How do American ideas of luxury compare to European ones?

In My Humble Opinion
61

I have a Jeep Cherokee. I consider it huge. It’s called a ‘compact SUV’. I considered a Honda Civic hatchback, but by the time I did they’d grown larger than one I drove and liked. May as well get the Jeep. I have a Prius, too. It’s not as tall as the Jeep, but it’s takes up as much floor space. Until the Jeep, I’d always driven small cars. To me, the Prius seems too big. My other cars are a '66 MGB roadster and a '63 Herald 1200 convertible.

I drive 200+ miles twice a week, so I see a lot of cars. I agree that monstrous vehicles like Escalades are not over-represented in this part of the U.S., but I still see a few. Most of the cars I see are ‘small’ (in the American sense) Japanese cars, lower-end American mid-sized cars, and large pick-up trucks. Many of the trucks are ‘work vehicles’ that have company names on them. Subaru cars seem to be extremely popular here. I see a lot of Toyota Yarises and Honda Fits and other cars whose size would not be out of place on European roads. Oh, I often see Smart Cars as well.

The reason American trucks tend to have a lot of power is that Americans like to tow their toys. Every driving day I see people towing travel-trailers, motorcycles, OHVs, and boats. The ‘working’ trucks are hauling all sorts of gear internally or on trailers. Because of the way Americans work and play, powerful trucks are often justified.

Now, the Herald is useless on our freeways. I talked to a guy last week who said he drives his 45 mph. I’ve had mine up to 70, and it was a struggle to get it there. 55 mph would be as fast as I’d like to drive it regularly. In many areas in this state the speed limit is 70, so you need a vehicle that will maintain that speed comfortably. This isn’t a problem with any new car I know of. I don’t know what motivates other people to buy the new cars they do. Small cars are inexpensive to buy, and that is undoubtedly a factor for many. They are efficient, which is a factor for others. Some people like small cars. (If Honda hadn’t super-sized their Civic, I’d have bought one instead of the Jeep.)

So I disagree that most Americans avoid small cars because they think they don’t have enough power to get out of their own way, or that they’re unsafe, or that they’re only ‘barely adequate’ for teenagers. The Chevy Sprint/Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift was a very popular car, even though it was very small and had a 1.0l three-cylinder engine. I still see several on the roads. Today many people opt for the BMW MINI or the Smart, or the Yaris or the Fit. I think that Americans would buy more Euro-sized cars if only there were more of them to buy.

But cars wasn’t really what I was thinking of when it comes to ‘luxury’. I was thinking more of overstated opulence and decadence like gold-plated toilets, which I stereotypically associate with American ideas of ‘luxury’.

62

I woke up this morning thinking Australians are the worst car people in the world, after Americans. There is no doubt in my mind now that Britons are worse than Australians.

63

Try asking a Brit for directions sometime. Make sure you’ve got the afternoon free before you do it. :smiley:

64

That would be a bizarre thing to think. Take a look at piston heads sometime.

Actually, why not go to their forums and ask if the Mondeo is a large car. Then you’ll get to see that everyone agrees with me :slight_smile:

65

BMW sells more 5ers in the US than all of MINI put together, Toyota sells more full size Tundras than Yaris and 4 times as many Camrys, and Honda sells more of their largest SUV, the Pilot, than the Fit. The MINI, Yaris and Fit are all popular cars in the rest of the world, the Fit has been the best selling car in Japan every year since introduction. They are not popular in the US because Americans don’t want subcompacts in general, and are certainly not willing to pay more than what the most destitute can afford which makes the whole thing a marginally profitable proposition at best.

I’ve lived in Britain for long enough. I have no doubt that PH is just as chock full of morons as any typical American car board. I check out the for sale ads now and then, it’s enough. Ford doesn’t sell an S-class or 7 series sized car in Britain, neither does Honda or Toyota, they do in the US.

66

Regardless of whether or not people consider the current Mondeo a large car, the fact is it is one. The old Mondeo was sized to fit perfectly into the repmobile segment, but all the vehicles in that market segment have in fact gotten bigger. The current Mondeo is actually larger than the old bug-eyed Scorpio - slightly longer and nearly five inches wider.

That has less to do with size as an absolute and more to do with snobbery; in the large car segment, Britons have always been loath to buy anything with a plebian badge like Ford. Back in the day, nearly all Ford Scorpios/Granadas, Vauxhall Omegas, Honda Legends and the like were fleet purchases, and lost 75% of their value more or less on the spot.

For whatever reason, the company car is becoming an increasing rarity in Britain, so the cars built to be company cars are too. It’s not as though nobody else sells big cars there; you can buy a BMW 7-series, Mercedes S-class (or a Maybach, for that matter), Rolls-Royce, Bentley, and so on.

67

ETA: Lurker, the current Mondeo is only 7 inches shorter than the current Mercedes S-Class.

68

Indeed; I think that poverty spec 3-series sell more than the Mondeo. Which - getting back to the subject of the thread :wink: - is something I think is reflected in “modern” ideas of luxury on both sides of the atlantic, that is to say new money - designers, badge snobbery, and so on. Old money has an equivalent, except that there’s less peacocking - obscurity is probably an advantage :slight_smile:

69

Also - the Lotus Carlton would never have happened in the US.

70

The fault of a certain one eyed scotsman.

71

Only, based on my casual observation over hundreds of miles per week they are popular, and most of the new cars I see on the road are at the smaller end of the scale.

Personally I think the MINI is overpriced. But if I were going to buy a new car, that’s not the deciding factor. For me, it’s that they require higher-grade fuel. That seems to go against the very concept of the old Austin Mini. It’s not the cost of the car or the fuel; it’s that for me the ‘idea of a Mini’ is violated.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. It sounds like ‘Americans don’t like subcompact cars because carmakers can’t make enough money on them.’ Americans don’t give a crap about profit margins. Most of us only care about personal costs. Yes, there are people who buy the cheapest car available. Nothing wrong with that. Yes, they might opt for a bigger car because they ‘get more’ with a bigger car for not much more money.

Many Americans do want bigger cars. But I contend that the apparent unpopularity of small cars has more to do with carmakers’ profits than public desire. If carmakers made more subcompacts, people would buy more subcompacts. This has been a problem with American carmakers for decades. In the '70s people wanted small cars, but the Big Three kept making land yachts. In the '80s people wanted smaller cars; but since Detroit was so slow on the uptake, people bought Japanese or German cars because they were better-made. In the '90s people wanted SUVs, and Detroit obliged. In the last five years people have been screaming for smaller, more efficient cars. But Detroit still insists that we want SUVs and trucks. They’re more profitable, therefore Americans want them in spite of what we say. And so we buy Toyotas and Hondas and Subarus. Do people still buy SUVs and trucks? Yes. Do people buy neo-muscle cars? Yes. But I see more new compacts on the road than new (combined) trucks, SUVs and muscle cars. If there were more small-car options, more people would buy them. Carmakers need to figure out how to make a profit on that model.

72

Sure it would. It just wouldn’t have gone round corners.

73

Americans have bigger families than most of Europe. When you are taking your two kids and their two friends (almost typed fiends) to soccer practice, you pretty much need a minivan or an SUV that can “sub” as a minivan. Can’t put a kid in the front seat. Have to be able to fit four kids. Even fitting three kids into the back seat of a Yaris is not easy or pleasant.

And with three, you get minivan. You can’t fit more than two carseats in a regular sedan, and kids now need to be in boosters until they are 21. (I’m exaggerating, but I think in Minnesota its now EIGHT).

(We have two sedans - and don’t haul our kid’s friends around - we are the exception.)

74

The average number of children per household with children in the UK is 1.8. The figure for the US is 1.86. I’m not seeing a compelling need for minivans.

75

It always has, if only because the 3er is a smaller car akin to the Focus or Golf, the 2 perennial best selling cars in the UK.

Your casual observations have certainly trumped the actual sales data released by the car companies. Well done sir.

Small cars today are probably more popular than they were in 1999, but they are far from popular in an absolute sense.

People buy Toyotas because Toyota has a full range of large cars and SUVs. Off the top of my head, RAV4, Highlander, 4Runner, FJ Cruiser, Land Cruiser, Sequoia, that’s 6 SUVs just for the Toyota brand plus Lexus RX, GX, LX. Three of those are $70,000 V8 live axle body on frame trucks. Honda doesn’t sell as many SUVs, so that’s why they have a smaller market share. Subaru doesn’t sell any large SUVs at all, only small and midsize SUVs, hence they are the smallest. Most Subarus sold in the US are SUVs - the Forester is by far the best seller, followed by the Outback.

Car making is a very capital intensive business. A large portion of your costs are fixed. The plant, machinery equipment and labour costs to make a Honda Fit are not really much less than that for a Ford Expedition, but the big car can sell for much more, and has much higher profit margins.

Here’s an article.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/14/weekinreview/the-nation-making-tons-of-money-and-fords-too.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Only 10 years ago, Ford’s Expedition and Lincoln Navigator plant was literally the most profitable manufacturing concern on the face of the planet. They had already bought 3 European carmakers and it was widely expected that they were going to just buy BMW outright. There was absolutely no end to the capacity of Americans to pay $50k for a $15k truck.

Conversely, Honda makes a very good subcompact, but even the best $15k subcompact has a razor thin profit margin. GM usually loses money on their subcompacts and only made them to placate the UAW before moving subcompact production to Korea. Honda makes the best of a rather dismal situation - import only a very small number of Fits from Japan, sell them to the very few number of people who desperately want a good subcompact for MSRP+. They don’t make much money in absolute terms, but their marginal cost of making an extra 50,000 Fits is fairly low considering they sell 400,000 a year in the home market (which incidentally is about as many Silverado/Sierras as GM sells in the US). They don’t lose money, but if GM came out with a super duper subcompact and stole 100% of their US sales next year, they won’t worry about it much.

If the US increased the cost of gas to $8/Gal, and started slapping 15% VATs on cars and also started heavily taxing vehicles based on curb weight and size, you’ll get your subcompacts, because just like the average Briton, you won’t be able to afford anything else.

76

An average Briton could easily buy a used XJ40, say, for a grand, and use the money saved over buying a new Focus or whatever to subsidies the running costs. Whatever it is that stops people getting larger cars it certainly isn’t total cost of ownership. There is also no way that the 3 series would have been outselling Mondeos fifteen years ago.

You also got the taxes wrong - newer cars are based on CO2 emissions, older ones are on engine capacity. And of course vat is now 17.5%.

77

No, it always hasn’t. The 3 Series had never even made it into the UK’s top ten by year until 2003, while the Mondeo has been in the top ten almost every year since its introduction in 1992 (and its predecessor, the Sierra, was in the top 10 every year).

ETA: Incidentally, the Golf has never been either the best-selling or second best selling car in the UK, and has only been among the top 10 since 1999.

78

A late 1980s Jaguar for a thousand pounds? Of course, that sounds like an excellent proposition. I can’t for the life of me think of any reason why the average Briton hasn’t done exactly that. It certainly isn’t because of the cost of ownership, what?

79

You would be surprised, the later models (around when the 3.6 became 4 litres iirc) were far more reliable than they were given credit for.

And the savings on cost over some new grey box pay for a lot of additional maintenance and fuel.

I may be somewhat biased as I have fond memories of mine.

Of course there are all kinds of other things people could get. Heck, mentioning the old Scorpio, iirc there was a Scorpio Cosworth and I expect you could probably find one for a few hundred quid, and it’ll almost all be motorway mileage as well. People’s car choices are not rational.

But the main thing I’m saying is small cars are nothing to do with poverty.

80

Might not cover the twenty extra days of work you miss each year because the fucking thing won’t start. Honestly, you’d have to be insane to buy an old Jag unless you just wanted a car fill in the negative space in photographs of your driveway.