From everything I’ve read, Toyota intended Scion to be entry level vehicles highly customizable for the youth market, but they instead attracted middle age folks that might have otherwise bought Camrys. Like myself, for example.
I’ve never really understood what Honda’s target market was supposed to be for the Ridgeline. Definitely not the commercial market, and definitely not the family-van market. Perhaps SUV people? Slanting the sides of the bed like they did definitely adversely affects its utility value, so the pickup truck crowd doesn’t seem like it would be the target market. Perhaps it was designed by a committee and ended up being a pile of compromises?
Target market: perhaps home-owning suburbanites, on the high side of middle class, how DON’T use the truck to work with but DO haul big stuff home from Lowe’s semi-regularly. That describes my step-sister and her husband almost exactly, and they own one.
From what I can recall Honda’s target market for the Ridgeline basically was their existing customers (people who own Pilot’s/Accords/etc) to give them a pickup that tows/hauls as much as most of them really need. The ridgeline owners i know are all people who’ve owned other hondas before. Ford and the others build much better trucks but those don’t appeal to everyone.
I’ve never really understood what Honda’s target market was supposed to be for the Ridgeline. @the same mountainbike–
I agree with you on this point. Consumer Reports recommends this vehicle, probably because it is “car like”. If I were to buy a vehicle like this, I would like it to be truck like.
Dont give a hoot what its classed as,as long as it suits me.America is the land of big and Madison Ave. jumped on that,we dont need these monsters-but its what we got stuck with.Been reviewing my “COLA” so to speak,no new ones on the horizon for me,just kinda sorry I made such a poor choice on my last new one(about 8 yrs old now and I’ve found out its probaly gonna bite me) so it goes ,no wonder some manus struggle so much.
Finally figured out the perfect vehicle to commit a crime in,wanna guess what I come up with?-Kevin( theres a no prize for the winner)
The game is rigged. The interest rates are artificially depressed to encourage long term financing by consumers. What would the public buy if the APR was 7% and the purchase required 20% down and a 24 month pay off? Far too many Americans buy automobiles, homes, fashions, lawn mowers and educations beyond their means because they can finance them ‘painlessly.’ Duallies, Escalades, Navigators and Hummers would be quite rare if only those who could afford them owned them.
@Triedaq
From what I have read, Honda did an extensive amount of research to find out what pick up trucks were actually used for. Then, they built a truck to match the most common use. What they did not figure on, is some people just won’t buy a “truck” unless it is “built like a truck” which includes a frame and a solid rear axle and they will “enjoy” the bounce just because it is more truck like. The specks mean nothing to many unless it is built like our preconceived notions. I bet some won’t buy one if it doesn’t have a low range, even if they never used it in their life on their previous truck, except to show some one they actually had it. Others just won’t buy a truck that says Honda on it. With Ford and Chevy both having very loyal buyers, Toyota can not break that bond with a "real " Tundra truck. How can one expect that a fake truck could ? They will just have to wait till the modern kid who doesn’t know or care to know the difference grows up.
Here in my part of Indiana, a commuter car for many people is a f-150. There are people who I know who drive a 4 wheel drive f-150 and the only thing that ever goes in the bed are sandbags in the winter time.
I know a guy who gets mulch and refuses to put it in the bed of the truck because it will get it dirty.
I think some Americans will give up their houses before they give up their trucks.
Here in my part of Indiana, a commuter car for many people is a f-150. There are people who I know who drive a 4 wheel drive f-150 and the only thing that ever goes in the bed are sandbags in the winter time.
My company has a satellite office in Boston (mainly sales). I go there a couple times a month. The parking garage I use probably is 1/3 full of Pickups. The beds of the trucks look brand new.
I use to own a pickup. But pickups don’t meet my needs…so for the past 25 years I’ve been driving SUV’s.
I don’t believe that interest rates are artificially low. They are still low because inflation is very low and the US economy is still recovering from the Great Recession of 2009. Rates are low to encourage business investment. Buyers that take advantage of the low rates to buy too much car do so because of their own flaws, not market flaws.
There is a manager at work that drives a Ram pickup with a hemi. Mostly, he commutes in it. I’m not sure if he uses it for anything else, except to haul deer home after a hunting trip. That, at least, is a good use for a pickup.
The $85billion that the Fed has poured into the economy each month these past 12 years has ensured that interest rates for savings was near zero while the rates for financing cars could be zero, @jts. Washington has used ‘easy money’ to assuage the public’s relative decline in their actual financial situation.
And the accumulation of all that liquidity will result in some pain down the road. But the current leaders feel certain they won’t be the ones facing the music when the deck of cards begins to fall.
But I’m going to complicate the original question: why can’t manufacturers make subcompact cars with decent seats that ride decently? They used to, but everything subcompact now has inhumane seats and rides like a stone. My early cars in the '60s and '70s all had decent seats and decent rides. Why not now?
I disagree. The money is used for many things, and what you mention is one of the least important aspects. Maintaining employment was and is the most important aspect of monetary policy. How many people (besides the rich) can afford loans if the have no job? And the last 12 years spans 2 administrations. It event includes far more than just the last 4 of President Bush’s tenure. How does that extend President Obama’s administration? It didn’t extend the Republican presidency.
Partisan bickering aside, @jts, close scrutiny of monetary policy leads me to believe that for 30 years presidents and members of congress have been facing overwhelming threats to the economy which they deferred to the Fed. Doing so resulted in recent debacles and now we have a liquidity bubble that might defy all reasonable efforts to deflate. The Right wing Radio’s gurus are selling gold, guns and freeze dried food into fears of that bubble bursting. The country is dividing into an “us against them” nation of left and right blaming each other when the real enemy remains elusive.
You know, my 1960 Morris Minor was very smooth and the seats were comfortable. Same with my 59 VW. Nothing bone jarring at all, if I can remember that far back. Even rode better than my bone jarring Acura.
Now I have a trailer that I don’t mind getting dirty so I don’t need a pick up. I’ve found the trailer with a lower bed is far more comfortable for loading and unloading, shoveling rock and so on than a high bed pick up.
My first car loan at the bank was 11% and my first mortgage was 8 3/4 and that was considered good. Personally, I like zero and 1% car loans and 3% mortgages better. True the feds are keeping the rate artificially low, affecting savings rates, but you shouldn’t have longer term money in a bank savings account anyway. You have to do something with it to make more than 1%.
You provided a partisan view and I tried to take the partisanship out of it. Please note even handed treatment for both Presidents Obama and Bush in my post.
Our recent debacles had very little, if anything, to do with Federal Reserve policy. It was real estate loan policy at lending institutions specifically that caused the Great Recession. They were aided by a complacent federal government. But not the Fed. It was congress that encouraged crazy loans to people that could not afford them. Democrats, like Rep. Palosi even held hearings to find out why lower middle income people couldn’t get home loans. Republicans let it slide because their banker bunnies were getting ever richer off the loans. How did the Fed have a role in that? People on the employment bubble probably shouldn’t get home loans, especially no money down or interest only loans, because they are at a higher risk of losing their jobs than the rest of us. It used to be, an is now I hope, that when they lose their jobs it is a signal to change commercial loan policy.
They were aided by a complacent federal government. But not the Fed. It was congress that encouraged crazy loans to people that could not afford them. Democrats, like Rep. Palosi even held hearings to find out why lower middle income people couldn't get home loans.
Yes the government was partially to blame with the reform of the CRA regulations. But the Banks themselves were also to blame because they purposely targeted them for the sole purpose of bundling. The Banks (without any pressure of any outside influence) decided to lower the requirements for the loans. At the time the banks didn’t think there was a problem because of this bundling scheme they concocted and then insured these worthless by AIG. There were MANY smaller banks that did NOT lower their mortgage standards…and they did just fine and didn’t have to have any TARP money.
There was only ONE reason for them to bundle the mortgages. And that was to HIDE the bad loans. They knew the loans were bad (i.e. no meeting normal loan qualifications).
CDOs, CDSs and a blind eye from the federal regulators allowed the unscrupulous to scam the public resulting in the 2008 crash. And there was a great deal of loose money to be scammed due to the Fed’s pouring liquidity into the economy for many years. There are scape goats to suit partisan tastes though.