American and european cars

It seems like this,
american cars
lots of cosmetic work done to them,
Basic suspension (new vette has solid rear axle nd leaf springs!)
big engines, yet low hp figures relative to engine size
gettin a bit heavy, the mustangs are notorious for tht! just got bigger nd cheesier as it got older

european cars
Bit more subtle in there body work
Clever suspension, handle better
smaller engines yet squeezing out more hp per cc compared to bigger americna motors
quite light, more nimble and quicker round the top gear track (top gear is a motorin show over here)

Would you say thats true? im not lookin for a fight or anything here its jsut i was on the internet lookin for videos of chargers/mustangs/corvettes on a race trak nd all i could find was drag races, nd it made me think that maybe those cars cant race on traks...
?????

You are very observant. Given America's racing history and marketing, the general US public reacts a little better to big engines, and very little attention is given to lateral G's. We respond VERY well to what salespeople call "hot buttons." If you tell a commuter that his 86-hp Toyota Tercel is "sporty," they will believe it till they die. If you tell a rich SUV driver that their suspension is computer-designed for a soft ride, they'll debate it till they're blue in the face saying that its softer than a limosine.

One thing we have here that is more restrictive than over there is crash testing. You have it there, but here in the states, the requirements for what needs to be retested are quite different. You are probably familiar with the 92-96 Caprice and its close sibling, the 94-96 Impala SS. Same body, same engine, same bumpers, same glass, same everything. But, because it had a different name and different badges on the trunk, it had to be re-crash-tested for the government. Such testing makes change an expensive proposition. If they put the different badges on but kept the Caprice name, it would not have been required to retest. Hence why many of the year-to-year changes on American cars are superficial and cosmetic.

American cars are slowly decreasing in engine displacement. For a while we used the same engine size but kept making them more efficient. Now we've reached a point where the power outputs were sufficient to satisfy the public and emissions, so we are making the same power with smaller engines. Part of the reason for our low-hp engines was from the portly cars of the 70's. They responded best to huge torque. The Caddy 500 V8 made a "measly" 250 hp, but in some years it made over 500 ft-lbs at a stump-pulling 1700 rpms. I would personally rather have a big torquey engine than a small rev-happy one. If I'm going to have 200 hp, I'd rather have it with 400 ft-lbs of torque at 2000 rpms. I do have an E30 325 with a high-strung 170 hp, and I admit that the rush I get from 3000 rpms-up is neat, but I really wish for some more tire-roasting torque. Of course, to get torque in that application I would need more displacement which would ruin the nimble handling of the E30.

I think the main reason (and you may have more counterpoint on this) is that in the 40s-60s, Europe had a very non-consolidated automotive market. You had hundreds of manufacturers all with the ability to easily fill the market niches. The strongest ones survived and were able to rapidly adapt. You also have a market where automotive dependency is smaller. On the average, a European has fewer cars than an American.

Meanwhile, in America, since the 50s we always had the "big three." There were plenty of other suitors, but none reached the market-controlling stage that the big three did. Combine that with two very important factors; 1) America's love for (and dependence on) the automobile, and 2) the relationship between the American government and the auto makers. America's dependence on the automobile combined with the fact that there were only a few key players, the need for mass-produced, reliable, affordable cars was at the forefront. It wasn't so much that the big three were what we wanted, but its what was offered. For a while in the 70s and 80s, US car makers were just plain stuck. The economy didn't support new and risky designs, the government was making car design more streamlined and sterile, and the smog-era had made people afraid of horsepower. There was one year (I think 1982) that the most HP you could get in a corvette was 180!

What this all boils down to was that the Ford, Pontiac, Chevy, Buick, Dodge, Cadillac, Olds, etc... engines hadn't changed fundamental design parameters since the mid 60s until recently. If you bought a Chevy truck in 1995 with a 350 engine, it was the same exact engine design as was found in a Chevy small block back as far as 1959, and in fact the 350 is STILL used in some commercial trucks. Obvious upgrades had been made, but most parts physically interchange. When the 70s smog crunch (and gas crisis) hit, automakers were forced to make their current designs comply. They carried through the 80s until the technology and ability was there to warrant designing new engines. The string that supported GM and Dodge was mighty thin in the 80s. All they had was the tried-and-true designs and they stuck to it.

Americans are very pliable and gullible when it comes to cars. We believe darn near anything you tell us (and when I say "we" I mean the general public on the average... not automotive enthusiasts) Anyone who doesn't believe that should look at the streets after movies like Fast and Furious. How many GTO Judges were sold after the 1970 movie Two Lane Blacktop? How many Mustang "Eleanors" popped up on Ebay after the remake of Gone in 60 Seconds?

I don't think that there will ever be a time when we see eye-to-eye on cars. After all, nowhere that I know of in Europe has a single highway with more than about 30 miles of straight stretch. The US has a dozen highways that stretch coast to coast with almost NO curves. Many cut straight through mountains or traverse deserts for 3000 miles. The different terrain alone makes for different car markets. Its also a good indicator of why BMW has such a strong hold in Europe, but Luxo SUVs are so common here.... No, I take that back. Luxo SUVs are common here because GM, Ford, and Chrysler told us we needed them. The truth is they needed a marketing ploy to keep the Government off their backs for a few years and boy, didn't we buy it hook, line, and sinker? :grinyes:

Its a viscious cycle in the states. The Government makes ridiculous laws that make no sense in reducing emissions and helping the environment. The Automakers hate the government for this, so they manipulate the government by making consumers "need" SUVs. The government has to change their laws, further screwing the environment. Then the government appeals to the consumer, saying "please properly inflate your tires so you don't waste fuel... and plant a tree." The consumer pays NO attention to the government as they hop in their SUV and throw their aluminum can in the trash instead of the recycling bin. The sad thing is, the people with the power to drive the market (the consumer) forfeits their voice because we're following like stupid sheep. Buy what you need, not what the neighbors have and we'll all be better in the end.

Oh, and by the way... since 1984 all corvettes have had independent rear suspensions.

Which reminds me of another point... all that torque that American cars typically made had to make it to the ground. Often times Europeans laugh at "torque," but the truth is, a BMW rear axle that holds 300 hp in an M3 wouldn't last a single day behind a 300-hp 454 V8. The torque would kill it in a split second. The solid rear axle proved enough to satisfy most Americans' handling needs, yet be ultimately reliable and strong.

To date, the most reliable way to get good sticky traction and torque safely to the ground without exploding is a solid rear axle. Its also the same reason why circle-track cars all the way up to the top use solid axles. That 650 hp V8 comes with monster torque in those Winston Cup cars.

What an absolutly awsome post curtis73.

I don't say that often enough, to enough people, but its not often a thread based on such nieve miss-understandings gets such a well written and intelligent reply. :)

Thanx curtis 73 thats a brilliant reply! Answered with so much detail! You should be an administrator or something on here!
Cheers

p.s It was the new mustang that had the solid rear axle my mistake

Moppie.
What was nieve about my post? I think it asked some very valid questions.

Curtis....you are spot on except...............
Corvettes got independent rear suspension in late 1962 for the '63 model year.

Also, the first post was very valid for the state of American vs European cars from the '30's through the 70's. By the '80's things were starting to turn around, and cars were starting to become better engineered in a more European tradition.

The break through cars were IMHO the Dodge Omni, GM's X cars (Citation, Omega, Pheonix and Skylark) and the Ford Escort's finally being sold in America.

Curtis points out that government regulations for emissions and safety distracted the American manufacturer in their design efforts. Some other reasons was that American manufacturers became very conservative.

The Chevrolet Corvair was a marvellous vehicle and very advanced and technically adventurous (air cooled flat six engine in the rear (like a Porsche), independent suspension all the way around, space efficient and compact, and fun to drive, all in an affordable package.

But the safety problems (Ralph Nader's book 'Unsafe at Any Speed helped kill the car) made manufacturers reluctant to stray far from the RWD live axle pushrod engine formula until they were forced to do so in the 80's.
If the public and everyone else had embraced the Corvair more enthusiastically in the '60's, chances are the American cars of the '70's would have been much better handling, faster and lighter.

Moppie.
What was nieve about my post? I think it asked some very valid questions.


Nieve simply implies lack of knowledge, and you filled that lack by asking some valid questions.
Unforunatly you phrased the question around some quite false and misleading statements that made your intial post sound nieve :)
No insult intended. :smokin:






As a small counter point to curtis73s post:

There are exceptions to every rule, and the Europeans, espcialy in the last 25 years have been just as guilty as the Americans at marketing cars beyond thier true value. Its not something limited to the European and American markets either, the Japanese are just as responsible.
Many smaller FWD Hatch backs recieve some quite basic technology in order to cut costs, while they get marketed as being more advanced than previous models.
The VW Golf for example lost indepentant rear suspension, and gained a very ugly beam axle at the back sometime in the late 80s. The engines also got bigger, but failed to produce significantly more power to over come the cars increase in weight as it also grew larger.
The result is the last incarnation of the GOLF GTi is considerably slower than the generation before it, yet was marketed as being the faster better performing car.
The Audi TT is marketed as being a technical tour de force, yet underneath some curved body panels it is nothing more than a VW golf, right down to the same beam axle at the back, and drum brakes.

Several generations of Rover during the early 90s were marketed as being pure British, yet were built on aging Honda Platforms, with out Hondas excellent double wish bone suspension. Instead Mac Pherson strusts and beam axles were used to cut costs.

Nissans Primera/G20 was marketed the world over as being the best handling mid/small size sedan ever made, untilising a revolutionary rear suspension set up.
The reality was it used another incarnation of the beam rear axle, one that has a tendancy to hop around at high speed on uneven road surfaces. Not the sort of chrateristics most of us want in a sporty sedan.


The Americans on the other hand have done some quite clever things with suspension.

If you ever get a chance to look at the front suspension on a FWD V8 Cadilac while its up on a hoist I strongly recomend it. Its far from simple, and niether is the independant rear end. Both set ups are very compact, yet allow huge amounts of wheel travel. Something I have yet to see a Japanese or European manufactor come close to emulating.


And of course the Corvettes leaf spring suspension is grossly mis-understood.
I know for at least one generation they used leaf springs front and year, and have been useing fiberglass or composite springs for at least 10 years.
The suspension is independant, and uses only one spring for each axle.
The spring is run transversly accross the car, inline with the axle.
Its attached to the chassis in the middle, and the suspension arms act on each outer tip. As a result the weight of the spring is kept low in the car, and since its weight is entirly surported by the chassis, unsprung weight is kept very low. Both are extremly important for suspension performance, so important Im surprised the design isn't used more often else where, the savings in weight over tradional spring and shock designs are quite considerable.

jesuschrist, my eyes are burning!!!