to the "Art of War" message above, I'll defend positive experiences or observations I make about foreign cars on this "competitors" forum JUST SO DOMESTIC-ONLY LOVERS AND MANUFACTURERS DON'T GET TOO SMUG OR COMPLACENT! In any case, that's my response to Tim's question(s), for those who were the remotely least bit interested. -Ovaltine

Yet... if we were all Islamic on here, we'd be putting a FATWAH out on kev's head, and we'd be protesting in front of BON HQ for publishing the offending remark!!! I agree though... the original comment conjures up a humorous mental visual. -Ovaltine

Excuse me, Mr. Navigator Grill Designer! I found this in the studio. I believe it MUST be yours! :lol: -Ovaltine

But don't forget all of these vehicles that Ford deemed a timing belt good enough for: FORD OHC TIMING BELT REPLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS http://www.aa1car.com/library/2004/us70444.htm * 2.0L SOHC Focus (2000 & up) - 120,000 miles * 3.0L* V6 Mercury Villager (1993) - 60,000 miles * 3.0L* V6 Mercury Villager (1994-2000) - 105,000 miles * 3.0L V6 Taurus - 100,000 miles * 3.2L V6 Taurus SHO - 100,000 miles * 1.6L*, 1.8L, 1.9L Escort - 60,000 miles * 2.0L diesel (1984-'87) - 60,000 miles * 2.0L SOHC Escort & Tracer (1999) - 120,000 miles * 2.0L Contour - 60,000 miles * 2.0L* Probe (1989-'97)- 60,000 miles * 2.0L* DOHC (1999 & up all models) - 120,000 miles * 2.0L 4-cyl Ranger pickup - 60,000 miles * 2.2L* Probe - 60,000 miles * 2.3L 4-cyl Ranger pickup - 60,000 miles * 2.3L Mustang & T-Bird - 60,000 miles * 2.5L 4-cyl Ranger pickup - 60,000 miles * 2.5L V6 Probe - 60,000 miles But........ I'm not trying to advocate that a belt's better than a chain. Given a choice, I personally *would* prefer a chain because I'm cheap. :-) I applaud Ford for heading away from belts, as a former Escort owner. I just wanted to point out to unknowing that read these boards that Ford did indeed too have a *major* love affair in the recent past with the utilization of timing belts. If the competition wants to take one from Ford's playbook, this one's a good candidate. -Ovaltine

I can't help but to call you on a few of your claims above, Kev. Check out these comparison stats between similar Ford and Asian products mentioned above: Toyota Avalon Curb weight: Automatic (lb.) 3600 lbs http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/toyota/avalon/compare/ Ford Five Hundred Curb weight: Curb Weight - Automatic 3664 lbs http://www.automotive.com/2006/12/ford/fiv...pare/index.html Toyota Camry Curb Weight - Automatic 3108.5 lbs http://www.automotive.com/2006/12/toyota/c...pare/index.html Hyundai Sonata Curb Weight - Automatic 3265 lbs http://www.automotive.com/2006/12/hyundai/...pare/index.html Ford Fusion Curb weight: Automatic 3280 lbs http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Re...S180.A9208.html KIA Spectra Curb Weight - Automatic 2903 lbs http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/kia/spec...pare/index.html Ford Focus Curb Weight - Automatic (lb.) 2654 lbs http://www.automotive.com/2006/12/ford/foc...pare/index.html The question begged then is, if these Asian cars are built so much "lighter" than the Ford products, why are their weights either nearly equal to, exceeds, or are less than 200 lbs lower? What are the Japanese and Koreans putting in their cars to balance the scales..... rocks? My "light" Spectra weighs more than 200 lbs more than a Focus. If anything, the Spectra is probably dependent on too much metal in some areas where it could have been shaved out! I can't speak from first hand experience about your Toyota and Honda observations, but hopefully they are more accurate than your KIA exclamations. My Spectra does INDEED have a "soft" and padded dash, armrests, door panels, etc. In my car your statement about "being able to touch it" holds true. If I can touch it... it's soft/padded. I *like* that. To be fair, the new Rio isn't as plush, but it's truly an entry level econ-car. My "light" Spectra's "cheaply" contstructed doors are double sealed, and leak no air when driving down the highway at 75+mph. The "light" chassis structure allows no body flexing/creaking/groaning when driving over bomb-cratered Michigan roads, and no rattles can be detected after 18k+ miles. The Spectra also has a split fold down rear seat, which means that it's NOT dependent on a rear bulkhead for rigidity. The Spectra's rear suspension is a multi-link Mazda-style design, which allows it to place mid-pack in road handling performance in the Cobalt/Focus/Mazda3/Corolla/Spectra shoot-out. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/...tes/index8.html On the topic of "door dings", just check any parking lot with a few last (and next-to-last) gen Tauruses and Sables in it, and you will see the automotive "Door Ding King(s)" of all time. The design of the vehicle sides are likely more at fault here than the metal... but who knows? All I know is that those cars will most likely have several dings in each side. So.... dings aren't just a "cheap import" problem. Finally, you can see from above that there's only 64 lbs difference between the Avalon and the 500, so I suspect that your anecdotal observation of "I guarantee it has more metal then an entire avalon's unit body with all panels and doors hung" is less than accurate. I'm *sure* that the 500's Volvo engineering does indeed impart many useful safety cage innovations in the 500/Montego that the Avalon may not share. But to make the blanket statement above without checking basic vehicle specs isn't being very fair and honest to the reader. Ultimately, being a reasonable person, I would have to suspect that many of your observations above are true to some degree. I'm sure that Ford and it's vast global engineering resources have created some pretty neat designs and features over the past few years. Ford's efforts in safety should be applauded, rightfully so. But keep in mind that Ford has also been subject to millions of dollars worth of personal injury judgements related to unsafe vehicles. I'm sure that the old adage of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is being verbalized more than occasionally in the halls of Dearborn. In closing, it's my belief that a competitor's products shouldn't be decried as "shoddy" just because certain portions of their vehicles are constructed with a cheaper or more cost effective solution that performs the basic task of that part sufficiently well from the consumer's perspective. If Asian imported vehicles were as shoddy and decay prone as you describe above, I *think* the "consumer word on the street" would be more audible, and the sales of said vehicles would be spiraling downwards. I don't think pure media hype would be enough to overcome P.O.ed customers with voices. -Ovaltine

I agree with you 05Stang on this one. I've *always* thought that the exhaust pipe hanging down low on Camrys looked really cheesy AND ripe for being caught on something and ripped off. Does any one have any idea as to why they would choose that design? Maybe the GM engineer who designed the catalytic convertor hump in the passenger footwell of the Camaro/Firebird took a job at Toyota! :lol: -Ovaltine

TBH: I can see the irregularity in the fender/door gaps just fine, but I really can't make out where the gasket's protruding on the door/window frames. Can you either circle them in an updated graphic, or describe the exact spot a bit more. The protrusions I originally referenced were at the top-most corners of the side windows on either side of the 'B' pillar. Your photo appears to be related to the 'C' pillar. Are you talking about the little bit of rubber that sticks out where it crosses the rear door's small fixed window pillar? Thanks. -Ovaltine

I'm now driving a 2004 Nissan Sentra from Enterprise Rent a Car due to my KIA Spectra being in the body shop. Someone scuffed the corner of the front bumper fascia when my wife was driving it. DOH! But back to the Sentra..... All I can say is that the current Sentra is a literal pain-in-the-butt (and back!) compared to my new gen Spectra. The Sentra's standard 1.8L runs pretty good, and it isn't a rattle-trap. It also handles corners pretty well. The trunk is fairly large too. It's longer than the Spectra's due to a more pronounced trunk sticking out the back. But beyond that I realllllyyyy dislike this car. The interior ergonomics are pretty poor, and the overall feel of the interior is way below what I'm used to in my Spectra. I *hate* the front seats. I cannot get comfortable in the driver's seat at all! They're hard, and they pinch the back. I also can't get the seat bottom adjusted properly to eliminate the pressure that's being put on my lower back. There is no way I could ever take a trip in this car. I put in 5 hours on my Spectra going up to Traverse City once, and felt totally great when I got out of the car. With the Sentra that wouldn't have been possible. Many of the standard features I'm used to the Spectra are missing on the Sentra too. The back seat legroom is almost non-existent too when a normal 6' person is sitting comfortably up front. There's pictures of a 2007 Sentra that's forthcoming, so I'm sure that car will be *much* better than the current one. But to answer the original question, I can DEFINITELY see why Nissan's sales are off.... esp. if they're dependent on Sentra sales very much. -Ovaltine

I agree with you on the issue of the new Rio's pricing. KIA's going to have to get "real" with the pricing because as you said, there's a LOT of competition in the $13-15k range. Heck... I only paid $13,300 (before taxes) for a fully loaded new gen Spectra..... a way nicer car from several aspects. That included auto, power moon roof, alloy wheels, power windows/locks, tilt, cruise, intermitent wipers, spoiler, etc. I think KIA's holding back on incentives to test what the market will bear regarding prices. I suspect that they'll be putting some money on the table in the near future due to the competition if for no other reason. -Ovaltine

Drod: Glad to hear the positive review of your Fusion. I am totally impressed with the overall state of 4 cylinders these days in many of the different makes. My Spectra's got a 16 valve CVVT pulling nearly 140 horses and it has plenty of power. A friend's Accord I rode in recently had a 4 cylinder that I swore was a 6! So I totally believe you when you say the Fusion's 4 banger runs well. I totally understand the issue of "prestige" and being younger. In all honesty, if I was 20 something again and still in the dating scene, I'd probably be less likely to want a KIA because of the perception. That said however, my 2004.5 Spectra is heads and tails above the previous gen Rio in the looks and exterior/interior quality department. Also, the new generation Rio that was just released is getting rave reviews and blows away its predecessor. In any case, I'm glad to hear that your humble wheels treated you right though while you were in college! And yes... the resale issue is one of the last mountains Hyundai/KIA has to climb. A lot is linked to the whole "prestige" thing you mention above. I suspect that as they finish the quality ramp up across their entire lineup over the next year, and *if* the J.D. Powers awards continue to come in (3 in 2005), AND the body style/designs continue to improve, then the resale value of the Hyundai/KIA line should *at least* fall in line with the average domestic vehicles. Time will tell. Enjoy driving the Fusion. Btw... what happened to the 'Stang??? -Ovaltine

I agree with you on this point. When looking at the Ford Festiva, Ford Aspire, and the early Sephias and Sportages, I see a company that is no where near "ready for prime time" in the U.S. I wouldn't have touched any of them with a 10 foot pole. A few folks on here will find it hard to believe, but up until 2 years ago if someone would have told me I'd be driving a KIA, I would have said they were nuts. But then lo and behold, Car and Driver after blasting the prev-gen Spectra (a pre-Hyundai merger design) a year or so earlier, writes an article that says they can't get over what a turn-around the next gen car is. The article basically says that at the beginning of the test that they aren't expecting much from the "new" car. But that all changes soon after they take delivery and start driving it. What caught my eye in the article were these 3 paragraphs: "Rounding out the long list of standard features are an adjustable steering wheel, a CD stereo with six speakers, a 60/40 split-folding rear seat, and variable intermittent wipers. All of these niceties complement an interior that offers 97 cubic feet of passenger space—more than any of its competitors, and even outdoing some upscale Euros, such as the Volvo S60 and the Audi A4." "Speaking of the A4, the Spectra appears to have knocked off the Audi’s hind end, wearing similar wedgelike taillights and a sloping trunklid. You could also argue that the Spectra knocked off the Audi’s quality standards; the new car’s panel gaps are minute. Its doors close with a comforting thud, and its interior fit and finish is premium. This is not your cousin’s friend’s Kia." "On the highway, the cabin is a place of Lexus-like serenity. The ride is smooth yet never feels like the dampers have been swapped for wet sponges. The loosey-goosey steering sense is gone, replaced with an effort and feel that clearly relays the front tires’ attitude. And the brakes offer up a firm and reassuring pedal feel. A switchback sign is now an invitation, not a warning." http://stage.caranddriver.com/article.asp?...article_id=8206 After a year and half of driving and 18k miles later, I can honestly attest to the above being absolutely true, in addition to the other facts and opinions C&D shared in the attached article. And in regards to your reference to Hyundai, it is precisely this new alliance that makes me believe that the combination of the two companies is going make a formidable team in the low to rapidly increasing mid range market. I read a article recently that said that the brand KIA buyers consider most when purchasing (besides Hyundai) is Chevrolet! Probably due to the direct competition to Cobalts and Aveo's. The new Optimas and the Malibus will be a pretty good match-up too. Again I agree with you. This is another one of the more obscure reasons that I think Hyundai/KIA can't be discounted. From the articles I've read in Fortune, etc. they have some economies of scale going for them big time. Remember when Henry Ford had his own ships, rubber plantation, steel mills, etc.? Sounds kind of familiar, eh? Again.... I'm not posting this stuff just to p-ss people off on here. I'm posting it to make sure that the people reading threads like this one don't take too much comfort or satisfaction in all the outdated or misinformed postings claiming that Hyundais and KIAs are junk....crap.....only purchased by "credit criminals" (I like that one... it's rich!), etc., etc. Remember.... the British Parliament constantly told Churchill to p-ss off in the late 1930's when he tried to warn them about the German military buildup and that the time was now to stop them. They called Churchill a "war hawk" and a "war monger". Even if you're NOT a history major, you KNOW how that one ended up! -Ovaltine Paul: Thanks for the commentary. I'm glad that the point I was trying to make here wasn't lost on everyone. -Ovaltine

Sort of like the Escort--->Focus, Tempo--->Contour, and Taurus--->Fusion name transformations, eh? Hold the flames.... I know that all those name switches weren't just because the preceding model were lemons. BUT.... as the owner of two of those models and knowing many people who owned the others, each came with their own set of "quality baggage" that Ford was MORE than happy to leave behind as the new name took/takes off. That cannot be denied. First off, I purchased my Spectra through an exclusive KIA dealer. There's at least 3 of them in the metro-Detroit area that I'm aware of. Secondly, this info is per the American International Automobile Dealers Assoc. (AIADA) website back in Sept 2005: http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=48618 MB = Marty Bernstein, Editor of AIADA PB = Peter Butterfield, CEO of KIA NA at the time. MB: How many dealers does Kia have in the U.S.? PB: We have 650. The really significant thing we committed to our dealer organization four years ago was that we were not going to add more dealers. Four years ago we had 610 or 620 dealers and our volume is up dramatically and we are holding the same number of dealers. Our business strategy is to drive through put up, not drive volume by adding stores. So far we have been successful with this. MB: What was the time period of conversation/switch to exclusive dealerships? PB: The program, called the Circle of Excellence program was launched in April of 2003 and over 24 months. I don’t think, Marty, that any manufacturer ever has shifted their dealer network that dramatically from duals to exclusive. MB: That represents a hefty investment per store doesn’t it? PB: Yes, it’s a $3 to $5 million dollar investment per store. But we were able to move quickly because the dealer body trusted us when we said, “We are going to grow our volume, but not by adding dealerships.†This created an environment that was a low risk, but high reward investment opportunity. We have stuck to our word and have not added more dealers. MB: I’ve never, ever heard of such a quick turnaround … PB: We are very proud that our retailers responded so quickly and dramatically to the Kia franchise. That is, I believe, one of the key reasons why we are accelerating growth now. We are delivering most of our cars through exclusive dealerships. MB: Changes in the dealer organization structure and organization usually foster acrimonious, confrontational relationships with dealers which results in lots of law suits – did this happen to Kia? PB: We had 40 exclusive dealers in 2003. We now have 400! Without one lawsuit; not one litigation, not one challenge filed. We were very sensitive when we rolled out the program and involved our dealer council and the entire dealer body for more than one year of work before the program was introduced. In February of 2002, when I took over as CEO of Kia, I told the dealers we were going to require exclusivity in the future. MB: That caused a little tension, didn’t it? PB: Not really. The dealers knew for a year it was coming. I worked with the dealer council before it was introduced and went on the road to talk to our dealers in 10 cities. I told them what we planned on doing, and asked them what they thought about it? We sat and discussed it in every major Kia market in the country. Two months later we announced we were going to do it. We involved every key dealer in America eight months before we launched. Changes had been made based on their input. By the time they saw it, they knew it. There were zero issues in implementation. It was a very friendly dealer way to launch a major change initiative. The success has been proven. I think that there's a very good chance that both the overall resale values and safety ratings will climb on KIAs as the remainder of their model line is updated over the next 12 months. Out of curiousity, what year did you last sell KIAs? I suspect that much of what you describe is anchored in the reality of the late '90s, but I encourage you to visit one of the dedicated dealerships described above and look over the new product line over before you deem purchasers "credit criminals". Brain dead or not, Dan Lienert isn't the only making statements similar to this: "The Watch List -- Hyundai and Kia: Sales will continue to go up, more upscale customers will come to the brands, and Toyota will continue to fear the Koreans more than any other competitors." http://www.forbes.com/2005/12/12/automotiv...automotive.html also..... January 8, 2006 DETROIT (Reuters) - South Korea's Kia Motors would aim for a double-digit percentage rise in U.S. vehicle sales this year driven by six new product offerings including the all-new Sedona and Optima models, extending its growth streak to a 13th year, the chief operating officer of its U.S. operations said. In 2005, Kia sold 275,851 vehicles in the United States, up 2.5 percent, for a market share of 1.6 percent. That makes the fledgling South Korean brand bigger than Japan's Mazda Motor Corp., Mitsubishi Motors Corp. and Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.'s Subaru brand. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/20...s_sales_growth/ Yep, yep, yep. The ranks of "credit criminals" must just be a swellin' out there! -Ovaltine

If you feel strongly about your car, then why haven't you? In the process you might actually make a few converts to your "side" AND/OR learn a few really interesting and neat things about other car makes that you didn't know before! I know that I've learned quite a few interesting (and positive) facts about the various new Ford models from this board. BUT the difference is that I don't go decrying those positives if I happen to notice that the other vehicles I drive don't compare equally. And btw, I've been lurking on this forum since the day it opened and Ford internal docs were being published in their entirety. I'm not a recent immigrant from the edmunds.com or Autoweek's Combustion Chambers. You forget (or are unaware) that I've owned a whole bunch of Fords over the last 27 years, and currently still have an '88 LX 5.0 (mint condition!) in my garage! Signing off..... for now. -Ovaltine

Michael: In the city I park in, that last open spot I squeeze into may be the *last* one for over a half mile. I'm not kidding. So parking my car in "intimate" spots is sometimes a very real necessity for myself, and the rest of my brethren commuters. And as I described in my original post, those several (aka: WAY more than 2) inches I gained allowed me to exit my car in a comfortable and dignified manner, instead of trying to limbo over my center console. My whole basic point was to point out a feature that many of Ford's competitors (the least of, being "lowly" KIA) deem attractive and usuable. If the competition didn't think the feature was useful or appreciated by their customers, they undoubtedly WOULDN'T PUT THEM ON! From your post it appears that just because you and Ford don't deem a feature useful or required, then the feature is either unnecessary or stupid. What kind of logic is that? Yes... I was aware of the type of lights you first mentioned. I've seen them on several kinds of pickup trucks. I was simply pointing out that my (ahem) "piece of crap" KIA has a similar standard feature that serves the purpose you described. Those lights on the bottom of my doors light the step-out area well too. My final thoughts on this topic are echoed by this statement in yesterday's Free Press by Mark Phelan. In his article he states: "After decades of declining sales and market share, Ford's top executives acknowledged Monday that the company can't survive if it keeps bringing its B-game to American customers." http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006601240375 In my opinion, it's the little things that the consumer sees and touches, coupled with great styling and high quality that make a true "A-game" manufacturer. All I've tried to do is point out a few of those "little" things to some of the eyes at the "Glass House" that may frequent this little Ford oasis on the Internet in hopes that improvements in future (and possibly current?) models might occur. -Ovaltine

Tim..... the last time I looked at this particular part of blueovalforums.com, the title was: "The Competition - Be it GM, Toyota, DCX or Honda.....this is the place to discuss the enemy" Doesn't the term "discuss" used above cover the act of comparing of the offerings of two car companies as I have? Or does it only infer that this forum is for bashing and disparaging other non-Ford related makes. I'm confused. In any case, you'll probably NOT want to frequent this section of the forums much, since these kinds of topics and discussions DO arise. You also accusing me of "trolling", but according to Wikipedia, a troll is: "In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll I don't think I have been rude or offensive on this forum dedicated to discussion Ford competition. Nor have I attempted to distrupt any discussion on here. To the contrary, I am attempting to foster discussion about Ford Competition. Now I may be guilty of upsetting some folks on here, but that is not my intent nor within my control to prevent. 'Sorry. I appreciate your candor and politely written response though. Too many folks traipse out the epithets and vulgarities when they encounter individuals they disagree with. Btw, am I allowed to say something that could be deemed as positive about the Fusion here??? I saw the most Fusions ever in my daily trip to work this morning. I think it must have been at least 6 or more. I don't think that this was because I was being any more observant than usual either. B) -Ovaltine