supermono said:
Keep in mind it is not just the overall quality I wanted to poll, but also the consistency of assembly. Then we would know dealers speak the truth when they say "they're all like that".
I also think that we should not have to consider who built the car, if it is marketed at a certain level, then the finish and consistency should be appropriate. In my case I am talking about a BA Fairmont Ghia, the luxury model in the Falcon range.
Ford pitch this car directly at people who are also looking at precision built German (ie Volkswagon Passat) and Japanese (ie Honda Accord) vehicles.
It must easily be the most profitable car for Ford in the Falcon line up as you pay bucketloads extra for the extras that cost Ford very little more.
Having driven an XT, Futura, Fairmont and Fairmont Ghia, I have found little or no difference in the build quality between them, only the additions like climate control, slightly different seating materials, different instrument cluster colours, traction control, alloys ..etc. The dashboard was made of the same "dog-nose" textured plastic in all models, and the cars build and ride felt pretty much the same in terms of tightness and feel. (slightly harder/stiffer suspension on the Ghia which I dont particularly like..). Paint jobs were the same - typical two coat enamel. Take a Merc, BWM or Porcshe which gets 4-5 coats....
Ford makes a bucket load of $'s on the upper models, and try to justify the extra cost via the features like climate control, different instrument cluster colour, traction control, 4 x alloys and a Fairmont badge. Is anyone going to seriously tell me that those extra's cost an additional $10k ???? Ford would probably try to justify it by saying that different materials (quality!?!?), and manufacturing processes are in place to build the upper models, and adds to the unit cost. Paying more for something 'different' is at the heart of marketing ethos, and thats why people get ripped-off.
I remember reading an article in a BRW magazine about 3 years ago that made an estimate at the unit pricing for the average Australian car (Falcon & Commodore), which was put at between $10-12,000 each (base models ). The article was just before the introduction of the GST, and was based on how new car buyers would save, but how these savings would be 'eaten up' by the car company's within 6-12 months - which happened ..funny that - what happened to our GST savings ??? (thats for another story..).
My estimate is that Ford is making at least a 50% margin on its base models, and even more on the upper models. This doesn't include the bullshit "on-roads" you end up paying the dealer to take the plastic off the seats, fold out the mirrors and give it a wash.
Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that consumers are being "taken for a ride" when it comes to the upper model spec cars if they are expecting higher build quality, because I KNOW its not there......not the ones I've driven anyway. The falicy is even deeper in resale value, as the upper models hold their value better, because the 'perception' exists that they are better cars by virtue of their features, and probably quality. Although the fact remains that their quality is the same as the base models.
Its also based on what your definition of "quality" is. My definition is "how well something is designed, manufactured, sold/supported and performs in undertaking a certain function.
The Falcon does the job very well, but could be better. eg ..the 2 or 3 recalls doesn't help, cheap internal materials, the 'good-enough' paint job, 4-speed auto (should be 5 or Continuously variable by now..), steering wheel rattle/shudder, brake shudder, window glass rattling when door closed with windows down..etc..etc (just read the problems people are having on this forum..).
At the end of the day, a Ford is a Ford. And whether I bought an XT or a Fairmont Ghia, I'd expect (& get) the same 'quality'.
...And damit, I'd miss the above problems if I went and bought a Merc or BMW!