Our Community is 705,000 Strong. Join Us.


Why do people keep buying American cars?


Moppie@af
08-31-2011, 04:26 AM
I'm talking about the classic made in America designs by GM, Ford and Chrysler.
The big, heavy, badly designed and poorly made piles of junk that Americans seem to love to so much?

What is it about the bad styling and out dated suspension and push rod engines that Americans love so much???


:loser:

Chris V
08-31-2011, 07:35 AM
The ONLY pushrod engines left are in trucks and a couple performance GM cars. And none of them are poorly built.

I love my Mustang and it doesn't have a pushrod engine, and it's quite well built. And fast. And cheap.

But why do we love classic American cars? For the same reson we like classic ANYTHING. It's about a simpler age, an era gone by, and about cool old cars:

http://www.carpictures.com/media/images/full/09HRH484403494AA.jpeg

http://www.carpictures.com/media/images/full/09HRH484403494AC.jpeg

Certainly not poorly built.

zzyzzx2
08-31-2011, 12:55 PM
I'm more confused at to why anyone would buy a Japanese car. They are no better quality (and quite often worse) and cost more (especially to insure, since theft is more of a problem).

PressKean
08-31-2011, 02:26 PM
They're called classic for a reason. Why do people still buy antiques? Cause it's in their interest. Classic american cars aren't poorly built. Honestly, there are a number of classics that could smoke normal decent cars anytime, anywhere. Although they may look classic and old, they're obviously not easily messed.

@zzyzzx2, Japanese cars are built to last long. As to quality, they're built for budget buyers and I'm not sure why it cost more in your country.
I'm more confused at to why anyone would buy a Japanese car. They are no better quality (and quite often worse) and cost more (especially to insure, since theft is more of a problem).

Black Lotus
08-31-2011, 07:03 PM
I'm talking about the classic made in America designs by GM, Ford and Chrysler.
The big, heavy, badly designed and poorly made piles of junk that Americans seem to love to so much?

What is it about the bad styling and out dated suspension and push rod engines that Americans love so much???


:loser:
I'm told it's a well known fact among New Zealanders, that all of the internet automotive design expertise, or at least, authoritative opinion, is concentrated in and around Auckland.
However, the sad truth is, is that you don't make actual cars. You have no automotive industry whatsoever that anybody in the rest of the world knows or cares about.
However, in common with all the countries that fly a British canton in their flag, you limey types bitch and moan and generally try to stir up shit about American cars on a more than regular basis.
Seems to me your time would probably be better spent improving yourself, by practicing how to speak proper english --as taught in British boarding schools, or better yet, Broadcast English as spoken on the American west coast and in American network TV newscasts.
Think of the advantages of not have that cockney/limey/chimney-sweep New Zealand accent anymore.
You might even be able to get a job here in the states with your new found sophistication helping us design our "Yank Tanks" out of sticks, mud and empty bullet casings like we always have.
If nothing else, the prison guards in the S.E. Asian prisons will treat you better in the monkey house after that drunken bar brawl---because you talk like an American.

AutoTech313
08-31-2011, 09:20 PM
That's very true, but you have to take a glimpse, their is no other country that makes reliable trucks in the world like we do (Ford)..i might be wrong though..

Tony Silva
08-31-2011, 10:14 PM
The OP must be jealous of these USA classics. Why did he say these cars were big, heavy and poorly designed? Hey, they are still around....how many classic 1964 Toyotas or classic 1957 Hondas do you see running around the streets of Auckland? Maybe because the big, heavy, loud, gas guzzling, big block V8 engined American cars would put to shame ANY car designed and manufactured in Auckland.

Hold on...I can't think of vehicles made in that country....this is disturbing...I better google this...brb...

Ok, I'm back...couldnt find anything on any vehicle made in Auckland. However I did learn that Auckland is famous for something called a 'Sky Tower".

As a side note...before I post this comment, I must say I love the original posters' avatar pic...It's The USA Camaro Z28/Bumble Bee from the USA film Transformers.

Moppie@af
09-01-2011, 03:51 AM
LOL, I think you all read it wrong.

I love Classic American cars. America did after all invent what is the modern car design with regard to engine, seating and control layout.


The problem is at some point in the 80s the big American companies stopped developing anything and just keep turning out the same basic dated design with some really bad styling thrown on top.
Leaf springs, live axles, and yes, really bad build quality dominated so many American designs of the last 30 years.
There have been exceptions, there are always exceptions, cars the Corvette for example.
But, look at the average American car and compared with it a contemporary from Japan, Europe or North Korea?



And yes Bumblee Bee is a new Camaro, which is really an Australian Designed Holden with a bigger engine, less power, worse handling and more weight.






I'm told it's a well known fact among New Zealanders, that all of the internet automotive design expertise, or at least, authoritative opinion, is concentrated in and around Auckland.




Says the cheeky bugger that drives a collection of English cars!
You pommy git. :rofl::rofl:




:sarcasmsign:

Chris V
09-01-2011, 07:34 AM
The problem is at some point in the 80s the big American companies stopped developing anything and just keep turning out the same basic dated design with some really bad styling thrown on top.
Leaf springs, live axles, and yes, really bad build quality dominated so many American designs of the last 30 years.
There have been exceptions, there are always exceptions, cars the Corvette for example.
But, look at the average American car and compared with it a contemporary from Japan, Europe or North Korea?

The basic '80s American car hasn't been around for 30 years. We haven't built cars like that SINCE the '80s and early '90s, when Australia was still building the same damn cars. Leaf springs? ONLY in the Corvette, and then they are composite, monoleaf, transverse units that have as much in common with the leaf springs YOU are thinking of as a 747 has in common with the Wright Flyer.

blazee
09-01-2011, 11:24 PM
:lol: Moppie, you never cease to amaze me with how little you know about cars.

trannyman52
09-02-2011, 01:30 AM
older hondas and other foregin cars are still around !!!!!you will find them in your razor,,,or when you pop a beer!!!!!

Moppie@af
09-02-2011, 02:14 AM
:lol: Moppie, you never cease to amaze me with how little you know about cars.



So how come when I goto GM's website, all the 4cyl cars are from GM Europe, and use European chassis and engines.
All the trucks and vans are live axles and leaf spring (with out a single overhead cam between them).
The large sedans are all based on the Zeta platform (from Australia) and the only sophisticated American car I can find in the list are the mid size sedans, all of which are FWD, with pushrod engines, and I have to say, not the most inspiring reviews I've ever seen. They all come a very distant 3rd to the Accord or Camry.
Oh, and guess how many are built on Korean designs?

The Ford line up is just as bad, anything half decent is from Ford Europe and the Trucks and Vans are still live axles with leaf springs.
The new modular V8 is nice, as is the new V6, but oh wait, the V6 is European and the V8 was built with a lot of European input (hello Jaguar and Volvo).

I'm not even going to talk about Chrysler and Dodge. They sell them here, and they are so bad it's not funny. Large on the out side, small on the inside, under powered, very basic suspensions and really, really ugly over the top styling. The only thing the have going for them is the price.

During the 20s and 30s, America was the world leader in car design and engineering.
They kept it up right through to the 60s, then started to slip a bit. By the 70s it was all over and the only way was down.
The result was the financial mess GM got themselves into and Ford only just avoided (thanks to Mazda and Ford Europe).

streethemi426
09-02-2011, 05:28 AM
I'm talking about the classic made in America designs by GM, Ford and Chrysler.
The big, heavy, badly designed and poorly made piles of junk that Americans seem to love to so much?

What is it about the bad styling and out dated suspension and push rod engines that Americans love so much???

American cars upto 71 was great after that was no good,chrysler made the coolest cars,and musclecars are still the coolest cars in the history of the automobile..fact..and when musclecars were been built....us brits and the rest of the world was giving there youth slow cars,boring styling,yes mucles cars never had great brakes or suspension...but they were nice to look at and more fun,..im mopar through and through and cars today have copied muscle car styling...

streethemi426
09-02-2011, 05:47 AM
I'm talking about the classic made in America designs by GM, Ford and Chrysler.
The big, heavy, badly designed and poorly made piles of junk that Americans seem to love to so much?

What is it about the bad styling and out dated suspension and push rod engines that Americans love so much???

besides new zeland have a car industry?.......er no

Chris V
09-02-2011, 07:37 AM
So how come when I goto GM's website, all the 4cyl cars are from GM Europe, and use European chassis and engines.
All the trucks and vans are live axles and leaf spring (with out a single overhead cam between them).
The large sedans are all based on the Zeta platform (from Australia) and the only sophisticated American car I can find in the list are the mid size sedans, all of which are FWD, with pushrod engines, and I have to say, not the most inspiring reviews I've ever seen. They all come a very distant 3rd to the Accord or Camry.
Oh, and guess how many are built on Korean designs?

The Ford line up is just as bad, anything half decent is from Ford Europe and the Trucks and Vans are still live axles with leaf springs.
The new modular V8 is nice, as is the new V6, but oh wait, the V6 is European and the V8 was built with a lot of European input (hello Jaguar and Volvo).

I'm not even going to talk about Chrysler and Dodge. They sell them here, and they are so bad it's not funny. Large on the out side, small on the inside, under powered, very basic suspensions and really, really ugly over the top styling. The only thing the have going for them is the price.

During the 20s and 30s, America was the world leader in car design and engineering.
They kept it up right through to the 60s, then started to slip a bit. By the 70s it was all over and the only way was down.
The result was the financial mess GM got themselves into and Ford only just avoided (thanks to Mazda and Ford Europe).

You really dont' know much about cars, do you Moppie? ;)

For large trucks and vans, live axles and heavy duty leaf or coil springs are teh strongest to do what trucks have to do. IRS is a BAD engineering choice in most cases.

Pushrod engines allow for smaller overall packaging and lighter weight for a given displacemetn, allowing for more engine for less money and less mass. Which is why those GM australia cars still use them, too. Making an engine more complex jsut to make it more complex is also a bad engineering choice. FOrd's 5.0 Coyote engine is a great engine, but it's physically MUCH larger than the 6 and 7 liter GM pushrod V8s, which weigh less AND put out more power, for less money.

The VERY few pushrod V6s are done for the same reason. In an average mid size car, having an engine with more power and more torque over a wider band for less money is a GOOD thing, so a pushrod engine, that does the job in less space for less money is a bonus. No one needs to be drag racing those mid size sedans, so overall power isn't an issue.

As for as engineering goes, GM and Ford ar global companies. How a car is engineered has nothing to do with the location of the particular engineering office, and more with where it's most economical for the company to do so. Engineers move around in the company all the time and are no tied to their location nor does theri location determine their nationality, nor does their nationality determine what they are good at.

Chrysler and dodge were owned by Mercedes and during that time Mercedes raped them of theri cash resources, then hobbled theri development, and sold them off liek redheaded step children to an investment firm that only wanted to make money off of reselling them. Fiat owns them now and we'll see if they do a better job of managing the companies.

Still, the hemi Chryslers are a foce to be reckoned with. If I had the money, a new Dodge Challenger R/T Classic in Plum Crazy would be in my driveway. I had a 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser for 5 years and it was flawless the entire time I had it, doing both autocross (racing) duties for a year and doing all sorts of trucklike activities (hauling all the lumber for my deck, all the replacemetn windows for my house, and one time, carrying 1200 lbs of bagged crushed rock for my driveway). It was driven all over the east coast, from Maine to florida and never missed a beat, never needed repairs, and was completely free of squeaks and rattles when I sold it at 70k miles as it was when it was new. Probably shouldn't have sold it but we needed something bigger, so we first of 3 Range Rovers.

Moppie@af
09-03-2011, 07:21 PM
You really dont' know much about cars, do you Moppie? ;)

:jerking: :p:p


For large trucks and vans, live axles and heavy duty leaf or coil springs are teh strongest to do what trucks have to do. IRS is a BAD engineering choice in most cases.


For Large trucks, yes.
But, your definition of large, and my definition of large are different things.
This is as small as a large Truck gets: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.nz/trucks/canter_euro/?_$ja=kw:mitsubishi+canter|cgn:Canter|cgid:1895651 800|tsid:9890|cn:Fuso+-+Model|cid:58142680|lid:41291452|mt:Broad|nw:searc h|crid:6738367000&gclid=CMHoqdiegqsCFQslpAodxTLpzQ

A live axle and leaf springs works very well only because its very simple, cheap to make and doesn't compromise load capacity.
But in a commercial vehicle, those things all out weigh comfort, road holding and performance.


On the other hand, a large Van like a Toyota Granvia is about the same size as Chev van, like a GMC Savana. But where the Savana has a live axle and leaf springs, with drum brakes, the Granvia has independent suspension and 4 wheel discs.
The similar options from VW and Mercedes come standard with IRS. A live axle is an option for commercial customers on a budget, but it's still coil sprung.

I bet the Savana still uses a ladder chassis, and it's basic structural design has not changed in 30 years.
It's big, it's ugly and it's stupid.



Pushrod engines allow for smaller overall packaging and lighter weight for a given displacemetn, allowing for more engine for less money and less mass. Which is why those GM australia cars still use them, too. Making an engine more complex jsut to make it more complex is also a bad engineering choice. FOrd's 5.0 Coyote engine is a great engine, but it's physically MUCH larger than the 6 and 7 liter GM pushrod V8s, which weigh less AND put out more power, for less money.


Waffle.
The new Ford Modular V8s are bigger mostly because they use a wide V angle than the old Windsor and Cleveland motors they replaced.
While the cylinder head on an over head cam engine is usually larger than on a push rod engine, the difference is small, and the intake manifold on either engine type normally takes up more space.
As do other engine mounted accessories.

If engine size was such an issue, then why do the worlds smallest mass produced cars, all use over head cam engines?

The VERY few pushrod V6s are done for the same reason. In an average mid size car, having an engine with more power and more torque over a wider band for less money is a GOOD thing, so a pushrod engine, that does the job in less space for less money is a bonus. No one needs to be drag racing those mid size sedans, so overall power isn't an issue.

More waffle.


The rest of the world has moved onto over head cams, including Ford America (thanks to Ford Europe).
GM is the only one left with pushrod engines in large scale mass production, and they are only used in America and Australia.
For the record, Holden have been trying for years to get an over head cam engine.
Ford Australia even went as far as developing an DOHC version of their inline 6 while they waited for Ford America to develop something to replace it, and they switched to the modular V8 as quickly as they could.

I would love to know in what universe the laws of physics allow a push rod engine to make more power, torque and provide better power delivery than a DOHC equivalent

A pushrod is a very in-efficient way to transfer motion from the cam shaft to a valve.

The pushrods themselves take up space in the block, require lubrication, limit the number of valves that can be used per cylinder, limit the head design with respect to valve placement and port design, and add a complication during manufacture.

Moving the cam shaft to the top of the engine allows for complete freedom in cylinder head design, resulting in a considerably more powerful/efficient engine for a given capacity.
GM was forced to make the small block chev larger in capacity in order to compete with Ford on HP.


While the Small Block Chev has more than earned it's place in history, it's antiquated design means it has no place in a modern future.



As for as engineering goes, GM and Ford ar global companies. How a car is engineered has nothing to do with the location of the particular engineering office, and more with where it's most economical for the company to do so. Engineers move around in the company all the time and are no tied to their location nor does theri location determine their nationality, nor does their nationality determine what they are good at.

Ford and GM are global corporations.
Each region is however operated as a separate company.
Holden and GM Europe made this very, VERY clear when GM North America got in so much shit last year.
While they still share designs, the design work itself is done independently in each region.
Holden have made it very clear that they are responsible for the Zeta platform, and all the work was done in Australia, by Australians.
Likewise Daewoo claim full ownership of their designs, as to Opel/Vaxhaul.
It is why there is a vast difference in the level of technology, sophistication, safety and performance between an Astra GTC and a Silverado 1500.


Chrysler and dodge were owned by Mercedes and during that time Mercedes raped them of theri cash resources, then hobbled theri development, and sold them off liek redheaded step children to an investment firm that only wanted to make money off of reselling them. Fiat owns them now and we'll see if they do a better job of managing the companies


And how did they get into the position in the first place?
That's right, they made really badly built, poorly designed, out dated cars that no body wanted to buy.



Still, the hemi Chryslers are a foce to be reckoned with. If I had the money, a new Dodge Challenger R/T Classic in Plum Crazy would be in my driveway.


Which raises another point, is that the best Ford, GM and Chrysler can do
Rehash old designs and ideas from 40 years ago?
Ford have an excuse for the Mustang, it's a model with an unbroken lineage, but even then, why does the new one look so much like and attempt to be so much like the original?
GM and Chrysler have no excuse.
It reeks of a total lack of imagination, creativity and passion in their design departments.



so we first of 3 Range Rovers.

Ahhh, smart man :smokin: :evillol:

wishIhad12
09-09-2011, 09:48 PM
I'm going to show up late but crash this party anyway. Sadly this guy doesn't know much about what he is going on about.

First, when talking about what American companies make it's important to also look at what NON-American companies sell here. This will give you an idea if something is sold because that's all the American car companies know how to make or if it's because that's what American buyers want. Note that when Nissan and Toyota decided to produce trucks they were basically modeled after US trucks. Sure they were different in many small ways but the current Toyota Tundra, or Nissan Titan is obviously designed to be very similar to a US brand truck. Big displacement, gas V8 with leaf springs and a rigid axle. Honda thought they would try something different and the Ridgeline failed in the market. American cars were typically softer riding and didn't handle as sharply as European cars. Well when the Japanese started adjusting cars to American tastes, guess what. Their cars became larger and softer too. VW has dumped the Euro standard Jetta and Passat. Instead we get US specific versions which are larger, cheaper (both in construction and price) and softer than the Euro versions. Ignoring those facts would be just as dumb as me complaining that European or Japanese cars in their respective home markets are too small and have small motors. Well both have narrow streets, small parking spots, expensive gas and tax laws that make large displacement motors unpopular. Go figure they prefer smaller cars.


For Large trucks, yes.
But, your definition of large, and my definition of large are different things.
This is as small as a large Truck gets: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.nz/trucks/canter_euro/?_$ja=kw:mitsubishi+canter|cgn:Canter|cgid:1895651 800|tsid:9890|cn:Fuso+-+Model|cid:58142680|lid:41291452|mt:Broad|nw:searc h|crid:6738367000&gclid=CMHoqdiegqsCFQslpAodxTLpzQ

A live axle and leaf springs works very well only because its very simple, cheap to make and doesn't compromise load capacity.
But in a commercial vehicle, those things all out weigh comfort, road holding and performance.
[\quote]
Glad you see the cost benefits. Of course with pickups the same benefits apply. Also, a leaf spring solid axle on a pickup doesn't have to ride badly at all. I doubt you have ever ridden in a modern US pickup (Japanese or American brands). They aren't sports sedans but they actually are quite comfortable on the highway.

[quote]On the other hand, a large Van like a Toyota Granvia is about the same size as Chev van, like a GMC Savana. But where the Savana has a live axle and leaf springs, with drum brakes, the Granvia has independent suspension and 4 wheel discs.
The Savana is very old. It is also rather cheap and really, it's not a passenger vehicle. Also, as it shares many parts with the GM trucks I'm sure if rear discs are needed (and you haven't proven they are) I suspect GM can deliver that version. Several of GM's trucks do have rear disks. BTW, while many car nuts bitch when a car doesn't have rear discs the case for rear discs is often not as strong as one might assume. With ABS systems on of the big issues with rear drums, ie they lock early, is addressed. The other issue is fade. Well in the US we normally don't need as much braking capacity as in other countries simply due to our driving styles and roads. So unless you can show the brakes are actually inadequate, you are complaining without understanding.


The similar options from VW and Mercedes come standard with IRS. A live axle is an option for commercial customers on a budget, but it's still coil sprung.
The Sprinter is similar to the Savana. It has live axles. All versions of the Sprinter Van sold in the US had leaf springs in back. Please show a version that didn't use leaves in other countries. Do note that the full size SUVs in the US have a range of suspension types. Ford uses IRS, GM uses a multi-link, coil spring with live axle setup. It is certainly clear US companies can deliver those features IF the market demands them.

I bet the Savana still uses a ladder chassis, and it's basic structural design has not changed in 30 years.
It's big, it's ugly and it's stupid.
It, like the Sprinter van does use a ladder chassis. It's effective for the job it's asked to do. I agree the GM vans are ugly. The Ford one was OK but not with the new nose. The new Nissan Van, which follow the full size van pattern set by GM and Ford is also ugly... and uses a new ladder chassis. Of course you are wrong when you say ladder chassis technology hasn't evolved. GM, Ford, Nissan, Chrysler and Toyota have all show new ideas in that technology.

The new Ford Modular V8s are bigger mostly because they use a wide V angle than the old Windsor and Cleveland motors they replaced.
Ummm, the Modular V8s aren't at all new. They first came out 20(!) years ago. You are also wrong about the V angle. The old and current V8s were all 90 degree blocks. This picture should help you understand the size difference between pushrod heads and DOHC heads....
http://vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg
302 CI is 4.9L

While the cylinder head on an over head cam engine is usually larger than on a push rod engine, the difference is small, and the intake manifold on either engine type normally takes up more space.
As do other engine mounted accessories.
Wrong again. There is a reason why the GM small block engines are so popular for transplants. They are very compact and quite light. The Corvette's LS7 weighs the same as a Nissan 3.7L V6!

If engine size was such an issue, then why do the worlds smallest mass produced cars, all use over head cam engines?
It's not hard to figure this one out if you think for a bit. Most of the world has heavy displacement based taxes or other fees. Most of the world (and even in the US) is using I4 motors. The pushrod packaging advantages don't work with I4s for a number of reasons. If you would like I can go into this in another post. Basically it's only in the V blocks where the packaging advantage of pushrods works. Regardless, the results of the LSx and HEMI motors are self evident.

The rest of the world has moved onto over head cams, including Ford America (thanks to Ford Europe).
Wrong. Bentley still has a home grown pushrod V8. Ford moved to DOHC but not via Europe. Ford's first DOHC V6 family (the Duratec) was developed in the US. The DOHC V8 family was done in the US. I believe the Zetec I4 was a European project but then again, with global markets it makes sense to have Europe develop a motor that works for both the US and Europe while the US can develop the motor that's largely just for the US market.

GM is the only one left with pushrod engines in large scale mass production, and they are only used in America and Australia.
Wrong again. Chrysler and Bentley both have pushrod motors. Chrysler, like GM chose to make a NEW pushrod motor (GM in the mid 90s after having released a DOHC V8) and Chrysler after 2000). People often don't understand the pros and cons of pushrods. The funny thing was the Ford OHC motors were typically seen as inferior to the pushrod rivals.

For the record, Holden have been trying for years to get an over head cam engine.
Ford Australia even went as far as developing an DOHC version of their inline 6 while they waited for Ford America to develop something to replace it, and they switched to the modular V8 as quickly as they could.

It seems many people are quite happy with the LS motor. Can you cite people who are, after driving an LS family V8, complaining that the motor should be OHC or is this your own bias and lack of familiarity coming through?

I would love to know in what universe the laws of physics allow a push rod engine to make more power, torque and provide better power delivery than a DOHC equivalent
A pushrod motor allows more displacement in a given physical size. A stock Miata comes with a 1.8L I4. A 7L ! pushrod V8 will fit under the hood of a Miata. Can you name another normally aspirated engine that would fit in a Miata and deliver more power? The standard Corvette V8 has about the same weight and physical size as the 4L V8 used in the BMW M3. The Corvette motor produces more power. So what is "equivalent"? Do we do same displacement or same size?

A pushrod is a very in-efficient way to transfer motion from the cam shaft to a valve.
Prove that. Heywood's fundamentals of combustion engineering book wouldn't agree.

The pushrods themselves take up space in the block, require lubrication, limit the number of valves that can be used per cylinder, limit the head design with respect to valve placement and port design, and add a complication during manufacture.
You are generally wrong again. You are correct that pushrods take up space in the valley between the cylinders. What did you want to put there instead? Pushrods do limit head setups but like many things it's a trade off. They allow more displacement for a given sized engine bay. They aren't harder or more expensive to manufacture. That argument runs counter to one of the common slams against pushrods, that they are only used to save money! Your arguments really aren't very logical.

Moving the cam shaft to the top of the engine allows for complete freedom in cylinder head design, resulting in a considerably more powerful/efficient engine for a given capacity.
Powerful for a given displacement? Yes. More efficient? No. Efficiency is typically rated at part throttle where the extra breathing ability of the DOHC engine doesn't help.

GM was forced to make the small block chev larger in capacity in order to compete with Ford on HP.
Not really, the older Ford OHC V8s in the trucks were similar in displacement and power to the GM motors (neither had great power per L but the GM engines were much smaller). The 6.2L LSx motor produces about the same power as the current 5L Mustang V8. So in this case you are correct but the GM motor is smaller and lighter. Also, since when did displacement cost money in the US? We have no displacement taxes so why should we act like displacement needs to be conserved? The airplane engine guys don't care about displacement. They don't care about HP/L. A Corvette with a 6L V8 returns the same mileage as the Honda S2000 with a 2L I4. What was your point?


While the Small Block Chev has more than earned it's place in history, it's antiquated design means it has no place in a modern future.
That's a well supported argument... really well supported.

Sorry, you typed almost as much as I did but it's pretty clear you didn't understand the subject.

And how did they get into the position in the first place?
That's right, they made really badly built, poorly designed, out dated cars that no body wanted to buy.
That's a very simplistic view of a very complex problem.

Which raises another point, is that the best Ford, GM and Chrysler can do
Rehash old designs and ideas from 40 years ago?
Yup, I don't recall VW or BMW-MINI or Fiat (500) doing anything similar.

wishIhad12
09-09-2011, 10:12 PM
(http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=1935)Moppie,
Having just scanned though a few of your posts I get the feeling you have a lot of experience working on cars but you may not have as much background in understanding the design of cars.

Not a bad thing but I still think you don't understand much of what you were posting.

blazee
09-09-2011, 10:22 PM
wishIhad12, you are my new favorite member. :thumbsup:

boxerman
09-10-2011, 02:05 AM
And to add to Moppie's comment: why o why is it possible that this summer I was driving around in Europe in a VW Touran and Opel Zafira (family size cars) that easily make 40 miles/gallon, while here in the US you got to be very lucky if such a size car gives you 20 miles/gallon?? Am I missing some essential difference here in how cars for the European market are built compared to US? Maybe there is a legal difference in engine performance. Can somebody enlighten me?

wishIhad12
09-10-2011, 08:42 AM
And to add to Moppie's comment: why o why is it possible that this summer I was driving around in Europe in a VW Touran and Opel Zafira (family size cars) that easily make 40 miles/gallon, while here in the US you got to be very lucky if such a size car gives you 20 miles/gallon?? Am I missing some essential difference here in how cars for the European market are built compared to US? Maybe there is a legal difference in engine performance. Can somebody enlighten me?

Was it a diesel car or were you using British gallons which are bigger than US gallons? Both VW and Opel (GM) sell cars here so we aren't talking about a lack of technology. Also the Euro fuel economy test returns higher numbers than the EPA test for the same vehicle. You should try comparing the exact same model sold in both markets such as a Golf GTI or the older Passat or something like a Volvo.

In the US we have the Mazda 5 which is the same size as the VW. It doesn't return anywhere near 40 in the US. In the US it has a 2.5L engine and returns 28mpg highway (EPA). In England the largest motor is a 2L and it returns 40 mpg (from spec sheet). The two engines are almost the same power at 150 ps for the UK vs 156 SAE hp for the US. The increase in displacement, contrary to the belief of some doesn't necessarily hurt mileage because it's typically accompanied by a lower gear ratio which helps efficiency.

So what's the difference? Well the size of the UK gallon is 4.55L while a US gallon is 3.79L. So the UK car should with no other changes get 20% more range. Using UK gallons the US version would get 34 mpg. Next the UK car will be tested via a test which returns mileage that is honestly unrealistic in the US. We have seen this when dealing with cars that are unchanged from Europe to hear then comparing their Euro vs EPA numbers. Given the new mileage targets for manufactures selling in the US it is foolish to think that tricks that improve gas engine mileage in Europe wouldn't be used hear.
http://www.mazda.co.uk/showroom/mazda5/specification/
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsSpecs&vehicleCode=MZ5

Moppie@af
09-10-2011, 05:41 PM
And to add to Moppie's comment: why o why is it possible that this summer I was driving around in Europe in a VW Touran and Opel Zafira (family size cars) that easily make 40 miles/gallon, while here in the US you got to be very lucky if such a size car gives you 20 miles/gallon?? Am I missing some essential difference here in how cars for the European market are built compared to US? Maybe there is a legal difference in engine performance. Can somebody enlighten me?


Driven under the same conditions, the same car should get the same MPG regardless of what country it's in.

And, as has been pointed out, the European tests are a bit of a joke.
If you watch any of the 5th gear or Autocar content on youtube they always point out that in real world driving, you will never get close to the claimed figures.


I think what your getting at though is the big difference between the European designed cars and the American designed ones.

And your right, the level of sophistication, technology, safety, efficiency etc, is considerably higher in the European cars.

wishIhad12
09-10-2011, 06:05 PM
Driven under the same conditions, the same car should get the same MPG regardless of what country it's in.

And, as has been pointed out, the European tests are a bit of a joke.
If you watch any of the 5th gear or Autocar content on youtube they always point out that in real world driving, you will never get close to the claimed figures.


I think what your getting at though is the big difference between the European designed cars and the American designed ones.

And your right, the level of sophistication, technology, safety, efficiency etc, is considerably higher in the European cars.

You are correct on the first part but not so much on the second. The level of sophistication etc is about on part for cars of the same price. Look what happened when Ford brought the Mondeo over. In 1995 the US Contour and the European Mondeo were all but the same car. Over time Ford pulled costs out of the US version. It ended up as a less impressive car but it also cost quite a bit less than the Euro version.

Of course when you make statements like that we need to clarify, are you referring to US brand cars or cars targeted at the US regardless of brand (US Passat vs Euro Passat or US Accord vs Euro Accord for example)?

Moppie@af
09-11-2011, 04:40 AM
(http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=1935)Moppie,
Having just scanned though a few of your posts I get the feeling you have a lot of experience working on cars but you may not have as much background in understanding the design of cars.

Not a bad thing but I still think you don't understand much of what you were posting.



First of all, welcome to AF, I do enjoy a good debate :smokin:


Second, just a couple of points:


The Ford Duratec was not Fords first entry into OHC modular designs.
To the best of my knowledge it made an appearance in 1995 in Europe in the Mondeo and in America in a number of different cars. It was sold here in the Mondeo as a EUROPEAN designed engine, and I think you will find it was sold globally before it was made in the US.
The Duratec name is used on a LOT of engines though, including some that were designed by Mazda. I don't doubt that some of the engines are designed and built in the US, but the original concept came out of Europe.

Fords first entry into the world of OHC V6's was with the Yamaha/Ford/Mazda designed engine used in the Ford Telstar and the Ford Taurus SHO, starting in 1989. It was also used in a variety of Mazda's.




Your comparison photo of the DOHC and Pushrod V8s is good at showing the difference in block and head size, but is missing some crucial parts.
Stick exhaust, inlet and accessories on both engines and see what the size difference is then.
You will find that the Pushrod engine is not that much smaller any more.
It's why the Nissan and Toyota/Lexus DOHC V8s are so popular.I know of several builds where they used because the Chev Small block wouldn't fit once the exhaust and intake were installed.


On that note, the Chev Small block is not popular in engine conversions/swaps because of it's size, it's popular because it is easily obtainable, easy to work on, easy to make big HP from and has an enormous amount of aftermarket support.



My comments about Drum brakes were just to get a wind up :tongue:
In reality they offer more braking force than a similar sized disc set up, and they are making a come back on lots of small cars.
The down side is more rotational mass and un-sprung weight, but on Grand Ma's shopping cart that isn't really a problem.


My comments about leaf springs however are very true.
A leaf sprung set up will never give the same levels of ride and handling that a coil set up will. Not even a complex progressive multi-leaf set up
(the exception being a transverse leaf, although its coil equivalent, in board springs/dampers, is superior again).


As for why so many manufacturers, Ford now included, have switched to OHC engines, it's because they ARE cheaper and easier to build.
It has nothing to do with them being more complex, and using more parts than a push rod engine, it's because the production line can be made versatile and more efficient.

If you ever learn anything about Inventory Control, Work Center Planning, MRP etc, then you will learn that it makes sense to build modular engines (it's why Ford call their engines Modular, it refers to the manufacturing process).
The best modular design for an internal combustion engine is one where the Cylinder is self contained and separate from a self contained bottom end.

It's a whole manufacturing philosophy with the happy side effect that an OHC engine allows for more freedom with the combustion chamber design.
Show me a push rod engine that has variable valve timing and lift, and that can make 90% of it's peak torque over a range of 5,000rpm, with a usable power curve that covers 7,000rpm.

Moppie@af
09-11-2011, 04:53 AM
I'm making a pretty blanket statement with my opening post, and clearly there are a lot of Global cars sold in the US, as well as localized variants of cars like the Jetta, Focus, etc.

What I'm referring to though are the traditional US models that are designed and built in North America (or Mexico) by the big 3. Ford, GM and whats left of Chrysler.
Cars like the Impala, F150, Caliber etc.

These are not sophisticated, not well built, old fashioned designs under lots of ugly plastic and metal bodies that claim to be "modern designs".

Why do Americans buy this crap?


In 1995 the US Contour and the European Mondeo were all but the same car. Over time Ford pulled costs out of the US version. It ended up as a less impressive car but it also cost quite a bit less than the Euro version.




I think this is getting to where I'm going here.

The big 3 make some pretty crap cars that DO not sell any where else in the world.

Is it because so many Americans are too proud, or too stupid to demand anything better, or is it because the big 3 have been to lazy and cheap to product and market anything better?

Have they been riding the coat tails of isolationist economics for so long that big crap cars, SUV's and Trucks have become the accepted Norm, and anything modern and sophisticated is shunned because it's different?

wishIhad12
09-11-2011, 10:26 AM
I'm making a pretty blanket statement with my opening post, and clearly there are a lot of Global cars sold in the US, as well as localized variants of cars like the Jetta, Focus, etc.

What I'm referring to though are the traditional US models that are designed and built in North America (or Mexico) by the big 3. Ford, GM and whats left of Chrysler.
Well thatís a rather open ended statement isnít it? A lot of what we have in the US isnít stuff that lacks sophistication. At the same time with global companies it makes sense to divide the load. Why is it that Ford of Europe seems to design so many cars with pathetically small motors? Well because they sell there and not here. It certainly doesnít make sense for Europe to develop an F-150. Since there clearly is a market for trucks in makes sense to develop them here and let Europe develop cars that are specific for Europe. At the same time when we have projects that will be used in many markets to divide the work. Ford US does the larger displacement motors (the modular V8 and the new 5.0 V8 as well as the V6s. Mazda did the I4s).
Cars like the Impala, F150, Caliber etc.
The Impala is the last of the W-body cars. Itís kept around for fleet sales. Itís design dates back to the 1980s. Itís not a great example because itís a legacy car.
The F series is the best selling vehicle in the world. Clearly there is a market. Prior to the big increase in gas prices I could really see trucks as a practical personal vehicle. In the US, the size isnít a complicating factor. If you donít mind the gas price then that excuse goes away. Note that when gas prices went up here the sales of trucks fell. So how do they work as personal transport? Well really just fine. Any more the newest models ride nicely. They are quite. They have lots of space. They have all that cargo space when you need it. Honestly, mileage aside, itís hard to fault them.
The Caliber was a POS designed during the dark days at Chrysler after MB had decided to under fund new R&D. Compare the Caliber to the original Neon. The original Neon was very innovative in how it was assembled and in how Chrysler creatively reduced part count. In fact Toyota used the Neon as their design for manufacturability benchmark in the mid 90s.
Conversely, the domestics do have sophisticate cars though most are based on world chassis (as I mentioned earlier itís dumb to have two efforts). Yes, the latest GM RWD platforms were done in Australia. Are you suggesting that people in Detroit couldnít have done the same work? I mean GM could just shutter Holdenís R&D and move the work back to the US. GM is doing their high end V6 and I4 motors in the US. Ford is only doing the V6s here (not sure what the future I4 plans are). Chrysler is doing all of their V6 and V8 motors here though with Fiat in the picture that could change. BTW, the first of the ďnewĒ MINIs werenít powered by a BMW designed motor, that was a Chrysler designed motor.
Of course the Corvette is designed in the US and contrary to what some think it is a sophisticated design. The magnetic dampers were very trick and developed by Delphi when it was still part of GM. Now they are being used by Audi and Ferrari as well.

These are not sophisticated, not well built, old fashioned designs under lots of ugly plastic and metal bodies that claim to be "modern designs". Show me the claims and then we can discuss them. I wouldnít defend the Caliber but I also donít accept your blanket statement.
Why do Americans buy this crap?
If you checked the sales you would see that we donít buy many Impalas or Caliberís for personal use. On the other hand we buy many trucks because they actually work well for the intended purpose and price.
I think this is getting to where I'm going here.

The big 3 make some pretty crap cars that DO not sell any where else in the world.
Whoís definition of crappy? First, itís not just the US companies. When Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, and VW all make US specific models donít you think it MIGHT be because our market isnít the same as others? Your criticism basically applies to any of the US specific models. The fact that they sell well here and that others are doing US specific models suggest something about our market. Nearly 100 years ago GM and Ford both realized that the US market wasnít like Europe and much of the rest of the world. Thatís why both companies had overseas operations.
Is it because so many Americans are too proud, or too stupid to demand anything better, or is it because the big 3 have been to lazy and cheap to product and market anything better?
This statement really reflects more about the lack of intelligence of the poster than the US market. Sorry, the Japanese and European cars have been in our market long enough that anyone with common sense can see that we know much of what sophisticated cars were like in the rest of the world. We still get many of those cars. You know what, the car makers also understood that we, on average, donít want to pay $26k for a sophisticated Corolla vs the more basic Corolla. I mean I could be just as ignorant and ask why you are to stupid or stuck in your ways to demand VALUE for your car buying dollar. Why donít you demand that your manufactures deliver more for less? Sorry the market is simply different.
Have they been riding the coat tails of isolationist economics for so long that big crap cars, SUV's and Trucks have become the accepted Norm, and anything modern and sophisticated is shunned because it's different?
Again this statement is laughably ignorant. The US has the most open car market in the world. That was one of the things that hurt the Big 3 so much is that we let imports right in while Europe made it harder for the Japanese to come in and Japan makes it all but impossible to enter their market.

After reading much of this you have simply painted yourself as ignorant and arrogant. You arenít doing a good job of processing the information in front of you. Even worse, much of the information you have presented is just flat out wrong. I would suggest more reading and learning would help as well as throwing away your preconceived ideas. Donít start off assuming that a populous is dumb, instead assume they arenít but made a choice you didnít agree with THEN try to understand why they made that choice. Certainly it would be dumb for me to ask why Europeans want a Fiesta sized car that cost as much as a Modeo sized car in the US. ďWhy are they so dumb and donít demand a bigger car with more HP since neither costs the manufacture much more?Ē Anyone with half a brain could tear up that question but in total absence of any knowledge of Europe and only knowledge of the US market the underlying question (having been stripped of the derogatory implications) would be worth asking. You should try the same. It would keep you from looking foolish when the obvious reasons are presented.

wishIhad12
09-11-2011, 10:31 AM
Note: I've modified this post based on what I wanted to post. I think being a newbie the system didn't want me to included external links (not a bad idea). I've now embedded the pictures which I hadn't intended to do and the X-V8 links were replaced with requests to google the motor.

The Ford Duratec was not Fords first entry into OHC modular designs.
To the best of my knowledge it made an appearance in 1995 in Europe in the Mondeo and in America in a number of different cars. It was sold here in the Mondeo as a EUROPEAN designed engine, and I think you will find it was sold globally before it was made in the US.
The Duratec name is used on a LOT of engines though, including some that were designed by Mazda. I don't doubt that some of the engines are designed and built in the US, but the original concept came out of Europe.
Fords first entry into the world of OHC V6's was with the Yamaha/Ford/Mazda designed engine used in the Ford Telstar and the Ford Taurus SHO, starting in 1989. It was also used in a variety of Mazda's.
You are mixing things up here. I didn’t mention the Yamaha-Ford V6 because it was largely a Yamaha design. IIRC the block was a Ford block. Also it was not used in a bunch of cars as you claim, it was only used in the Taurus SHO. Several other demo vehicles were created but they weren’t for general sale.
Look up wikipedia Ford_SHO_V6_engine
The Duratec name started on the family of 2.5L and later 3.0L V6 motors that were first seen in the Mondeo (1994 in Europe 1995 in the US, I believe they were all made in the US since that was expected to be the primary market). The name was later applied to other motors. Some of the R&D was done in Europe (Cosworth casting technologies for example) but much was done in the US as well. BTW, Ford’s modular DOHC V8 predates the Duratec V6 and it was developed in the US for the US market. I’m not referring to the later Duratec I4s which were Mazda based and replaced the Zetec. The deal with Mazda was Ford did the V6s (Mazda dropped theirs) and Mazda did the small inline motors for the Ford world at the time.
I don’t see any evidence to back the idea that “the concept came out of Europe”. What does that even mean? It’s not like Europe was the only place that ever saw a DOHC motor. They weren’t used by the Big 3 because displacement is a cheaper way to get power (it’s damned near free). That said the US does have a history of such motors.
Your comparison photo of the DOHC and Pushrod V8s is good at showing the difference in block and head size, but is missing some crucial parts.
Stick exhaust, inlet and accessories on both engines and see what the size difference is then.
You will find that the Pushrod engine is not that much smaller any more.
It's why the Nissan and Toyota/Lexus DOHC V8s are so popular.I know of several builds where they used because the Chev Small block wouldn't fit once the exhaust and intake were installed.


On that note, the Chev Small block is not popular in engine conversions/swaps because of it's size, it's popular because it is easily obtainable, easy to work on, easy to make big HP from and has an enormous amount of aftermarket support.
No question that the small block Chevy has a lot of support. However, much of that is because it’s such a good engine.
Your claims about the exhaust manifolds aren’t correct. They actually exit down from the head in factory form. GM loads this motor in through the bottom of the Corvette chassis so width is a big deal to them. Just to give people more idea how small these motors really are consider these pictures of the LSx motor next to a Miata (Mazda) 1.8.
http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/BothRight.jpg
http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/BothFront.jpg
Note that the V8 has its exhaust installed and it doesn’t protrude as you claim.
Here’s another pair of pictures to consider. The 3L Ford DOHC V6 under the hood of a Miata vs the 5.0 under the hood of a Miata. Are you starting to see the fact that pushrod motors can be very compact?
http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/V6_MX5_engine.jpg
http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/5.0_Done.jpg
My comments about Drum brakes were just to get a wind up
In reality they offer more braking force than a similar sized disc set up, and they are making a come back on lots of small cars.
The down side is more rotational mass and un-sprung weight, but on Grand Ma's shopping cart that isn't really a problem.
I’m glad we agree about the brakes then. The problem with wind up sort of statements is too many of your points aren’t correct. It’s hard to tell when you are going for fact vs effect.
My comments about leaf springs however are very true.
A leaf sprung set up will never give the same levels of ride and handling that a coil set up will. Not even a complex progressive multi-leaf set up
(the exception being a transverse leaf, although its coil equivalent, in board springs/dampers, is superior again).
I agree with this. However, leaf springs are for the most part only used on pickups in the US. I agree that other types of suspension can ride better. Dodge has even switched their truck to multi-link and coils in back. That said, leaf springs are very cost effective for the job they are being asked to do this a good choice. That is also why they are used on things like the Sprinter Van. You were critical that US companies used them but clearly other companies have reached the same conclusion. Perhaps that’s because the conclusion was sound, not because those making the choice weren’t smart.
As for why so many manufacturers, Ford now included, have switched to OHC engines, it's because they ARE cheaper and easier to build.
It has nothing to do with them being more complex, and using more parts than a push rod engine, it's because the production line can be made versatile and more efficient.
No, a DOHC V8 is not cheaper to make than a pushrod V8. That is just plain wrong. BTW, we really need to keep discussion of OHC vs DOHC vs multi-valve and for that matter V vs I blocks sorted out. Ford and the other domestics have done a number of OHC engines over the years. The domestics dumped pushrod inline engines almost as fast as Europe. The delay was likely due to the I4 only being the base engine in most US cars. If you wanted more power you went to the larger V6 vs going to a DOHC I4. Either way, the difference was as much differences in market as anything.
When GM created their only current pushrod motor, the LSx family, it was a contious choice to stick with pushrods. GM had already created the very good Northstar DOHC V8 at that point and clearly showed they could do a DOHC V8 if they wanted. Chrysler again stuck with pushrods when creating the current HEMI in 2003. Remember that in 2003 Chrysler had created plenty of DOHC motors and they were paired with Mercedes at the time so they could have help from Mercedes if it was needed (it wasn’t and Chrysler was actually charged with designing what would have been a new family of V6s for the whole company. That family was delayed due to the turmoil at Chrysler but was recently released to rave reviews). Chrysler chose do to a pushrod V8 instead of a OHC V8. The resulting HEMI engine is a very good motor and, like the LSx motor, the results vindicate the choice.
And since you want to be critical of the sophistication of pushrod motors, how many DOHC motors have cylinder deactivation capabilities? Honda does, who else?

If you ever learn anything about Inventory Control, Work Center Planning, MRP etc, then you will learn that it makes sense to build modular engines (it's why Ford call their engines Modular, it refers to the manufacturing process).
The best modular design for an internal combustion engine is one where the Cylinder is self contained and separate from a self contained bottom end.
I know a lot about that subject. I also know you are mixing terms. You are right that Ford’s motors were modular in design. Of course virtually all modern engines would be modular in scope if not in name.
Your second statement is poorly explained. First, WHY would you claim that’s the best? Your post comes off as someone who has heard the terms but didn’t get the concept (you might understand it but your post doesn’t reflect that). What do you mean by self-contained cylinder. When the pressures from one cylinder are shared with another we typically refer to that as a blown gasket. Not a cool thing.

It's a whole manufacturing philosophy with the happy side effect that an OHC engine allows for more freedom with the combustion chamber design.
Show us what you are talking about. Again I think you are mixing up information here. Being modular doesn’t ensure more freedom in the combustion chamber design. I can have a non-modular, single purpose DOHC engine and have that same chamber design freedom.

wishIhad12
09-11-2011, 10:33 AM
(I've split this post)
Show me a push rod engine that has variable valve timing and lift, and that can make 90% of it's peak torque over a range of 5,000rpm, with a usable power curve that covers 7,000rpm.
Iím not going to bother to look up power curves for you. Real a review of the Corvette. One of the common statements is the engine has a very broad power curve. Let me take your post a step further to show how inane is the request. First, not that many engines DOHC or otherwise have redlines over 7K. I mean plenty of sporty motors do but if you look at say a Lexus V6 or a BMW I6 you will find most redline around 7K. So 5000 RPM range of 90% peak torque and a 7k redline. That means 90% of peak torque at 2000 RPM. Sounds like a job for a turbo motor. Conversely, I suspect a high reving motorcycle engine might meet your requirements.
Really, you would have to be clueless to think that the nice large displacement pushrod motors arenít known for a great power band. I would suggest you refer to these comments from Road and Track after testing 4 V8 powered sports cars:

Who makes the best V-8? That's the question we set out to answer.
We all agreed ó without doubt ó that the always hard-hitting LS3 of the Corvette had the best power delivery and was by far the easiest with which to tap its potential.
But everyone also agreed the Ferrari sounded the best. Said Steve, "The F430's engine goes through melodies of sound that start out throaty, move on to a bark and finish in a high-revving scream." It's about as sexy-sounding a package as you'll ever find.
So when it came to choosing an absolute favorite V-8, we were torn: Two of us chose the Corvette's torque-rich 6.2-liter, the other two the Ferrari's high-revving 4.3. In a tie-breaker, we went with the Corvette's LS3. This engine is truly phenomenal in its everyday usability and civility, yet it's insanely fast when you ask it to be ó all the while rewarding our ears with that most American of V-8 thunder.
www_roadandtrack_com/tests/comparison/v-8-exotics/v-8_exotics-3a_final_thoughts_page_10
And just in case you think no one has thought about clever ideas for pushrod motors, Chrysler has dual VVT in the Viperís pushrod motor. GM also created this gem a few years back.
(Google for GM X-V8)
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4889/1160302gm5z8eh.jpg

blazee
09-11-2011, 01:13 PM
Note: I've modified this post based on what I wanted to post. I think being a newbie the system didn't want me to included external links (not a bad idea). I've now embedded the pictures which I hadn't intended to do and the X-V8 links were replaced with requests to google the motor.


You are correct. It is an anti-spam measure that hides suspicious posts until we get a chance to look at them. A new member posting a lot links/pictures will trip it.

I can easily exchange your posts if you'd prefer to have your original post visible rather than the edited version.

AF Mascot
09-11-2011, 05:06 PM
What an awesome thread! It's great to see auto enthusiasts of differing opinions discussing their points of view in such an informative and respectful manner. This is what we're here for. :thumbsup:

Moppie@af
09-11-2011, 06:01 PM
What an awesome thread! It's great to see auto enthusiasts of differing opinions discussing their points of view in such an informative and respectful manner. This is what we're here for. :thumbsup:




Cheers Mr Mascot, good to see you out and about.


It's also a good time to remind people of our new Guidelines:
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/guidelines.html

Moppie@af
09-11-2011, 06:43 PM
Well that’s a rather open ended statement isn’t it? A lot of what we have in the US isn’t stuff that lacks sophistication.......



Excuse the heavily truncated quote, but I think we are getting distracted from the original question, and you are getting towards answering it.


Remember I'm not in America, and the American Car Industry has an absolutely shocking reputation outside of America.


But, from what your saying, the really dated designs have been, or are being dropped because no one is buying them.
Instead people are choosing more sophisticated designs?


I understand the US market is considered to be very different, both geographically and socially. But I don't consider that an excuse to buy, or sell out dated technology.

wishIhad12
09-11-2011, 09:46 PM
Excuse the heavily truncated quote, but I think we are getting distracted from the original question, and you are getting towards answering it.


Remember I'm not in America, and the American Car Industry has an absolutely shocking reputation outside of America.


But, from what your saying, the really dated designs have been, or are being dropped because no one is buying them.
Instead people are choosing more sophisticated designs?


I understand the US market is considered to be very different, both geographically and socially. But I don't consider that an excuse to buy, or sell out dated technology.
You have to understand the history of the market and the big 3 over the past 40 years or so. In the 1960s the Big 3 dominated US sales in part BECAUSE their cars were arguably the best in the world. The Japanese didn't exist at the time. The Europeans were better in many ways but as for the sum of all the parts the domestics were very good. They were as reliable as any brand. They were built using the best manufacturing knowledge of the time and while things like pushrods might have seemed low tech compared to say the OHC motors used by some (not all) European models, the domestics, like say the Japanese today, were delivering the goods at a fair price.

There were a number of things that put the Big 3 down for a long count and did result in some truth to the accusations levied against them in this thread. In the 1970s the domestics got hit with a number of issues.

1. Complacent management. This was very true of GM but true of all of the brands. GM was coming off having a 50% US market share and in the 1960s it was the largest company in the world. To this day I suspect very few companies have ever been as impressive in size or scope as GM at it's peak. Of course that breads complacency. Not only was management complacent but so was labor.

2. Emissions. Really, it was best that the Japanese and Europeans were small players in the 1970s. Americans didn't realize that it wasn't just US brands that sucked when strangled with 1970s era emissions. Basically all cars in the US sucked when dealing with emissions of those days. The systems really were forced out before they were ready by EPA mandates. Net result was engines in the 70s sucked. Even worse, thanks to the need to get newer designs out the door and fast we got things like the Vega's I4. The I4 in the Vega was an aluminum block with iron head. At the time that was VERY cutting edge. Too bad it was too cutting edge. The sulfur content in the US fuel ate away the lining of the alloy cylinders. Net result was engines failed early. That's OK, the revolutionary (and now standard practice) anti-corrosion process pioneered by GM hadn't had all the bugs worked out and most Vegas rusted out as fast as the engines failed. Pity. Despite the poor reputation, the cars were actually quite good for their day... when they ran. While it seems most manufactures did learn from GM's dipping method mistakes, they didn't all learn from GM engine mistake. In the 1990s BMW had to replace thousands of aluminum block engines for precisely the same reason as GM.

3. Fuel prices. The spike in gas prices gave the Japanese a wedge into the market. People wanted good mileage TODAY and the Japanese, who built small cars for their own market could deliver. Ironically, the Big 3 built good small cars as well. However, a clause in the CAFE rules set up to protect the UAW stated that CAFE mileage was calculated based on cars made in the US. So even though Ford and GM had good small cars in Europe, they couldn't import them to meet CAFE standards because the Unions protested it.

4. Finally, labor. The cost of making a car should have dramatically fallen in the later 70s as automation really took off. The problem was the UAW didn't want to see the facts and refused to allow a reduction in force. The Japanese were expanding so they didn't have people to fire. The domestics, even if they lost no market share, simply had more people than were needed to build a modern car of the early 80s. Net result was the cost of building a car in the US was higher than it needed to be and certainly higher than Japan of the 1980s.

In the 1980s the US auto industry was a great example of less than the sum of the parts. They showed fits of brilliance and many features we think of as modern and common were pioneered by the Big 3 (especially GM). However, they were often either before their time or attached to cars that weren't very good or the value of the system wasn't there yet. Let's hit a few.

GM had always been a leader in electronics and ECUs. This in part allowed them to keep older engines emissions compliant. They were using distributor-less ignition systems in the 1980s. The GM Quad 4 motor was a DOHC I4 with a distributor less ignition system with coils on the head. Honda was still using distributors in main stream motors 10 years later. The Quad 4 also had very good HP/L (not a measure I value). In '88 the 2.3L version could deliver 180 factory HP. Sadly the engine initially had a bad reputation for blowing head gaskets (a problem GM should have found in testing and was later fixed). Flawed though it was, it did have a list of what others would include on modern engines.

Chrysler was the first company to use a variable geometry turbo (early 80s).

GM was the first to use touch screen entertainment and HVAC systems (Buick Riata). Olds was the first to have a factory NAV system. Ford had thin film heated from windshields that would quickly defrost in the winter. In addition to it's innovative leaf spring, the C4 Corvette was the first mass produced car to use alloy suspension arms (vs steel). The C4 had multi-link rear suspension at a time that most of the Europeans were using less sophisticated semi-trailing arm systems. (The C4 did have plenty of flaws and is, IMHO, an example of less than the sum of the parts). Ford was one of the companies that brought air suspension back to the modern market after most manufactures dumped the technology in the 1960s. Ford was also one of the first companies to use HID lights. The 1984 Corvette was the first car to use LCDs as part of the instrument cluster. There was fear the system wouldn't work and an analog gauge set was created just in case. The hydroforming technology first used by GM in the C5 Corvette was VERY good stuff. Toyota is now using it as well. This technology allowed GM to create a C6 chassis (similar to the C5) that, in targa form, is almost as stiff as the Ferrari 360 chassis (the current V8 Ferrari when the C6 was released). That's great considering the 360 is a coupe with a roof frame while only the Z06 and ZR1 have fixed roof structures (all steel chassis Corvettes are either targas or convertibles. The Z06 and ZR1 aluminum chassis aren't as stiff and thus needed fixed roof structures to exceed the stiffness of the steel cars).

In the 1980s the domestics often used features and advanced technology such as what I've mentioned to set their cars ahead of the pack. The problem was that often the cars were fundamentally not very good. Great icing, bad cake. By the 1990s several things had changed. The car market wasn't looking good for the domestics so they largely ignored it. The truck market was hot for a number of reasons and the domestics were initially about the only ones in the game. They knew they would have to return to making better cars but for the moment they put their efforts into securing the hot market rather than working on regaining in the old market (when you have limited resources this is probably the best idea). This meant that for a while many of the cars they made were old. They were updated just enough but not enough to stay cutting edge. Now, it's not fair to say they didn't try. Ford tired with the Mondeo (Contour). It was a good car but when equipped to European levels it cost just as much as the larger Taurus. It was hard to convince buyers to go for the Contour when the Taurus was proven and seemed to offer more value for the money. I'm not sure who did most of the lifting on the chassis that was under the Lincoln LS and Jag S-type. It was a completely modern chassis but Lincoln didn't have much luck with it. Part of the problem was Lincoln had no follow up products so many never learned just who good the LS was and those who did learn were left with no follow up product. Ironically in heavily modified form this is the chassis under the current Mustang. Yes, the Mustang and S-type are cousins.

Ford ran into this a few times as did GM. Some of us wanted the sophisticated small Euro cars but the public at large wasn't willing to pay the price for those cars (unless they came with a premium label. Incidentally the Japanese were discovering the same thing hence the 1998 US Accord was no longer a world car. Ours was cheaper feeling (though still very reliable), larger and cost less than the Euro model. We eventually got the Euro Accord back but only at a higher price and through Honda's premium brand.

Chrysler didn't have over seas arms to lean on (they were forced to sell those holding in the early 80s (probably at the request of the UAW before Chrysler was given tax payer backed loans). However, in the 1990s Chrysler was really on a roll. Their styling was second to none. They were making money hand over fist. When they merged with MB Chrysler's average profit per vehicle ($'s, not %) was the same as Mercedes. The catch was almost all Chryslers cost less than $35k while almost all MB cost more than $35k. Chrysler became the bastard step child but only because after the merger the company was mismanaged. Going into the deal Chrysler was hot the way Hyundai is hot today. They did have clever technology and ideas. They also had swagger. The Viper wasn't about sophistication. It was about brute force fun! It worked to. The suspension on the Ford Taurus was a completely modern multi-link setup but GM loved rear twist beam setups (so did Audi-VW).

Still, that leaves only Chrysler doing much of interest in the 1990s. Ford and GM were trying to recover from the 80s while dealing with their shrinking markets and their other issues. Mind you at the same time that 2 of the big 3 were producing rather plain cars, Honda, Nissan and Toyota were all doing the same in response to the pricing pressures of this market.

So coming into this decade Ford and GM were having come to Jesus moments. They were turning around reliability and perceived quality. They were making more sophisticated cars and motors. Ford found it easier to largely utilize the resources of their world empire to do this. They really had too much not to. I mean they had Jag, Volvo, Mazda (mostly owned by Ford at the time), Ford Europe and Ford US. They spread the work out and Ford US got projects like the trucks (and modifying the basic Volvo chassis to be various Ford brand cars. They also got several engine projects including the newest gem of a DOHC V8 in the Mustang and the current Ford V6 and now turbo I4 and V6s (the turbo I4s might be Mazda or Ford of Europe but the V6 is US based). Ford has kept the old Panther platform car around and some might be fooled into thinking it represents a modern Ford. That would be no more correct than thinking a Mercedes G-wagon is a modern MB SUV. The Panther cars (Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Town Car) were basically long since dead in the consumer market but the livery, taxi and police market loved them. They were robust, and well known. It was easy for the NYPD to keep cars running for ever and simply swap parts. The mechanics knew the things like the backs of their hands. Ford sold them because fleet owners LOVED them. Yes, they were old and primitive (though they didn't use leaf springs. The last domestics CAR to use leaf springs was the Dodge Diplomat that went out of production in the early 1980s).

GM also started fixing things and like Ford they used all their engineering abilities from around the world. I think GM did their V6 and their newest I4 in the US but the I4 might be overseas. They decided small cars should be done outside the US while Holden got the large RWD cars (what else would they be the center of excellence for) and the US groups did the Corvette, some of the older platforms, and the largely US market vehicles (ie trucks and larger SUVs). GM, now has a whole host of internally developed and thoughly modern engines. They also have that very effective and loved pushrod V8. It "may look dumb but that's just a disguise." The heads flow very efficiently and it was designed using completely modern testing and design methods. Ford's modern DOHC 5L motor is still heavier and larger for about the same power (432 vs 440) despite being a newer design.

Chrysler was an interesting case. It's often been said that the current RWD cars are nothing more than old MB chassis. That isn't true. It was a new, Chrysler designed platform that was under development before MB entered the picture. MB insisted that the new car be redesigned to reused old MB parts rather than using newly developed parts. On one hand this does make sense and it's not like the MB parts are a bad batch to grab from. To bad it delayed the release of the car by two years and meant the company only had 2-3 years of cheap gas sales vs 4-5. I doubt the car was any better for using those MB parts and I'm sure the DC internal accounting didn't give the Chrysler arm any discount (great way to move money from Chrysler's piggy bank to MB at a time that MB needed money to fix themselves!).

Anyway, as of today, the companies are largely on the road to recovery. Sure you can cite out dated cars (Impala) or MB era cars (Caliber) but for the most part they are old cars or not representative. Chrysler is easy to pick on because MB's mismanagement all but killed the company. Ford is doing well and yes, most of their car platforms are not native to the US but we have already talked about division of labor. The Focus and Fiesta are basically the same cars as the over seas models. The Fusion is a modified platform co-developed with Mazda. The Explorer and Taurus are on a chassis that is derived from a Volvo chassis (not sure how much Volvo is left). The Mustang is loosely based on the old Jag/Lincoln chassis but not sure how much is left there. Again, this is a car that may look dumb but... check out the motortrend Hot Lap test at Laguna Seca. The pro drive was very happy with the car's handling, far more so than the BMW 1M. He compared the Mustang to the Cayman S.

GM has quite a bit of good stuff (most Caddies, the new SUVs, the Cruze, the Opel based Buicks) and some good older stuff (the Corvette which is getting in need of an update) and some OK older stuff (the Malibu is decent but not stand out and faces some really strong, newer competitors) and finally the old stuff (Colorado pickup, Impala, Caddy DTS). They often aren't bad but certainly aren't modern or "up to date".

So in addition to seeing how the US market isn't the same and has different demands on US brands I hope you can also see that innovation and forward thinking was always part of the domestic cars even with cars from the dark days like the 1970s Vega (really one of the more innovative and forward thinking, if also very flawed, cars of modern times). You can also see why much of that innovation might be hidden from view and how it's coming back.

Moppie@af
09-11-2011, 11:30 PM
Now that is an awesome post, it's more than few years since I saw anything it on AF :)

Some of the other oldies would be proud, and I know I'm a whole lot less ignorant ;)



It's my understanding that the Jag S type Chassis is a largely Jaguar design. I believe after Ford purchased the brand they realized the potential for them to design a global RWD platform (which upset Ford Australia).
However, it did use some design ideas from Ford Australia, the rear suspension is based on the set up that had recently been designed for the Falcon.
Parts for it used to be manufactured here in Auckland, including the chromed strip across the back of the boot lid, which is the same piece on the Jag and the Ford Fairmont.

wishIhad12
09-12-2011, 12:41 AM
Oh, I forgot to mention that GM's dual mode hybrid system is actually a more advanced design than Toyota's (but it hasn't been properly exploited) and the Volt is in a class of it's own. Also rumor has it that the current MB super car was based on the chassis that was to have underpinned the next gen Viper before the companies split. The same rumors suggest that Chrysler might have done a good bit of the heavy lifting as well.
Sorry that some of that above post was rather random in it's order.

wishIhad12
09-13-2011, 09:32 AM
If anyone is curious here is a long thread about the GM pushrod V8 and it's future on the GMI forums (I haven't posted on that thread, just thought people might want to read it)
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f12/chevy-small-block-v8-not-dead-according-gm-design-system-engineer-105633/

Chris V
09-15-2011, 09:59 AM
My comments about Drum brakes were just to get a wind up :tongue:
In reality they offer more braking force than a similar sized disc set up, and they are making a come back on lots of small cars.
The down side is more rotational mass and un-sprung weight, but on Grand Ma's shopping cart that isn't really a problem.


Actually, the small rear drum brakes being used on so many FWD cars are cheaper to make (important) and actually lighter than their disc equivalents.


My comments about leaf springs however are very true.
A leaf sprung set up will never give the same levels of ride and handling that a coil set up will. Not even a complex progressive multi-leaf set up
(the exception being a transverse leaf, although its coil equivalent, in board springs/dampers, is superior again).


Gotta adress the transverse composite monoleaf spring setup as used in the Corvette. The ONLY thinik that is superior about the coilover setup is cost and ease of exchanging springs (and the latter is why Corvettes go to coilovers when racing, so thay can quickly swap springs and tune the corners for different tracks) As far as the way the suspension works, it's superior. One, it's lighter, and there's less unsprung weight than coilovers. Two, there is less binding, as a coil spring setup induces some distortion and friction in the system. Third, it's got a lower CG, as the leaf is mounted lower than the coil AND it's lighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvette_leaf_spring

If itís so good why donít other people use it?

I'll let another site answer that:

Itís legitimate to ask, does GM know something that Ferrari, Porsche etc donít know or are the people at GM just being pig headed and sticking with ďoutdatedĒ technology.



Street cars:

-You must design them into the car in the first place. This seams obvious but consider these springs span across the bottom of the car. In the front they have to clear the engine oil pan and in the back they have to stay out of the way of the differential. Basically, you can retro fit coils on the Vette because the mounts can be shared with the shock mounts. For the most part you canít retrofit Corvette style leaves onto other cars because you would have to add mounts that donít exist on the regular car.

-GM and their supplier spent a lot of time and money developing the Vetteís composite spring. Currently they are the only manufacture with the knowledge and understanding to make the springs work. On the other hand, coil springs are common and well understood. Lots of vendors can make them in a wide variety of configurations. Itís easier for the other manufactures to stick with what they know. Other manufacturers would have to study the design and manufacture of composite leaf springs before they could pop them on the next Supra-NSX-Type-GT. GM did that work years ago. Toyota could certainly afford to develop their own composite springs if they wanted. The same may not be true for smaller companies like Ferrari and Porsche.

-Engineers like to stick with what they know. Lots of suspension engineers are familiar with using coil springs. They could experiment with leaves if they wanted or they could stick with coils and get the job done. See the point about undertaking a research project.

-Coils are cheaper. This automatically keeps them off lower cost cars (Miata, Civic) and cars that share platforms with lower cost siblings (Audi TT). Porsche isnít worried about saving every last dollar but there suspension and chassis design may not allow packaging a Corvette type leaf. The same is probably true of Ferrari. Even if packaging isnít a problem they still have to pay for tooling to make the springs. Unlike the GM who spreads that cost over 30,000 Vettes a year, Ferrari would spread that over maybe 2000 cars a year. Porsche would be somewhere in between. Conversely I can get coils made with relatively low setup cost and a cheaper per part cost. So not only would they have to spend more per car, they have to spend a lot more up front.

What about race cars? To start off, not all race cars use coil springs. Some F1 cars (Ferrari and others) use torsion springs instead. Years ago Indy and F1 cars DID use leaf springs but those days are long past.

The current design of open wheel racecars places great restrictions on suspension packaging. The Corvetteís transverse leaf spring must span from one side of the car to the other. Also, to be most effective the links between the spring and suspension arms should be under tension. This makes a bottom mount spring most effective. This packaging doesnít work well on an open wheel car because the spring would have to pass though the gear box around the dif (or the gear box would have to be raised and hurt the carís CG). At the front the driverís legs would get in the way. Additionally the spring is wide and would have to extend past the body work where it would hurt the carís aero package.

Another good reason is only a few companies understand the technology necessary to make the springs. Hypercoil is currently the top race spring manufacture. They can make very precise, matched spring pairs. The level of precise spring rate control and matching may not exist in the composite bow springs.

Coil race springs are not car specific. You select rates, diameters, length etc but you donít have a specific spring for a specific car. If you want to order a custom spring Hypercoil will wind it to your specifications on the same machine they use for the next custom spring. A custom Porsche, Formula Ford and LMP car spring can all be made on the same machine. By the time the C6 evolves into a C6-R (they donít start off with a production Corvette) the suspension geometry is so different that they couldnít just mount a C6 leaf spring. Itís far too expensive to have a few custom leaf springs tooled up (you would have to buy the tooling as well as the springs) so they use readily available coil springs.

This type of universal tooling isnít availible for the composite leaf spring. Only the Vette currently uses the spring so you are making a Vette only part. This seriously reduces the market for aftermarket composite leaf springs (still there are after market leaf springs available for the Vette). The business case for custom equipment to make Vette springs is harder to justify since itís a smaller market.

Why donít other cars retrofit leaf springs? Well they also donít retrofit torsion springs despite the fact that F1 cars use them. Put simply it would be VERY difficult. The Vette was designed to have them. It has mount points under the car where the springs fit to the suspension sub frames. Itís not easy to just add that to a car that was designed to use a coil spring. All of the cars you mentioned would have to be re-engineered to add leaf springs. Replacing the factory spring with a racing is easy by comparison.

Moppie@af
09-19-2011, 01:54 AM
Interesting!

I'm actually a huge Fan of the transverse Leaf, having owned one car with one, and had a company car with one.

I used to have a Herald Based kit car, which had a progressive steel leaf on the back. It bolted to the top of the diff head and also worked as an upper control arm.

The other was a Nissan Serena, which used a composite transverse spring, slung under the diff head.

The problem in both cases, as you mention above, is packaging.
In the case of the kit car accessing it meant removing the body, and I believe the Herald it was based on had a similar problem. Being a multi-leaf, it was not light weight either.

In the Serena it worked quite well, but was exposed to road debris under the car. The leading edge was starting to break down, with some fibers exposed and some nasty chips in the front of it.

wishIhad12
09-19-2011, 05:21 PM
Interesting!

I'm actually a huge Fan of the transverse Leaf, having owned one car with one, and had a company car with one.

I used to have a Herald Based kit car, which had a progressive steel leaf on the back. It bolted to the top of the diff head and also worked as an upper control arm.

The other was a Nissan Serena, which used a composite transverse spring, slung under the diff head.

The problem in both cases, as you mention above, is packaging.
In the case of the kit car accessing it meant removing the body, and I believe the Herald it was based on had a similar problem. Being a multi-leaf, it was not light weight either.

In the Serena it worked quite well, but was exposed to road debris under the car. The leading edge was starting to break down, with some fibers exposed and some nasty chips in the front of it.

The diff attached method also has another issue in that the diff housing is now asked to do two conflicting things. It wants to be mounted with soft bushings to isolate the housing from the chassis. It also wants to be mounted rigidly so that the two halves of the leaf spring truly behave as isolated springs. Things get even worse when, like the C2-C4 Corvette and the Jag sport cars, you use the half shafts as suspension links.

The C5 Corvette dealt with all these problems by dumping both the halfshafts as suspension links (a design that was quite out of date in 1996) and moving the spring mounts to the frame. Personally I think the double pivot spring mount used on the current Corvette (and previously used by Fiat on the 128) is a very trick setup. I know many people don't understand the system. I've seen numerous complaints on the Corvette forum about the cross talk due to this design (yet they don't mind the cross talking anti-roll bar :sly: ). In fact it does a better job of matching the spring rate and roll rate as we normally want in a road going sports car. The fact that the energy density and allowable strain of the fiberglass spring is much higher than steal is also very cool. Basically a mono-leaf steal spring couldn't do the job.

The transverse leaf spring is one of those trick bits of technology that I really like about the Corvette. It's true outside the box thinking. Even with the C4 which is one of the cars that I have said is less than the sum of it's parts, the idea of the transverse spring (and some of the car's other design details) is/are very cool.

Moppie@af
09-19-2011, 11:48 PM
The diff attached method also has another issue in that the diff housing is now asked to do two conflicting things. It wants to be mounted with soft bushings to isolate the housing from the chassis. It also wants to be mounted rigidly so that the two halves of the leaf spring truly behave as isolated springs. Things get even worse when, like the C2-C4 Corvette and the Jag sport cars, you use the half shafts as suspension links.


In the herald it was hard mounted to the chassis (and used the drive shaft as the lower control arm).
Axle tramp was a bit of a problem, but once you got it hooked up, it was very controllable, and extremely well behaved.
In the Serena the whole lot was hard mounted into a frame that was then rubber mounted to the body.
But that thing had such soft springs and shocks it didn't handle at all.



The transverse leaf spring is one of those trick bits of technology that I really like about the Corvette. It's true outside the box thinking. Even with the C4 which is one of the cars that I have said is less than the sum of it's parts, the idea of the transverse spring (and some of the car's other design details) is/are very cool.



I've always been impressed by the Corvette, it gets such bad treatment in so much of the press, yet in reality, as is so often demonstrated, is such a great car.

I guess the thing that started the whole idea for this thread, is how can a company that makes a car like the Corvette, also make a Car like the Savana?

Chris V
09-20-2011, 09:06 AM
I guess the thing that started the whole idea for this thread, is how can a company that makes a car like the Corvette, also make a Car like the Savana?

The Savana is a work vehicle with a job to do at a particular price point.

Polygon
09-20-2011, 11:29 AM
Because people are suckers for nostalgia. Besides, when people buy those old cars and restore them they don't put the miles on them to exploit reliability issues. They generally don't drive them in a way that would show the inadequacies of the suspension and brakes. I know they're crap by today's standards but there are quite a few old American cars that I would love to have in my collection.

brockJam75
09-20-2011, 12:51 PM
I'm not a fan of the huge trucks that people roll around with. American cars are okay here and there. People I guess see it as "It's American made it's going to be more trustworthy!" But in the end it's all about the peoples opinion.

rvirani
09-21-2011, 08:52 AM
The ONLY pushrod engines left are in trucks and a couple performance GM cars. And none of them are poorly built.

I love my Mustang and it doesn't have a pushrod engine, and it's quite well built. And fast. And cheap.

But why do we love classic American cars? For the same reson we like classic ANYTHING. It's about a simpler age, an era gone by, and about cool old cars:

http://www.carpictures.com/media/images/full/09HRH484403494AA.jpeg

http://www.carpictures.com/media/images/full/09HRH484403494AC.jpeg

Certainly not poorly built.

wwwoowww.... awesome car buddy.... i really like it... nice design and good interiors.... super like....:smile:

jcsites
09-21-2011, 10:13 AM
Thanks for taking the effort to prepare this. I appreciate it as a newcomer.

tracywilliam46
09-26-2011, 11:41 PM
Hey rvirani,

Nice car...How much is it?

Its really cool
_________________________
(http://arabiandrift.com/)

Add your comment to this topic!