Chevy vs Ford

[knightjp]

Originally Posted by Moppie

I'm referring to the Mustang and Camaro.
The Corvette was, and still is, in a totally different world.

I don't really think there is much from Europe to compare with the Mustang and the Camaro, largely because the Europeans tend to make cars that go around corners, aren't built from the spare parts bin and appeal to a more educated buyer. Or at least they did. Then they realised the average European car buyer cares about as much as the average American car buyer, and so they make cars like the VW golf.


But, if you want to compare:
How about the new Ford Mondeo, and the new ford Mustang.
The Mondeo is a class leader and uses a number of new technologies and design ideas.
The Mustang still uses the same suspension it did 40 years ago.

Why would anyone consider comparing a sedan with a coupe???

Besides.... my question is not about Mustang and camaro alone...

I'm asking out of the two manufacturers (Chevy & Ford)... which one makes the better car based upon the rating of build quality, reliability and maintenance costs....

I already know about the power and looks side...

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by knightjp

I'm asking out of the two manufacturers (Chevy & Ford)... which one makes the better car based upon the rating of build quality, reliability and maintenance costs....

Your comparing the worlds 2 largest car manufacturers with each other.
Two companies that are so vast they no longer have any consistency in things like reliability and maintenance.
The vast contrast between the Mondeo and the Mustang are a perfect example.
Both companies manufacture cars in North and South America, through out Europe, Japan, and Australia.
They own, or control easily half the brands currently producing cars, and have managed to transcend any kind of national identity.


To put its simply I don't think you can compare them, either together, or with each other. They are simply to vast.

[knightjp]

Originally Posted by Moppie

Your comparing the worlds 2 largest car manufacturers with each other.
Two companies that are so vast they no longer have any consistency in things like reliability and maintenance.
The vast contrast between the Mondeo and the Mustang are a perfect example.
Both companies manufacture cars in North and South America, through out Europe, Japan, and Australia.
They own, or control easily half the brands currently producing cars, and have managed to transcend any kind of national identity.


To put its simply I don't think you can compare them, either together, or with each other. They are simply to vast.

Well I do understand how vast the brands are and how many brands they control, but that wasn't my question.....

I'm talking about the cars with the Chevrolet Badge on them and the cars with the Ford badge on them. Between the two brands, which is better??

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by knightjp

Well I do understand how vast the brands are and how many brands they control, but that wasn't my question.....

I'm talking about the cars with the Chevrolet Badge on them and the cars with the Ford badge on them. Between the two brands, which is better??

I thought you wanted to compares cars from GM and Ford?

Of course if you want to compare Chevy (a GM brand) with Ford, then of course Fords will be better. But only by virtue of there being far, far more different models with the Ford badge attached.
The Chevy badge in all its history, has hardly ever been seen out side the US.
Where as the Ford badge is seen all around the world and is put on cars designed and built in the US, England, Germany, Belgium, Japan and Australia.

[knightjp]

Originally Posted by Moppie

I thought you wanted to compares cars from GM and Ford?

Of course if you want to compare Chevy (a GM brand) with Ford, then of course Fords will be better. But only by virtue of there being far, far more different models with the Ford badge attached.
The Chevy badge in all its history, has hardly ever been seen out side the US.
Where as the Ford badge is seen all around the world and is put on cars designed and built in the US, England, Germany, Belgium, Japan and Australia.

OK... What if you took all the car of each brand that are available in the US... which brand would be better???

The reason being that many of the models as you say available outside the US are just rebadged products of other brands.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by knightjp

The reason being that many of the models as you say available outside the US are just rebadged products of other brands.

Now thats a whole other debate, because a lot of other brands are simply re-badged fords, and when ford owns those brands..............


With regards to which is better in the US market?
Well you still have the huge problem of branding, and the need to be more brand specific, or in this case vehicle specific.

Of course Ford has managed to lose money while GM is making it (just) and history is full of really, really crap cars being made by manufacturers when they are losing money; British Leyland brands from the late 70s and early 80s, Nissan's from the 90s, Mazda's from the late 80s etc etc. All examples of cars (with exceptions) that suffered from cost cutting in their use of technology, build quality and reliability.

I guess a great example would be the Live axle in the new Mustang and the "marketing spin" that seems to surround it, when the simple fact is its there because its cheap to produce, and required less R&D costs.
Of course the "new" H2 Hummer isn't exactly the most modern vehcile to ever see a shopping center car park, at least Ford managed to design a new V8 to drive though the log in the back.

Its quite possible that Chevy is only making money because they have worked out how to cut more corners than Ford has.

[knightjp]

Well my belief in why Ford chose the live axle is to try and regain the original Mustang spirit which sadly had been lost since the 80s...
It worked... but not really suitable....

The only downside to that is that they managed to make the Mustang more powerful, but with that power, you need something more up to date suspensions in order to control it.

But I have never heard of anyone complaining over the Chevy handling...

Perhaps the only car in comparison to the Mustang now is the GTO.... Good performer and handler, but doesn't have the bold retro looks.

Now the new Camaro would be a real good contender.... waiting to see what the reviews on that shows.

Anyways.... I feel that Chevy is a better car to me in terms of maintenance and reliability.... I don't know if anyone will agree.... but I do know of some people who own Fords (one is my brother), and what they say is that its the same.... They have never faced any problems with their cars to date....

[Vettribution87]

Isn’t the Live-Rear-Axel generally better for drag racing?

The C1 Corvette used a live axel, and when they went to an independent system with the C2, there was some opposition from people who drag raced C1s.
I am thankful that Chevrolet knew the Corvette was a sports car and handling had to come into the equation even at the expense of straight-line acceleration.

Nevertheless, any car that does sacrifice its handling for straight-line performance is still just as valid a performance vehicle as any other. It is just tailored to a different kind of competition. I.e. Drag Racing.

If the majority of Mustangs are used to dash from one set of lights to the next on the generally smooth, straight and well maintained US roads then the live axel (assuming it is indeed advantageous for drag racing) seems like a very logical inclusion to the vehicle.
Of course, an optional IRS would be a good idea.

[knightjp]

Originally Posted by Vettribution87

Isn’t the Live-Rear-Axel generally better for drag racing?

The C1 Corvette used a live axel, and when they went to an independent system with the C2, there was some opposition from people who drag raced C1s.
I am thankful that Chevrolet knew the Corvette was a sports car and handling had to come into the equation even at the expense of straight-line acceleration.

Nevertheless, any car that does sacrifice its handling for straight-line performance is still just as valid a performance vehicle as any other. It is just tailored to a different kind of competition. I.e. Drag Racing.

If the majority of Mustangs are used to dash from one set of lights to the next on the generally smooth, straight and well maintained US roads then the live axel (assuming it is indeed advantageous for drag racing) seems like a very logical inclusion to the vehicle.
Of course, an optional IRS would be a good idea.

I seem to recall that the C2 was banned from International racing for a while, due to its power and accelaration. It was due to the fact that the other cars couldn't keep up with it... inclusive of mighty Ferrari..
(I read this in a magazine a year back... it was giving the history of the corvette) So... if this result was due to the change in suspension by Chevy, excellent move.

However... with regards to the live-axle issue... its a good setup for going in a straight line.... but if you've got alot of power under the hood (GT500), you need to know that you're able to control it when unexpected obstacles come in your way.... You wouldn't want it to get too messy.... thats where the safety comes in....
Ofcourse I'm sure that Ford knew what it was doing when it came to designing the new Mustang... especially the GT500.

[Moppie]

If your playing with a rail car, or a funny car, with thousands of hp, then having a live axle simplifies things. Of course most of these cars don't have any rear suspension any way, so the live axle then simply becomes fixed.

Because there are less moving parts, live axles also tend to be able to handle larger amounts of power, and are also much simpler to tune and alter geometry.
Of course this also makes them much cheaper to manufacture.

But, there is nothing in a live axle that some how gives it more traction when accelerating.
I think you will find that the idea its some how better is a throw back to the fact that Drag racing is a largely American sport, and when its practiced outside of America it is done so with large, RWD American cars, which have traditionally had live rear axles.
Quite simply the RWD V8 drag racing community knows and understands the live axle.
Its simple, its strong, and it doesn't require a particularly high IQ to figure out how it works, and to modify it.

[hotrod_chevyz]

Some live rear axle cars do pretty well in skidpad tests against IRS models. Some cars with rear drum brakes have better control and stop distances than those wich have disk front and rear + ABS and TCS.

[knightjp]

As I sadi earlier, Ford probably knew what they were doing when they used the live-axle for the new Mustang and the GT500.... I'm guessing they wanted to bring some of that old-school magic into the Mustang that it originally had. I would agree though that the live-axle is a good performer but nevertheless a lap time would speak for itself and would show that the IRS car is faster.

I wonder what suspension is GM using for the Camaro and what did they use for the last generation of Camaro / Firebirds???

[GForce957]

IRS for the new one, Live for the 4th gen and earliers.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by hotrod_chevyz

Some live rear axle cars do pretty well in skidpad tests against IRS models. Some cars with rear drum brakes have better control and stop distances than those wich have disk front and rear + ABS and TCS.

On a totally a flat surface a live axle can preform just as well as a independent set up.
Suspension does two things, it controls weight transfer, and it allows the wheels to move over an undulating surface.
It just so happens that independent systems are far better at doing both at the same time than live axles are.

Skip pad numbers only tell you a fraction of the story, that is how much grip you have. Simply changing to a stickier tire, or road surface will often have a bigger effect than changes to suspension design. Whats more important is how that grip can be applied as the vehicle changes direction, and as the road surface changes.
There is a very good reason why both F1 and WRC use independent suspension set ups.

Drum brakes offer far more surface area and stopping power than disc brakes. It's why they are still used on so many heavy vehicles.
However discs are lighter, offer better pedal feel, are easier to maintain, and most importantly cool down faster, and work better when hot than drum brakes.

[knightjp]

OK.... I apologise for any hard feelings here but I can see that we're getting a little side-tracked in the discussion. The topic is not about suspensions, its about a comparison in between Chevy and Ford...

Just to recap... the question is...

Which brand of cars (Chevy or Ford) is better???