Chevy vs Ford

[knightjp]

Originally Posted by Moppie

So are you saying that the 1L motor in a ford Fiesta makes huge amounts of torque and is suitable for dragging heavy loads?

LOL

No way am I saying that... Besides... a fiesta is not an American Ford... its an European market Ford.

[hotrod_chevyz]

To each his own thats what i say. The cars i like have monster sized parts so when i see smaller hondas or things like the zx2 i think to myself " look how small this or that is, that aint going to last long".

Anyways heres a list of the vehicles currently in my immediate family (same home).

1972 Pontiac Catalina 400/400 (1x rebuilt motor/trans)
1982 Pontiac Trans Am 350/350 (4th motor being built)
1993 Buick Park Avenue 3.8 (280K miles original)
1997 Ford Crown Victoria LX 4.6 (180K miles original)
2000 Ford ZX2 2.0 (70K miles original)
2007 Dodge Grand Caravan 3.3? (6k miles original)

They all get the job done. We have some for long travel, some for in town zip, winter beaters, grocery getters, and some i just tinker with as a hobby. My pick of them all is the T/A, then the Catalina. All that low end torque is simply marvelous.

Imports can and usually are good reliable cars. As you can see from this list i buy "american" and have had no reason to go to anything outside of that. When i run into a problem with these perhaps i will try something different.

I cant believe this thread has lasted this long without harsh words pointed, or comments involving the words "rice" or "FTW"... its like this conversation is taking place in the bermuda triangle or some shit.

[hotrod_chevyz]

When i was talking about those cars not being able to handle all the miles and time, i was considering the fact my Catalina weighs in at 5000 pounds, wich would push most smaller motors to the point of just giving up. Even if it ran for a year, they certainly wouldnt last the +30 years this 400 has, pushing so much weight around.

[knightjp]

Well I guess the reason that this thread that has gone so far without any such tones is because we are all sensible adults having a simple discussion.

That said.... after reading through all the responses on this thread.... Chevy FTW..

[hotrod_chevyz]

Anything but my feet FTW!!!

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by hotrod_chevyz

To each his own thats what i say. The cars i like have monster sized parts so when i see smaller hondas or things like the zx2 i think to myself " look how small this or that is, that aint going to last long".

See I look at big cars and think exactly the same thing.
All that extra weight means more tyre wear, more stress on suspension and brake parts, more stress on drive line parts, and of course you need a bigger motor, which is invariable simpler in its design and less responsive.

My old Civic might have only had 100lb/ft of torque, but 90% of it was available across more than 5,500rpm of its rev range.
Something I know for a fact no large capacity V8 is capable of.
Imagine being able to accelerate from 40kph to 240kph in one smooth easy pull, all in top gear

Of course I would never put it in a vehicle that weighed more than about 1200kg as the power to weight ratio would suddenly go in the wrong direction.

[hotrod_chevyz]

FWD cars with no frame and tiny suspension components go out of alignment very easy from potholes, curbs, even time. Bad alignment is probable the leading cause of premature tire wear. These things you dont have to worry about as much in a big body full framer. The size of the components are proportionate to the weight in most cases, and sometimes go beyond that.


EDIT: 100 ft torque sounds kinda weak... I guess in a light car it doesnt matter. Whats a civic weigh, 1500 pounds or so?

[GForce957]

Originally Posted by hotrod_chevyz

FWD cars with no frame and tiny suspension components go out of alignment very easy from potholes, curbs, even time. Bad alignment is probable the leading cause of premature tire wear. These things you dont have to worry about as much in a big body full framer. The size of the components are proportionate to the weight in most cases, and sometimes go beyond that.


EDIT: 100 ft torque sounds kinda weak... I guess in a light car it doesnt matter. Whats a civic weigh, 1500 pounds or so?

Haha no, an 07 civic weighs in around 2500 lbs.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by hotrod_chevyz

FWD cars with no frame and tiny suspension components go out of alignment very easy from potholes, curbs, even time. Bad alignment is probable the leading cause of premature tire wear. These things you dont have to worry about as much in a big body full framer. The size of the components are proportionate to the weight in most cases, and sometimes go beyond that.


EDIT: 100 ft torque sounds kinda weak... I guess in a light car it doesnt matter. Whats a civic weigh, 1500 pounds or so?

My Civic weighed about 2300lbs, or 1040kg.
That is a very light weight car, and with 111lbft of torque and 160hp it had no trouble keeping up with the HSV Comodores down here. (Big GM RWD V8, usually with 300ish hp and lots of torque).

Of course being a light weight, small car had its down sides, long distance travel was not as comfortable as it could have been, but then it was easy to drive in heavy traffic, and one hell of a lot of fun on the tight rural roads.

If you drive into the kerb and large pot holes, then of course you risk damaging the suspension, Iv seen large cars and small cars suffer from it.
I assure you a 2 ton V8 hitting a large pot hole can do just as much damage to the suspension as a 1 ton Honda. As you said everything is built in proportion.

[hotrod_chevyz]

Yeah everything is built to proportion, its just one has a frame and the other does not.

For the sake of the topic, heres what GM is up to.

http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/news/index.jsp

and ford...

http://www.ford.com/en/innovation/te...gy/default.htm

I guess this is all old technology that other countries have been up to for years...

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by hotrod_chevyz

I guess this is all old technology that other countries have been up to for years...

Actually both have proven they are more than up to date with the rest of the worlds manufacturers when it comes to access to technology.
And they are certainly not alone when it comes to offering out dated methods as a way of cutting costs (Nissan still use a beam axle in the back of the new Primera, despite being a pioneer of independent rear suspension in the 70s).


So they really have no excuse for offering what they have over the last 30 years.
They have only gotten away with it because of blind brand loyalty.

[hotrod_chevyz]

Originally Posted by Moppie

They have only gotten away with it because of blind brand loyalty.

Agreed.

The problem they are having with meeting sales expectations in more recent years is because people still remember getting burned by some of the crap they made in the 80's and 90's. Its still ruining the reputation of the big three as a whole, even though the quality of cars they are making are lots better now than 10 years ago.

Other problems were (and still are) causing quality to be shifted to the "back burner", things like health care (wich for GM is a larger percent of loss per unit than other companies like Toyota) are why other auto makers around the world are showing more profit per unit than the U.S. automakers have, wich in turn makes them feel they must reduce production costs to show potential investors more profit per unit sold.