If you are a giant loser like me you may waste untold amounts of time looking at cars that are unavailable in the US (I guess I should clarify american loser, possibly redundant). In some cases the car is available, but a certain configuration is not. I see that the Mazda Premacy in Japan (sold as MAZDA5 in US) comes with an AWD/4WD option, but in the US the MAZDA5 it is FWD only.
Does anyone have an insight into the process for these kinds of configurations making it across the Pacific? Would it be reasonable to expect that maybe this would be available here next model year? Like they are just testingthe waters and then they save somethign to show as “now only available for 2008”.
Or are these types of options left out due to regulation or market hurdles that would not be resolved in the near future? For example I understand that most cars are available with a diesel engine elsewhere inthe world, but not here and that is due to many factors like emmissions standards and demand in the US.
I used to have a Toyota Camry All-Trac (all wheel drive). Loved it, and had 186,500 miles on it (in Vermont) before I sold it to a mechanic. It was still running. They’re not available anymore, and I have no idea why. That car was awesome - it’d crawl up the side of a cliff in winter, and the only thing that slowed it down was very deep snow, which you really should have a high-clearance truck or SUV to navigate. I miss it.
That is a complicated question. It is extremely expensive for manufacturers to certify cars for U.S. sale. There are a bazillion safety regulations including safety requirements and these may not be met by cars for sale in other countries even in the same brand. When manufacturers decide what models and versions of models to offer in the U.S., they try to figure out what to offer to maximize their investment. Every option adds up-front costs and they may not get that cost back if they don’t sell enough cars with it.
That means that it is unlikely for manufacturers to revisit the decision and offer a previously unavailable option in the U.S. market. You also get into chicken and egg problems like with diesel cars. Car makers find it very hard to offer them on passenger cars because people aren’t used to them, mechanics aren’t used to working on them, and many gas stations don’t offer diesel fuel.
It would probably be possible in theory to get special approval for one of those cars but it probably wouldn’t be practical for a normal person. Likewise, manufacturers sometimes introduce things from overseas markets but the odds of that happening on a given vehicle aren’t that good.
Yet another argument for selective homogenization of US import and automobile regulations with CE (European Union) regs. Of course, that would mean increased competition for Detroit automakers…sigh
Stranger, don’t lose site of the fact that the Detroit automakers are global companies, and are highly profitable and competetive everywhere on this world except the USA. They know how to meet regulations everywhere in the world, and such standardization wouldn’t impede them.
Truth be told, US regulations are among the most strict, so such a standardization would lead to a lessoning of our regulations or increased competition to the other guys as they have to meet US-style specs globally.
also there is the “stock-keeping-complexity” agument … for every different model you bring in, you need to keep all the spare parts in stock, even for several years after the model has been discontinued … and thats literally 1000s of parts which sit in stock (keyword: working capital) and sit and sit end eventually sell …
for the same reasons automobilistic spare parts typically have a 3 digit markup
If there was sufficient demand for an AWD/4WD Mazda5 in the US I imagine they would consider importing them, assuming they could pass whatever safety tests they have to pass. But car makers often like to hedge their bets and not take any unnecessary risks. Will adding this particular car, with this particular option, increase sales enough to justify the added costs of supporting it?
As mentioned earlier there are lots of indirect costs associated with introducing a new model or a new option (such as a diesel version). I bet that some smart people sat around a table and discussed whether it made sense to offer this particular option on this particular model in the US as this time. It doesn’t mean they won’t change their minds in the future…
I know that you can purchase cars overseas and bring them into the US and get they legalized somehow… but my guess is that it’s more trouble than it’s worth.
Well, exactly; loosening standards and removing undue impositions on import products as opposed to domestic cars. This has always been a problem with the Japanese regarding trucks.
And while it is not inaccurate to characterize US regs as being more strict, it is also the case that in may ways they are just inconsistant with European regs-; it’s not just a matter of relaxing requirements but of homogenizing US and European regulations. This is of course is a highly political issue (as opposed to a technical or strictly economic one) and there is a lot of inertia against harmonizing regulations to permit greater trade.
Lexus, Acura and Infiniti are basically japanese cars (available in Japan as Toyota, Honda and Nissan) that are manufactured in Japan and modified for left hand drive.
Oh, yeah, on the import – I was thinking globally, since in the big picture the US is a big part of the pie. Things are pretty much pretty leveled off here, though, as everyone has an equal piece of the pie, more or less. The Americans’ problem is they haven’t reduced capacity sufficiently to deal with the fact that not everyone wants a Taurus because there is now selection available. Hell, I don’t want one. Luckily, not everyone wants a Camary, either.
The Japanese problem with trucks isn’t regulatory so much as identifying their market. Toyota’s done supurbly with trucks for years, and their low numbers are really an indication of “buy American” rather than anything fundamentally wrong with a Toyotoa pickup. The failed Japanese trucks are the same as the failed American cars – just not building to the right taste. The new Honda “pickup” is a curious beast, though. It doesn’t sell to truck people, but it’s doing fairly well. It’ll be interesting to see how it does in the long term when the novelty’s worn off.
It can get even more complicated when you consider who buys platforms from different companies, and who owns different parts of different companies, and what deals they have carved out.
I’m not saying this is the case (although it very well could be) but Ford uses Mazda plaforms for different vehicles (I think they own a chunk of Mazda, too) . Ford’s deal to buy the platforms might prohibit Mazda from selling a specific model, such as an AWD Mazda 5. Heck, Ford might just decide that AWD cars cut into once very profitable SUV sales, and therefore no AWD Mazda 5s will be sold Stateside.
Another factor is that they may have a strong competitor in the US for a given market. Like here, AWD family car equals Subaru. If you don’t think you can beat them at their own game, it’s not worth the fight.
Well, it’s not quite as simple as all that, although for practical terms I guess you could perceive it like that but with a lot of footnotes. One thing that Ford does do, though, is take Mazda platforms and adopt them to their own products. The previous Escort was one such beast, and it was really underappreciated because of the Ford logo. Pretty much all future unit-body vehicles coming from Ford will be on a Mazda platform, as well as a fair number on a Volvo platform (currently the Five Hundred and Freestar already are). The venerable Ford Mustang is built in a Mazda-Ford joint venture plant along side the highly-rated Mazda 6. People that don’t look at Fords because they’re American junk are stuck in the 90’s.
Philster, for what it’s worth AWD != SUV, since a very good number of SUV’s don’t even come equipped with 4WD or AWD. Most people in the country (SUV owners included) don’t ever need 4WD; they just think they do because it’s been drummed into their heads so much. For average drivers, the best thing you could possibly have is ABS (and I stress “average drivers” because invariably there’s someone who’s better off without ABS). That said, I don’t know why Mazda doesn’t sell an AWD Mazda 5 in the US. It could be simple engineering and marketing reasons. You can’t just turn any car into AWD unless it was designed into the body structure from the beginning.
There is a little write-up about this topic in the current issue of Cycle World in the letters in the Service section. Although that specifically talks about motorcycles (all the best bikes are only sold in Europe), I’m sure the same is largely true for cars as well. It mostly reinforces what has already been mentioned. The biggest cost-drivers for bringing a new vehicle to market in the US is certification and the support infrastructure.
A new vehicle must meet DOT and EPA standards, and this is a very expensive process. Even though the EU environmental standards are generally more stringent than the US standards, it doesn’t mean it’s automatically certified, either. It still needs to be tested here.
Second is the support network. Service techs need to be trained, parts need to be stocked, a warehouse network established, any specialty tools needed for maintenance distributed, parts and service manuals translated to US english (that means units of measurement too).
Both of these mean that a vehicle that would appeal to only a small segment of enthusiasts in the US (I’m looking at you, ER-6n :mad: ) wouldn’t be profitable enough to sell in the US. That’s another point, too. A car may sell enough to cover it’s support costs, maybe even turn a small profit, but companies are in the business of making money and expect a certain percent return on investment.
To nitpick, Lexus cars are available in Japan under that name, now. And, even where there are Japanese versions of cars sold in North America, the latter models are far more than just “modified for left hand drive.”
RE: my suggestion - Ford keeps AWD Mazda5 out of US market to prevent it from nibbling away more profitable SUV sales.
I was not offering that as the de facto explanation, just offering a very likely scenario, since the OP was priming us for speculation.
Additionally, one does not need to demonstrate that all SUVs are indeed AWD/4WD to substantiate the suggestion that keeping out foreign AWD models could be wise market strategy to steer consumer to SUVs. Since SUVs were very profitable, since US auto makers depended greatly on SUVs for market share, and since SUVs were almost the exclusive source of domestic AWD/4WD for families, one would be reasonable to suggest that the lack of AWD sedans from American- controlled, foreign-owned automakers could be the result of a business decision to not sell them in the US to protect the SUV market.
