In this argument the author concludes that the failure of the foreign company to sell copies of motorcycle X can not be because the produced motorcycles are less noisy. To justify the conclusion the author points out that foreign cars are quieter than domestic ones and that foreign cars sell at least as well. Moreover the author adds that advertisements for motorcycle X do not emphasize the motorcycle X's noisiness. In my view, at first glance, the argument appeals to be somehow plausible while further inspection reveals that the at least commits 3 fallacies.
To begin with the author does not identify properly who are "some" in the sentence "some say because its product lacks ...". May be the author, to strength his position, avoid to explain that this opinion is coming from some specialists on the motorcycle market. At this point there is a lack of information about who is making this assumption and the reader cannot judge the assumption's viability.
Secondly, although the argument "After all, foreign cars ..." seems significant the author's conclusion can not be taken seriously. Actually the author commits the logic fallacy of "All things are equal". The author assumes that criteria to buy a motorcycle are the same than to buy a car. There is a need of more details on common points linking the two markets.
Finally, the author questionably assumes that as the advertisement does not light on the specific loud noise of motorcycle X, the noise is not important for customers. We can reasonably suppose that the noise quality is known by every potential buyer and so then the company focus more on other motorcycle X' qualities.
To sum up, the conclusion achieved in this article is invalid and misleading. To make it more efficient the author would have to rule out the above-mentioned possibilities that would undermine his claim.