Hacker News Reader

Comment by azernik | Hacker News Reader

Note that it's not just Holden that went under - foreign car companies (Toyota, for example) also have closed their local plants, despite probably very different workplace cultures. It's probably more to do with a small local market, and strong exports of raw materials (and hence a strong currency) making imports more competitive.

View on HN

One contribution often mentioned in op-eds etc here is Australia's comparatively lax emission, and non-existent fuel consumption, standards. The idea is that the competitive landscape has been weakened by these factors, making it possible for local manufacturers to avoid the hard work of innovation, and importers to dump old designs unwelcome elsewhere. I don't know enough about the car industry to assess the merit of this, though it would fit the general Australian business (and specifically manufacturing) pattern. There is a kind of comfortable torpor at large here, as most notably described in Donald Horne's famous book.

Holden was a foreign car company, no different than ford or Toyota.

The only difference is Toyota models are just imported from elsewhere because they have a mostly global product line.

Ford and GM Holden now need to find either European or North American models to import that will suit the local market.

One of Ford Australia's replacements for the Falcon (the Australian-built middle-of-the-road large family/commercial sedan [1]), is the Mustang, so in the past few years we've seen an influx of these American muscle-cars onto Australian roads. They're not quite to my taste, but hey each to their own.

The other replacement is the European-built Mondeo, which is much more like the Falcon and far less offensive IMO.

[1] https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/ford/falcon/

The safety record of the Mustang is horrid. Absolute shit engineering.

You'd have to be rather silly to buy one: http://www.ancap.com.au/media-and-gallery/releases/ford-must...

Safety isn't everything you know. The lowest scoring component (Safety Assist for stuff like speed assistance systems, lane support systems etc...) is basically about removing control from the driver and considering the target demographic for the Mustang, it makes not having them make sense. Some cars are made to be enjoyed and "safety" is increasingly compromising that concept.

I get that you don't like active safety, but did you even read the part about the poor structural integrity aka crashworthiness of the car? That's why I wrote "shit engineering".

There are plenty of cars that are fun to drive and safe.

"“Of concern, the full width frontal test showed a risk of serious head, chest and leg injury for the rear passenger. There was also insufficient inflation of both the driver and front passenger airbags in the frontal offset test which allowed the driver’s head to contact the steering wheel and the passenger’s head to contact the dashboard,”

“The driver’s door opened in the pole test, and whiplash protection for rear-end collisions was marginal,”"

Exactly. In my book, cars with such poor ratings should be banned from the market. There really is no excuse.

"We spent all our money making the car look brutal and sexy to our target customers, so there was no money left to also make it safe". ... !

> considering the target demographic for the Mustang

Entitled bogans who think they're the Jamie Whincup but are more likely to hurt themselves and others than win any races?

Seriously, this is what track days are for.

The Ford Mustang fails basic safety tests:

“The driver’s door opened in the pole test, and whiplash protection for rear-end collisions was marginal,”"

However, the demographic that buys Fords here in Australia are unlikely to read that ( or anything else...)

http://www.ancap.com.au/media-and-gallery/releases/ford-must...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com