What’s with the common misconception on foreign cars?

Ive always heard foreign vehicles are better. Better quality, better interior, better features, this has always been pushed by the automotive media. I come from a family of Ford owners. I’ve owned multiple American vehicles since I’ve been driving, all Fords. I started with an Explorer, moved up to a Expedition for the space. Then moved up again to an Expedition EL. I had a short lived pickup as well. I was riding in a friends 2009 Range Rover today and couldn’t help but notice it kind of sucks. My Eddie Bauer interior is leaps and bounds nicer than the Rover. The leather is two tone and softer in mine. I have cooled and heated seats, he only gets heat. My stereo sounds more powerful with the stock woofer, my vehicle is 2 years older as a 2007 and seems better in every way. I just don’t get the common misconception.

GM and Ford both have much higher payload and towing capacity than any of the foreign competition. And in my opinion nicer interiors.

I was one of those things that was true back in the late 70s and early 80s. Very True.

But the Big Three picked it up on the late 80s and by the 90s they were very good. I remember a consumer reports back in the early 2000s where it had its quality rankings and Mercedes was one of the worst. I really thought they were supposed to be supreme, but I guess not.

Plus you also have to remember how many Hondas, Toyotas, etc... are built in US factories and gets parts from US suppliers. Also Big Three get parts from outside the US. So in reality, its all global anyway. Hard to distinguish now compared to before.

I'll always buy American if possible. The content of an American car is a high % of global components but at least the corporation is American. Its hard to buy a lot of products that are USA sourced or even know if they are or how much they are but its a good goal to have. I'd happily pay more money to do so. I also like to support local businesses if I can but that's getting to be more difficult so you do what you can do.

Capitalism is what forced American car makers and other manufacturers (Xerox) to improve their products vs international competition. Competition is good ... To a point. I hope we can figure out how to allow Capitalism and Competition to survive and work. Its under threat in many ways at the moment. Rant over

Yep. Old Japanese were bad (at least body rust wise) then they got better right after US ones started to rust out badly.
Then imports had much better longer lasting engines and usually transmissions too.
Imports were more to fix but failed less often.

Then domestic upped their game and got better.
Then with better painting and lots of plastic they stopped rusting so badly.

I think the golden age of autos was from around 1992-1996 up until around 2005 and maybe up to 2012 for some.

They had engines pretty much perfected and most all of them would go 225-250K with just minimal oil changes. Now they are pushing so hard for that extra 2-3 mpg and adding variable valve timing and cylinder deactivation and stop/start etc and these things are causing these vehicles to need major $1200-2000 repairs at 115k-150k.
I have a fleet of vehicle here 04 and below with miles from 49K-over 300K that have never had even a valve cover off!!! I will not have anything new that is inferior in durability vs old just to have the latest and greatest or convenience features.
I DO NOT want a 2012 or above with the way they make them with no real keys etc etc etc..
I WANT A brand new 2000-2004 (maybe 08 with some brands).
Just sell me a brand new non rusty, non worn one like I had that is just as good and the same as the one I had for 15 years.
I want NEW condition...NOT NEW design or different.

JExpedition07 said:

I was riding in a friends 2009 Range Rover today and couldn’t help but notice it kind of sucks. My Eddie Bauer interior is leaps and bounds nicer than the Rover.

Click to expand...

First time I have ever heard the acres of plastic dash/door panels, etc in an expedition described as leaps and bounds ahead of a Range Rover interior. Interior quality is always high on the list of complaints of auto journalist in every review I have read or watched about the Expedition. Conversely, Range Rover Interiors are pretty much always highly rated in just about every review I've seen.

Everyone has their own opinion I guess, but that is a tough observation to swallow..

LRNAD90 said:

First time I have ever heard the acres of plastic dash/door panels, etc in an expedition described as leaps and bounds ahead of a Range Rover interior. Interior quality is always high on the list of complaints of auto journalist in every review I have read or watched about the Expedition. Conversely, Range Rover Interiors are pretty much always highly rated in just about every review I've seen.

Everyone has their own opinion I guess, but that is a tough observation to swallow..

Click to expand...

The Rover is literally all cheap plastic, look at the pics. The Expedition is much nicer. This is what I’m talking about, so many people are under that spell the media plays into.

I can't say I've ever heard the initial argument outside of reliability and that clearly comes from Honda/Toyota, especially those old 4 bangers that just seemed to go forever.

As for interiors, I've experienced some real garbage on both sides of the aisle. The 2 worst I ever sat in were a 2009 Chevy Malibu and one of the later Explorers before they redid it. Overall, I think Ford's interiors are ok, but when I was comparing Suburbans and Expeditions from similar model years, the Suburban was leaps and bounds ahead. My wife's Mazda is a bit nicer inside than my Expedition (or it was until she trashed it), but not as nice as the Suburbans I looked it.

JExpedition07 said:

The Rover is literally all cheap plastic, look at the pics. The Expedition is much nicer. This is what I’m talking about, so many people are under that spell the media plays into.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've been in both, and I'm looking at the photos you've posted, and I still disagree with you. Far more higher end, soft touch materials, leather and higher quality wood trim in the RR. The interior quality is one of the biggest turn-offs for my wife, and I really can't argue the point. It doesn't bother me as much, but I can't argue that she is wrong.

As for cooled seats, until very recently that seems to be an American thing, even high end BMWs and Mercedes didn't really jump on that band wagon till much later..

That's great you like your Expedition's interior more. Like I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but your not convincing me, sorry..

Now the reliability thing, Land Rover in general, and that Generation Range Rover in particular, has a horrible reputation for mechanical reliability, that I will not argue, and you can see that reflected in the bargain basement resale values for what was once a $90-100K vehicle...

But Land Rover has turned that around a bit, and their trucks currently hold extremely good resale values, so..

JExpedition07 said:

The Rover is literally all cheap plastic, look at the pics. The Expedition is much nicer. This is what I’m talking about, so many people are under that spell the media plays into.

View attachment 31667
View attachment 31664

Click to expand...

I really see very little difference. I am not a fan or woodgrain. I don't like the silver lines going down under the middle vents though.
I love the all black seats in the RR. All vehicles should be able to be purchased with all black (cloth or leather too). Red or other color trim or piping is neat but some of us will opt for all black. I can't stand light or light center sections.

ManUpOrShutUp said:

I can't say I've ever heard the initial argument outside of reliability and that clearly comes from Honda/Toyota, especially those old 4 bangers that just seemed to go forever.

As for interiors, I've experienced some real garbage on both sides of the aisle. The 2 worst I ever sat in were a 2009 Chevy Malibu and one of the later Explorers before they redid it. Overall, I think Ford's interiors are ok, but when I was comparing Suburbans and Expeditions from similar model years, the Suburban was leaps and bounds ahead. My wife's Mazda is a bit nicer inside than my Expedition (or it was until she trashed it), but not as nice as the Suburbans I looked it.

Click to expand...

The first or early import engines weren't even that much better...or the issue was you couldn't keep the car together long enough to get as many miles as they might have been able to go.
I had an 80 ( I think) Datsun B210 that only had about 100K on it but it was so rusty I had to quit using the rear doors. Then the steering box broke off the frame....
The early Japanese cars were little shitboxes.

Then they cranked up the quality and reliability and the US took a number of years to catch up.
Now people are still going around saying imports are so much better than US when there is little difference.
The difference is more between brands and models and not where the parent company is from or located.
I have noticed I am starting to like the look of more and more Mazdas!
I hate the model numbering/naming system but like the look.
BUT---all brands look about alike today anyway.