I drive an XF too … except it’s the XFR 
Safety is another area where there seems to be no correlation between expense and protection in a crash, among European cars at least. Looking at the Euro NCAP results in detail, both have good safety ratings, but the Kia Cee’d scores marginally better in a frontal impact than a Jaguar XF (impressive, considering how little bonnet (hood) the Cee’d has compared to the XF), while scoring significantly better in the pole side impact test. The latter is meant to simulate sliding your car into a tree or lamp-post (estimated to be the end result of one quarter of serious or fatal car accidents in Europe). You can see the two videos here and here.
There is a strong correlation between the age of the design and safety. Most newer designs than the Cee’d and XF score a bit better, while cars 5 or more years older score significantly worse on average.
You have to be very careful with comparing frontal impact results. The European test runs the car on rails into a stationary object. The amount of energy in the collision is thus a function of the car’s mass. By symmetry this does not simulate a frontal collision with an arbitrary other car on the road, but a collision with a car of the same size. Thus a micro car, and a large car can score essentially the same, but have vastly different actual safety margins. The safety rating would suggest that if the Kia had a head on with the XF, the Kia would protect its occupants better. Of course that isn’t the case. The XF is a vastly stronger car. The sad reality is that in such a collision, at more than about 60km/h (i.e. 120 km/h closing speed) the occupants of the Kia would be seriously injured or die whilst the XF occupants probably would walk a way.
The US tests are more sensible, and you can get quite good summaries of the results which allow more clear understanding of the results.
Good point about the frontal impact tests, I think you are probably right.
The side impact tests should be directly comparable, as the test rig and post are run into the side of the car at the same speed.
And it’s not just the test, but the national standards. The US is tougher. I’m not going to say who does what where (employment related), but key difference among the “same” cars in some countries can be: the use of boron steels in some structural components versus using milder steels; whether a rear bumper is under the rear fascia or not; whether the cross-members in the doors are intended merely to prevent oil-canning or to help prevent intrusion during a crash; whether such-and-such reinforcement is needed in market x.
I’ve been involved in the engineering of a number of vehicles including mass market and luxury. Let me see if I can summarize the differences between a cheap car and an expensive car.
Feature Content:
This would be all the gadgetry like nav systems, higher quality stereos with more speakers, heated and air conditioned seats, etc etc Of course lots of this stuff is available in cheaper cars as optional content, but luxury brands often have more exotic features, or have the features as standard content rather than optional. Many of the exotic features in luxury brands work their way downmarket pretty quickly.
Craftsmanship / Fit & Finish:
Some craftsmanship features will be the same or even better in a downmarket vehicle, like gaps and margins in the body panels. Other things, add cost to include, like higher quality leather/plastics/trim, sound deadening material, dampening of covers or glove box, special finishes like wood, carbon fiber, brushed metal, etc.
Performance:
A higher performing vehicle costs more to produce. More power, whether through a larger engine or engine technology, grippier tires, suspension features for superior handling, additional safety features, lightweight materials, and more durable components
Low volume:
A more expensive vehicle usually means lower sales volumes, and lower sales volumes cause a vehicle to be more expensive… Investment costs including tooling and engineering are spread over fewer vehicles.
Reliability:
Generally cheaper cars will be more reliable, as there is less gadgetry and technology to go wrong. Mass market vehicles, including luxury brands, will be much much more reliable than exotic vehicles (Bugattis, Ferraris, Astons, etc) due to both the advantages of mass production, more prototype testing, lower performance requirements, and different customer expectations
Styling:
A comment was made about why mass market vehicles don’t have the sleek styling that very expensive cars seem to. Part of this is the compromises that a Maserati owner is willing to make compared to a Focus driver. Style often means compromises to other attributes such as rear seat room, trunk size, visibility, etc.
That’s everything I can think of off the top of my head.
Clearly there are many differences, but in my mind a lot of the price difference comes down to marketing.
I’ve known Americans to be astonished to find out that in Germany (and many other parts of Europe), Mercedes sedans are used as taxicabs - rather than as the expected expensive luxury vehicles.
then, of course, there’s Bayerische Mist Wagen.
But typically not the same models we’d consider luxury sedans - they just have non-luxury vehicles that they’ll sell in Europe but not here.
I read somewhere that the reason that Mercedes doesn’t sell the A-class cars (its smallest models, including a four-door hatchback that resembles my Honda Fit) is that the exchange rates make it unprofitable to do so.
I think it’s far more likely that the market for A-segment cars is not yet worth putting any effort into. e.g. the Smart Fortwo hasn’t exactly been a home run in this country.
I rented a Mercedes SUV in Belgium in late 2009, and I though, “Great! I’m going to get to drive a Mercedes!” It was a mediocre rattle-trap with a barely functional satnav that I’d rate to be on par with a Chrysler.
welp, given that Daimler was entirely responsible for Chrysler’s woes, that’s rather… apropos.
Have you ever driven a BMW or Mercedes?
If you were to drive a BMW 330 and then a Ford Contour (or whatever), you’d notice a definite difference. The BMW just feels different. The ride, acceleration, handling, responsiveness, everything about the driving experience is just completely different.
Mercedes has claimed at different points that both the weak dollar or the weak euro prevent the A-class from coming to North America. The reality is probably just that the A-class has nothing to distinguish it from the other subcompact snoozemobiles already sold here and doesn’t justify a big price premium to make it worth MBUSA’s time, especially since it would risk tarnishing the high-end reputation of everything else they sell.
If they had a genuinely interesting subcompact like what BMW did with the Mini-Cooper the story might be different. Having another brand to sell it under wouldn’t hurt either-- maybe if the Chrysler merger hadn’t been such a debacle, we would have seen Dodge-branded A-classes.
The A-class isn’t that small-- it’s about the same size as a Yaris or a Fit (or a Mini, for that matter).
So would you drive a car that looked like a Contour but drove like a BMW? The fates of the Pontiac GTO and G8 say otherwise, though the Cadillac CTS did much better, with its distinctive look.
There is a middle ground, like the Hyundai Genesis, which is a luxury car at sub-luxury prices. Others like the new Buick Regal are showing that Detroit can take a significant step forward, even if it’s by leaning on their European designs.
That, and the fact that in many countries, it’s a tax write off.
Yeah, but if you drive a Ford Contour and a Ford Mondeo from the same year, you’d also say that everything about the Mondeo was just completely different. American manufacturers have historically detuned their products to meet “American tastes.” That trend – fortunately – is changing.