On Wed, 31 Jan 1996 ScharfR@aol.com wrote:
> Low labor cost isn't such a big bonus, especially when you use a lot of it.
> Productivity in many low labor cost factories is mighty poor.
> Witness also
> the dramatic loss of a year's production and sales when the VW plant in
> Mexico wasn't able to launch the current generation Golf/Jetta. That's the
> kind of thing that could put a company out of business.
that was then. how would you describe the quality of current golfs and
jettas? the word in the street is that they have excellent quality.
anyway, i figured that since the a3 is going to be based on the golf IV,
it would seem logical to build it in the same plant as the golf IV.
> You have to ask yourself why BMW, Mercedes-Benz, (and perhaps quite soon
> Volvo) voted with their investment dollars for U.S. assembly.
US workers have a reputation for high skill to cost ratio... yes, i know.
> Even the U.S.
> domestics import primarily (but not exclusively) low cost/low prestige cars
> from their Mexican assembly plants. A luxury car manufacturer with a fragile
> reputation would have to think twice before voluntarily taking on any
> unnecessary image risk.
well, the a3 is going to be the low cost/low prestige model, would it not?
i don't think that there was any talk of building any other audi model in
and the a3 would most likely be a better car than the 318sb (severed butt).
bmw does tend to go through cycles of excellence and cynicism, where
one generation of car would set new standards while the next would
just be an exercise in cashing in on the previous generation.
i guess so does everyone else. the current a4 is fantastic, the
previous 90 ho-hum, the one before that pretty solid...
the thing is right now audi is on the advance, while bmw is coasting
on the momentum of its previous cars.
mercedes? i guess with their long model lives, each model does have
to be more significantly advanced over the previous generation.