Plus Teslas (at least the S) aren't really traditional sedans. They're liftbacks (hatch with a sloping rear window) plus they have a "frunk". And they adhere to the "distinctive styling as signaling" rule of hybrids.
It takes years to bring a new car to market. And in the early 70s the Big 3 had zero, zilch, nada in the way of platforms and powertrains suitable for small fuel efficient cars. So the first generations were built in a hurry, and to a price, because the economy was in the toilet. And it showed!
> American sedans are dead because the Big 3 American automakers never invested in making sedans. They always borrowed tech from other companies.
In the 80s a lot of US-Foreign partnerships sprang up as domestic manufacturers scrambled to develop competitive products to compete against the Japanese. But GM had an ownership stake in Opel from the 1960s IIRC (they just recently sold it to the French PSA group) and Ford has been experimenting with bringing over cars designed by Ford Europe since the 80s (look up Merkur).
Chrysler is really no more; the shots are called by FIAT and aside from Jeep and Dodge trucks everything else is an import (the Jeep Renegade and the FIAT 500x are the same under the skin and are built in the same factory in Italy).
Ford made a big bet on "global cars" in the 90s, and we see the benefits of it today. The Escape and the EcoSport were both originally designed for Europe.
GM and Ford did learn to make great cars for the US market, but too late. The Impala & CT6, for example, are on a platform designed for the US/China market (no way the European market would want a car that big that isn't an S-Class, 7-series, or A8). And they're great cars. But as the original article said consumers demand for big American sedans has been in decline for almost 50 years. Ford/GM can't seem to stop skating to where the puck just was.
That and VW's customers in home market (EU) have different expectations WRT the cost and frequency of maintenance. To grossly generalize American consumers want cars that above almost everything else require as little maintenance as possible and use the cheapest parts/consumables.
European customers on the other hand are more likely to think nothing of a car that needs regular care and feeding, including using manufacturer-specific fluids and consumables, in order to achieve higher levels of other things like efficiency or performance.
It seems like 87.4% of this discussion revolves around differences in definitions of "better".
The Mondeo/Fusion's F-R balance is actually worse than the A4's.
Since the engine in the Fusion is mounted transversely with an inline transaxle the majority of the weight is in front of the front axle.
The A4 has a longitudinally mounted engine with the transmission and PTU (output to the rear wheels) behind it, which means the weight straddles the front axle.
Audis used to be extremely nose-heavy but their engineers have spent a lot of effort over the past few generations to move the drivetrain's center of mass backwards. They also offer things like differentials with electronically controlled multiplate clutches that allow torque to be transferred to the wheel(s) with the most traction in a matter of milliseconds to improve traction in cornering or in wet/snowy conditions.
So "badge cachet" is definitely not the only difference.