Maybe this is in the wrong spot, but Id just like some feedback on an idea Ive had for some time.

Between working at a car dealership and having rented cars, Ive done seat time in a bunch of different midsize sedans and econoboxes. Theres not one shred of real, substantial difference in any of them. I think Chrysler, GM, and Ford are wasting a grip of money, spending billions each for different tooling and development and coming up with basically the same thing. A taurus, malibu, and stratus are the SAME FREAKING CAR. They drive the same, handle the same, basically look the same. Theyre transportation devices, not real cars. Why not pool resources and build one thing, figure out among all 3 makers who has the best engine, transmission, etc and put the best, most reliable and efficient pieces in one standardized bodyshell. Dont bother giving it a name or tons of options. Call one the Chrysler 2008, GM 2008, etc. Have one base model with the most basic of equipment and one upgraged one with power everything, nicer interior, sunroof, etc. The same car could be bought from all 3 makers' dealers with the only variations being the colors offered by each maker and the badging from one of the big 3. Do this for all sedans, minivans and crossover SUVS. People who buy these types of cars cars are doing so from the same perspective: "Its a tool, I need it to get from point A to point B, so who cares what it looks like or how it drives?" These types of vehicles are appliances more than cars. So why not treat them that way, and make it work to our advantage? Some entire nameplates like Buick or Mercury could have their entire lineup done this way. It'd save money and their target markets wouldnt know the difference.

Another thing is, the Big 3 should make a deal with the Feds that they can regulate and set the standards for safety, mpg, emissions, etc all they want on these generic 'transportation device' class of vehicles. This will be the majority of whats sold, since they're bought as basic transportation and its all according to need. Additionally, I also think there should be another class of drivers license. Anyone can get a standard license for transportation devices since these would be the cars that have all the idiot proofing such as ABS, stability control, etc.

With the whole hybrid/electric thing it makes even more sense since the buyers of these are even LESS into cars than those who drive standard sedans. So why not make one universal thing? GM and Chrysler are already doing a joint thing with the hybrid systems on the SUVs. So why not go full monty with it?

The idea behind this is that the costs of shared tooling and development would plummet, quality would skyrocket and people with your perspective would be happy. You could beat the camry at its own game and for thousands less money. People who want to buy american would do so and once they found that quality was superior to toyota theyd stick around.

On the other hand, performance cars, offroad vehicles, pickups, sports cars, etc would be considered recreational vehicles much like ATVs and motorcycles which have little or no government regulations watering them down or holding them back. These would be the cars and trucks that would be developed individually by the 3 automakers. These are the vehicles that inspire people to want to be automotive engineers and designers. So why not deregulate them, strip them down to only whats needed for performance, handling and style in the case of cars, and for trucks and 4x4s decide whats a work truck and outfit it to do its job unhampered, offroaders like Wranglers could be stripped down and built for pure offroad performance and durability. The idea is, it would raise the bar for what makes a car a REAL car. Whether they were performance cars, or offroad vehicles, theyd become the epitome of what that vehicle is supposed to be since it would cater purely to the enthusiast. In Chrysler's case, so much R&D money would be saved by the joint venture on basic cars plenty would be freed up towards developing the Challenger, Viper, Ram and Wrangler into the very best they can possibly be. GM and Ford could develop their 'excitement cars' and introduce new ones and it'd be like the 60's muscle car wars all over again and something equivalent for fans of the Wrangler, bronco, Hummer, etc.

Of course, no restrictions on there use would ever be allowed and you'd have to make sure that was chiseled in stone and guaranteed never to change. But you'd have to apply for a different class of license and pass a test showing you can handle a 300 hp muscle car or offroad vehicle. If you could do that, you'd obviously be a more skilled driver and it might qualify you for a break on your insurance premiums. The idea here is, emissions, mpg, etc are negligible since they arent generally everyday transportation and people who buy them do so for specific reasons that demand top notch performance and durability. Also, whens the last time you saw a bone stock Jeep or mustang? These are typical 'gearhead rides' and people like myself who own them want to trick them out and squeeze all we can from them. Government regulations just get in the way of all that and theres no real reason for it. So, without all the federal crap holding them back the prices here drop also, quality rises and the enthusiasts are happy as well.

 

You're talking about years of debate in Congress, years of working out the specifics, and more years of getting everyone to agree to everything. Not to mention that the original "playing field" that was in place when all this started won't be the same whenever it might get finished and the cost of these changes would be out of sight.

Good ideas come to mind much faster than anyone can act on them......

I think (hope) that the #1 priority of the next President will be to get our sick economy back into something close to healthy. If that doesn't happen, we won't have to worry about "vechicles"......we'll all be walking, riding bikes, or taking the bus (if we have a job to go to)......

Dusty

 

Well like I said its just an idea. Outside of the human element, theres really no good reason why this couldnt be implemented right away, and the costs really would be much less if you think about it. The premise here is that its a lot MORE costly to individually design the same thing 3 times. You have to engineer it, then there's tooling costs. All of this could be spread out.

The problem with government is, this would actually be giving some power and choice back to us and thats just something government cant handle. Even though thats not only the right thing to do, its also whats best for us as individuals and the nation as a whole. Something like this would only bounce the economy right back.

 

If someone wanted to "fix" the US auto industry, it's really not that hard. Give the people what they want and need. Simple concept is'nt it. Why are there cars available for sale today in Europe that get 73mpg on the highway and 53mpg in the city but not here??? They are available in 71 countries but not here!!! Maybe because fuel has not hit almost $10.00 a gallon. The technology is and has been available for years. Very rich people who have a lot (billions or more) to lose would not like it if our fuel consumption were cut in half. I was stationed in Germany in the Army in the early 80's and met someone who had a Volkswagon Siracco that got over 50mpg all day long on the autobahn if kept under 65mph.
People want good choices---vehicles that are easily owner serviceable---use common parts easily available---get good mpg for cars--- will outlast the payments by at least 2-1---don't rust out---don't tell on you or e-mail you---don't dent so easily. We went through the gas crisis 40 years ago, ya think they would learn---not---or were paid not to. Sorry for the rant, I don't feel any better!

 

If you were to do that, it would be called creating a monopoly (not the game.) William Harrison moved to outlaw monopolies after the problems with Rockefeller and Carnegie. There would be no competition to keep the price of the vehicle down, and, why bother making a good vehicle? They can put out a complete POS and you will have no choice but to buy it. In theory, it sounds great, but it plainly will not work.

 

I'm tired of hearing "Give people what they want and need"; because people's wants and needs are completely different. It would be completely impossible to try and satisfy everyone. There are already thousands of different styles of vehicles for all types of uses for everyone. If you aren't happy with anything thats out there; especially what the big 3 produces...YOU NEED HELP!!!

 

I was raised in Germany and later stationed at Hahn Air Base (Air Force, not "B" Battery Nike missile Army troops) and driving on the autobahn at under 65 mph was an accident waiting to happen......but I know what you're getting at......

Dusty

 

First of all, the Taurus & Stratus the same? The Taurus is now a full-sized car and the Stratus has been discontinued. The ones to compare are the Avenger and Fusion with the current line up. It is obvious that Ford and Chrysler have put no effort into these cars when the platform isn't even their design.

Why do you think that doing more of sharing and borrowing will help this situation? This is precisely what Chrysler and Ford have done. The fact is these segments deserve a more primary effort considering how big the market is for this segment. Toyota and Honda make this segment their top priority and although I think their offerings are disgusting, they take the spare no expense, use the best technology we have available approach and this is why they have been taking sales away from us for years. Chrysler hasn't been willing to use their best or even their second best V6s available in their mid-sized cars because they always want to save those for the larger vehicles, and then they loose sales to Toyota who is not afraid to offer the same engine in either the Camry or Avalon and lets the more sought after car win. Ford still doesn't want to offer a better engine to make the Fusion anything less than boring. They just want to continue to sell the 6 clone the way it was when Mazda first released it in 2003 with the only improvement being the 6-speed auto.

Also the Malibu although I agree was lame in the last two body styles, finally is half way worth looking at now that the interior looks neat and the exterior although I think it's still ugly, it at least isn't boring anymore and they have a competitive powertrain for a change.
The only way this segment could become less competitive and sell worse is precisely doing this. It would take probably fifteen years between models and they would probably cost about $50K at cheapest for the most basic models. The Gov't can't do anything efficiently or anything in a way that is in touch with what the American people want. One danger with this is if you did this, the power hungry politicians would want more control over the rest of the segments.
This is something that I might agree with you on. Cars like this take a consierable investment and so far the Big Three's efforts haven't succeeded very well. I would say that this would probably be the best route since despite popular beliefthe demand isn't guaranteed. The only hybrids that really sell well are the Prius and Civic. The other ones domestic or Japanese haven't been selling as well.
I'm not sure about this in terms of quality. Part of the problem is perspective. There are some people who have had amazing luck with GM transmissions and had horrible luck with Ford & Chrysler, there are people who have had amazing luck with Ford transmissions and horrible luck with GM & Chrysler, and there are people who have had amazing luck with Chrysler transmissions and horrible luck with the other two. Sometimes I don't think there is a clear answer on who actually has the best of what. I also think Toyota is going to do the part of making American quality far superior on their own with how much trouble the Camry is having.
The government will never give up power over trying to mess these vehicles up for us, but I guess we can dream. One problem though is that if you do what you are proposing, it could cause the price of these vehicles to go up. The fact is these models will share transmissions, engines, components and so forth with the cheaper models and the lower production of these parts will cause the price to build the nicer models to increase or be forced to use more shared components which will potentially make these models too similar to their competition.
Sounds like a utopia. Again we can only dream.

 

These cars will not pass US safety/emissions standards. This is why we have old versions of cars like the Focus when a much better one is available overseas.
It cost too much money to certify them for sale here in the US is their reasoning behind them not being available.

 

I just think specifically that dodge and ford (and kinda gm) need to get away from their habits of slapping the same grilles on all their vehicles and basing the entirety of the front clip off of that. I can't really complain i guess cuz they're actually starting to break away from those habits as we speak(Challenger, Camaro, Mustang, Corvette). I mean look at a '69 Charger and a '69 Coronet. They look nothing alike other than the pentastar badging. No three or more cars really looked the same back then.

All i'm saying is keep it for certain vehicles to signify some family resemblance, but not all. It just gets boring that way.

Aside from that, i love the work that the Big Three have been putting into thier new lineups. The Big Three trucks should be back on top by the end of the model year, and the performance lineup is also catching up with the rest of the world. Now if we can just get the rest in between(more fuel efficient vehicles similar to the honda fit to keep avg EPA rating up as well as sales, and ever improving build quality).

Ya'll are almost there. Keep it up.