My magic 8 ball says that VW needs to sell more diesel sport wagons.

 

me thinks now Porsche will try to buy vw

 

... and especially Audi vehicles are now carrying the same or even higher price tags than equivalent BMW and MB models. Audi vehicles used to be cheaper in price compare to the later two brands, which made Audi a better value buy. But not any more, and thus sales suffer.

 

http://www.leftlanenews.com/vw-overt...tml#more-22483

Props to VW.
Production versus sales.....I guess they all end up getting sold in the end.
Time to update the thread title.:wink:

 

OMG but their reliability sucks!

Congrats VW! Seems like there are MANY who enjoy their products. Says a lot.

 

I never thought that VW would top Toyota. Then again, I never thought that Toyota would top GM, either.

Props to VW, they are truly the volks' wagen!

 

VW still has ways to go in North America (in other markets it's doing quite well, including China). Once the reliability perception improves, it'll get more looks. The new GTI by the way looks very good.

 

I wonder what the big difference is, and if this information even matters. I believe Toyota still outsold VW for the year, but I'll have to check...

Oh and go Ford! Their ahead of GM for production now!

 

Dunno....like I said...at some point they do get sold.

 

Does that 4.4 million include Audi?

 

^ I think so.

 

VW

Toyota is having way too many problems this year.

 

Since the article mentions Skoda sales, I'm sure that Audi is included in that overall number too.

 

If VW can fix it's dreadful reliability issues, prices will go up, and VW vehicles will lose it's price advantage. Buyers will shop elsewhere, and overall VW sales will drop.

In addition, improving VW reliability will also erode the advantage of the much better Audi reliability compare to VW, thereby directly threatening Audi sales.

It will be a lose-lose situation. So, I don't think VW will ever shoot itself in the foot by improving VW reliablity at all.

 

^^

 

Kinda like how Toyota reliability hurts Lexus and Honda, Acura.

 

True...in the same way eating bacon helps mushrooms grow on mars.

 

VW cars are alot more expensive than Toyota/Honda. VW CC is closer to TL price despite having less sophisticteded AWD. VW Golf/Jetta is expensive than Civic. Passat is expensive than Accord for similar equiped.

 

Thanks for pointing that out

But what exactly does that have to do with how VW being reliable will hurt Audi sales.

Edward, I guess I understand your opinion that making VW more reliable can raise costs, I just don't at all agree with it.

 

because Audi will have to improve futher to differentiate itself from VW. so it will raise the cost further. This whole reliability issue is mostly problem of North American operations. China/India/Europe/Middleast/latin America/Africa there is no problem.
you have to consider cash for clunker benefited Toyota far more than VW.

 

Wait, so VW purposely makes their cars less reliable because they dont want to hurt Audi sales?

 

In your opinion. IMO, there is clearly already enough differentiation between VW and Audi that reliability won't make one bit of a difference.

 

Ok, so Toyota is still way ahead of VW in sales. From January to September this year, Toyota recorded 5.65 million sales globally, while Volkswagen posted 4.76 million sales. So Toyota leads in sales by almost 1 million, they just adjusted their inventory by lowering production in Q1.

 

^^^That makes more sense...

 

No, VW doesn't make it's vehicles less reliable. It simply doesn't do much to improve VW reliability, in the same way as Honda doesn't take the necessary steps to bring the Acura brand to become a true luxury brand all these 20 or so years.

VW and Audi both started out with POOR reliabilities back in the 90's. However, with the advent of A4/A6/A8, Audi reliabilities started to improve, and especially so during the past 5 to 6 years. At the same time, Audi price tags goes up in step with increased reliability, and Audi sales also begins to take off.

However, VW reliability has not changed a single bit, and why should it ? VW's are the European version of the economy cars, and European economy cars in Europe are all like this.

Now Audi reliability matches those of BMW and MB, but VW reliability continues to remain POOR.

Anyone worked in the manufacturing-related fields knows that better reliability and better quality are achieved in the expense of better engineered parts (= higher cost) and slower throughput (= lower yield). So why doubt that better VW reliability comes with a higher price tag ?

However, the Japanese auto brands won't have to go through this, because their factories and advanced manufacturing methods are already set up for building reliable products.

 

While that theory doesnt seem far fetched, it does make me wonder how can the reliability be so different when so many parts/engines are shared. Even part numbers match so its not like they making cheaper versions.

My theory on why VW is perceived as poor reliability is because VWs sells so many cars in volume, therefore more are being noticed when troubles do occur.

 

Not to mention that it seems that he's asserting that Europeans tolerate buying pieces of shit to the point that VW is the #1 selling brand in Western Europe.

I don't think Americans have a higher standard than Germans or Brits. I think it's human nature to want something nice to last for a while.

 

Majority of the time, that statement is simply not true. Better engineered parts are the result of innovation which improves quality/reliability and lowers cost/time. Classic example are integrated circuits which allowed cheaper electronic devices that were vastly better in quality and reliability. One on a Honda is using cast iron over steel pipes for the camshaft manufacturing process. Another is the uses of MEMS airbag sensors from Analog Devices, that lowered the cost of airbag sensors by over a order of magnitude yet the accuracy was far better than the older mechanical accelerometers used when the MEMS sensors were introduced.

One of the best examples of better engineering and much lower costs is something used by all the people on this forum. The phone/ethernet jack (RJ11/RJ45) was invented by a Bell Labs mechanical engineer which lowered the connector cost dramatically yet was very cheap but amazingly reliable.

 

Wait, so VW charges a lot less for their cars than Toyota?

 

http://www.leftlanenews.com/vwaudi-t...tml#more-22590

Volkswagen is getting serious. VW dealers need an update if VW wants to continue its rise in the U.S.

Sounds good!

 

I don't think VW will ever really be a major player in the US and it doesn't really matter anyway since the US isn't the biggest auto market in the world anymore. VW is ahead of most of the Japanese and American car makers in China and that's where the future is.

 

My take of better engineered parts is to do with higher quality materials, smaller tolerances, and better production yields, which all result in higher costs.

The 3rd gear clutch pack failure of the 2G TL's is a classic example of what is not a better engineered part. Honda had identified that the tranny part supplier had shipped 3rd gear clutch packs which are out of tolerance. This resulted in the clutch packs generating too much heat which partly contributed to the demise of the 2G TL trannies.

However, your take of better engineered parts is to do with new technologies and new innovations. Computer and integrated circuit (IC) technologies make advancement everyday to become faster, cheaper, and more powerful. As a result, this will definitely come down in cost.

 

True that many parts and some engines are shared between VW and Audi, but there are a whole lot more parts that are different between VW and Audi.

VW and Audi vehicles are not identical, they are designed and engineered differently. Even though they share the same platform and some auto parts, but performance and reliability will never come out the same, when the shared parts are working in conjunction with the remaining VW-exclusive parts and setups on VW vehicles and with the remaining Audi-exclusive parts and setups on Audi vehicles.

Only in identical cars such as the European Accord and the rebadged Acura TSX will reliability be the same.

Here are some of the differences between VW and Audi :

- both the interior and exterior are different (these are all different parts).
- the Audi interior trims have better fitting = tighter tolerances = higher quality production lines (like the better interior fitting on the TL vs the Accord).
- Audi uses a more advance V6 powerplants, whereas VW, A3, TT use the aging VR6 extensively.
- Audi uses MMI as the in-car interface system, which fiber-optically links up all major modules. This eliminates the problem-prone massive wirings that VW are still using.
- Audi (Quattro) uses a completely different AWD system than VW (4motion).

This list can go on and on. So it is easily seen that the similar reliability of the few shared parts between VW and Audi can hardly offset the vast difference in reliability of the massive remaining numbers of non-shared parts.

 

It's human nature to take things for granted. The North Americans are spoiled. Spoiled by the top notch auto reliability that the top Japanese auto makers are giving us. After all, the North America (NA) has become the biggest auto market for these top Japanese auto makers. As a result, we are so used to this top notch auto reliability that it has become our NA benchmark for auto reliability. Anything less is not acceptable.

The Europeans have no such luck.

The Europeans are used to the European auto reliability (which we know is poor using our NA benchmark). The top Japanese auto makers have never been able to penetrate the European market. The Europeans have no choice financially, but to stuck with the European economy brands such as VW, Seat, Skoda, Renault, GM, Ford, Peugeot, etc., and typical European reliability becomes their norm.

VW brand is a domestic brand in Europe, while the Japanese brands are import brands. In Europe, a 5-door VW Golf is cheaper than a 5-door Honda Civic (it's the other way round in NA). This also contributes why VW sells more vehicles in Europe : price advantage.

However, as we all know, the best reliability by European auto makers are from BMW, MB, and Audi. But these are premium brands which are out of reach of the majority of the Europeans.

Until the time when Japanese autos become cheaper and more popular in Europe and the Europeans have wider exposure to top notch Japanese auto reliability, then I can say the North Americans and Europeans have the same perception of auto reliability standard.

 

I agree on the design of the clutch pack but part of that problem was poor supply chain management. Other clutch pack manufacturers made that componenent and followed the tolerance and process procedures. The gearboxes with those had far better realiability than the one troublesome metal fabricator in Ohio (can't recall their name).

Quite often new technologies and innovations are all over your vehicle but it's hard to identify. One that amazes me is recent CV Joint Boots. My wife's 2003 Pilot with 145K miles is has original boots front and rear. Our 1989 Legend would naybe get 70-80K miles before the boots would tear. Better rubber polymers have made the newer boots last over twice as long.

Other great examples are piston rings and valve guides. Now a days they are lifetime components on engines, rarely needing replacement. Ford gave an award once to one of their V6 engine piston ring manufacturers, that manufacturer rings had zero defects in over 4 million rings delivered. Pretty amazing process control.

Some better engineering does result in higher cost, but when done correctly it typically lowers cost. My Mom had a 1995 C280 and my take on most of the things that went wrong was detail in execution (case in point the rear differential seals) of some components. That IMO is what makes most German cars more troublesome, even today most of the times I see great engineering and component quality but little missed details cost them in reliability.

 

I agree on this point I think most Europeans accept the cost of car ownership and maintenance better than Americans. The US owners typically expect their cars to cost almost nothing, be as dependable as the Sun, require almost no maintenance, and last decades. That was a very rough quote from the CEO of Renault in the mid/late 80's when they pulled out of the US market.

 

VW Golf is not cheaper than 5 door Honda Civic. (Honda Civic is also produced in UK unlike Euro Accord). 5 door EX GT Honda Civic has Climate control/Heated Seats/Leather/Navigation/Bluetooth/Rear Parking sensor. All of which cost extra in Golf.
Honda Civic EX GT has 2.2 diesel with `150bhp while Goft GT has 2.0 L 140bhp. (170bhp version is alot more expensive). Only bare bones Golf is cheaper than Honda Civic.

 

It is just matter of time. They are already making there first factory in US. Audi will follow it. Once they introduce Hybrids/trucks/Minivans/Full Size SUVs/large dealer network/lower prices. things will change. It will take 3 to 5 years. They have the financial means and technical ability to do it. I will rather see VW Polo sedan to compete against Corrolla/Yaris/Hyundai Products at $15K price point.

 

Yes, I was using the bare bone base prices for comparison. Once you start picking upper trim models, the comparison becomes invalid due to the different equipment levels and performance levels offered by Honda and VW, that will create much confusion.

 

I agree that the German auto makers (especially BWM, MB, Audi) have significantly improved their vehicle reliabilities compared back 5-10 years ago. However, the top Japanese auto makers have also made similar stride during the same time, thereby neutralizing the improvement in reliability gap between the German vs the Japanese auto makers.

As a result, it comes to the perception that the German auto makers have made little improvement in reliability, even though they have already been moving up in the reliability scale.