Chevy vs Ford

I posted something of a similar nature in another part of the forum (muscle cars)....
I asked who makes the better cars??? Chevy or Ford...

I'm trying to figure out whether I should go in for a Ford Mustang now, or wait for the new Camaro... :)

In terms of looks, my vote is with the Camaro... (especially after seeing transformers):iceslolan

Obviously the better of the two would appeal to me.... not preference.

I'm looking at the answer in terms of:
Power & Handling
Reliablility & Maintenance
Comfort... etc...

Anyone out there that can help me decide???

Gee, let me see, mass produced crap using 100 year old technology vs soon to be mass produced crap using 100 year old technology......

Yip, pretty tough call.

Gee, let me see, mass produced crap using 100 year old technology vs soon to be mass produced crap using 100 year old technology......

Yip, pretty tough call.

:grinyes: Dude your comments are appreciated... but not agreed upon....

These companies made some of the greatest cars in the world.
Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Chevelle, Impala, Caprice..... need I say more???

They invented stuff.... ABS, Airbags, etc...

These companies made some of the greatest cars in the world.
Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Chevelle, Impala, Caprice..... need I say more???


If they had produced them during the 50s, then sure, they would have been ground breaking. But, those are all cars that came out of the 60s and 70s, at a time when comparable cars else where in the world had things like independent suspension and disc brakes.



They invented stuff.... ABS, Airbags, etc...

You have heard of the Germans haven't you?

Yeah I have heard of the germans....

So you don't like American Cars... big deal....

I so and I have a valid reason for it. I live in the Gulf and here temperatures reach heights of above 52 degrees Centigrade. Not a joke and cars here have to be able to withstand such heat. In the 80s to early 90s, all Euro-boxes had problems... including the big names like Mercedes and BMW with heating issues... (rubber parts weren't able to cope) and yes after 10 - 15 years, the Germans decided that cars coming here should meet up with special conditions, such the term "Middle East Specs" came into being.

Japanese cars had not much of a problem... they built their cars to withstand the heat and incase it doesn't, parts are cheap.

Now American cars could withstand the heat.... simply because its native to them. I know that certain parts of the US gets as hot as it does here and also at times gets so cold to below freezing. So they are able to withstand all kinds of whether...

Anyways... my question is for all those who like Amercian cars... Who makes them better??? Chevy or Ford???

Power & Handling: Camaro
Reliablility & Maintenance: Camaro
Comfort... etc...: I havn't sat in the new camaro so I dunno about that one.

i believe they're both in the high 3,000 lbs range for curb weight, but the 6.0 ls2 puts out higher #'s to the wheels than the 4.6, and GM builds better trannies than ford.

so based on my opinions as well as your criteria i'm gonna have to say the new Camaro wins hands down.

Power & Handling: Camaro
Reliablility & Maintenance: Camaro
Comfort... etc...: I havn't sat in the new camaro so I dunno about that one.

i believe they're both in the high 3,000 lbs range for curb weight, but the 6.0 ls2 puts out higher #'s to the wheels than the 4.6, and GM builds better trannies than ford.

so based on my opinions as well as your criteria i'm gonna have to say the new Camaro wins hands down.

Thanks for the reply....

I read a comparison report online between a Camaro and a Mustang... The Mustang won.... hard to believe. :grinyes:

Looks - Camaro
Comfort - Mustang
Power - Camaro
Maintenance and Handling - equal
Good for Everyday use - Mustang

I would have to agree with you though.

however there is just one thing... my question was not about the Camaro and Mustang only. It was about the cars in general. Who makes the better cars??? Chevy or Ford

if by "better cars" you mean reliability, definately chevy. Ford is known for being one of the least reliable manufacturers out there.

Well Chevy is the better of the two of course.

However, neither brand makes good cars and both brands make pretty good trucks.

Well Chevy is the better of the two of course.

However, neither brand makes good cars and both brands make pretty good trucks.

chevy makes good trucks, ford makes good truck (150 lightning)

Maintenance and Handling - equal

Wrong...

Handling: Camaro > Mustang ( i thought everybody knew this )
Maintenance: Camaro > Mustang ( due to cost of labor and parts )

Its clear to see that there are more Chevy fans in the community than for Ford. And I'm guessing rightly so....
Chevys have proven to be more better than Fords in alot of ways.

If they had produced them during the 50s, then sure, they would have been ground breaking. But, those are all cars that came out of the 60s and 70s, at a time when comparable cars else where in the world had things like independent suspension and disc brakes.

I would like to know what cars compare to the ones mentioned that come from other countries. Im not saying our American cars are any better or worse, but i would like to see these cars that are so much better than our "crap".

BTW GM had both disc brakes and independant suspension available in early 60's.

Okay, back on topic....

Why are people so bent on liking one or the other? Most people that bad mouth certain brands havnt owned or even been in one long enough to make a good judgement.

Its okay to like both. No really.... Both GM and FORD make good cars. Yes, most are cheap and low quality, thats because the cheap low quality consumer. You get what you pay for, And with the right budget GM or FORD will hand you the keys to a car thats actually worth a damn.

Hop in a 67 vette w/427 and you will find they blow the doors off and drive circles around most supposed "performance" cars of yesterday AND today. With bolt on upgrades you can make one damn near unbeatable, i dont care what you have or what country it was made in.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1967-corvette1.htm

Its okay to like both. No really.... Both GM and FORD make good cars. Yes, most are cheap and low quality, thats because the cheap low quality consumer. You get what you pay for, And with the right budget GM or FORD will hand you the keys to a car thats actually worth a damn.

Hop in a 67 vette w/427 and you will find they blow the doors off and drive circles around most supposed "performance" cars of yesterday AND today. With bolt on upgrades you can make one damn near unbeatable, i dont care what you have or what country it was made in.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1967-corvette1.htm


Ur absolutely right dude... Everyone has their preferences and stuff...

Who makes them better between the two???

I would like to know what cars compare to the ones mentioned that come from other countries. Im not saying our American cars are any better or worse, but i would like to see these cars that are so much better than our "crap".

BTW GM had both disc brakes and independant suspension available in early 60's.




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.

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...

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.

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??

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.

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.

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.

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....

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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???

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

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.

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???

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


I'm trying to draw you towards the realisation that they are both crap.
So it doesn't really matter. :smokin:

Crap wouldn't be the right word.

You can't deny that these companies have given the motoring world some truely legendary cars....

the Corvette, the Mustang, the Camaro,

Out of the new models.... the Focus & Mondeo are reasonably good cars,
the Cavalier was one of the best performing cars I know in terms of reliability..... (I live in the Middle East. You learn what can take the extreme heat here).... where BMWs and Mercedes cars have stalled and failed, American cars have done well.

I'm trying to draw you towards the realisation that they are both crap.
So it doesn't really matter. :smokin:


If you could explain your reasoning besides just saying they are crap maybe your plan will work.

What car company is so much better that you can put down American cars and call them crap?

OK.... I apologise for any hard feelings here

Im certain nobody has any hard feelings over a simple forum discussion.

If you could explain your reasoning besides just saying they are crap maybe your plan will work.

What car company is so much better that you can put down American cars and call them crap?


I'm sensing that his username gives us a clue as to what he supports...

Moppie = Mopar

He's a Dodge fan..... :grinyes:

My experience with Ford, ownership and work vehicle, they are crap, period. My reason is because through my experience with them, they are unreliable. They have simply let me down too many times. Sorry. IMO, they only know how to make a pickup last long and that's it.

As for Chevy, I am wrong, there is nothing wrong with them really. While i've never owned a Chevy car, with my experience with their cars and the year or so of ownership with my Blazer, Chevy is good, but have this "3rd place" feel to them. I dunno if its good or bad, but it doesn't make them crap or bad vehicles, they are all right overall. Again, i've never owned a Chevy car, but have owned a Saturn car (GM make) and my dad is on his 3rd Saturn and we are very happy with these cars even though the feelings are the same (good vehicle, but a 3rd place feel).

If you could explain your reasoning besides just saying they are crap maybe your plan will work.

What car company is so much better that you can put down American cars and call them crap?



Its not hard to find faults with them, the simple fact that both the Camaro and the Mustang both use a live axle doesn't say a lot about the regard for good engingering practice from either GM or Ford.
Its clearly there in order to reduce costs in design and manufacturing and really should not be tolerated by any pro-active, educated and intelligent car buying population.

And the fact that both companies can make such out dated cars, and yet still produce cars like the New Mondeo, or Astra shows a serious lack of consistency in their company philosophies.
Its extremely short sighted, and has to be costing them money by being unable to release models on a global scale.

Of course if happen to like the American V8s from the 60s and 70s then the Camaro and Mustang are the perfect cars. GM and Ford have simply added ABS and Fuel injection to make them easier to drive for you.
But which is better is going to be a matter of personal choice, you will simply have to drive both.
At the end of the day though there are more sophisticated, better engineered cars available.


GM and Ford are both the global giants of the car industry, yet they are totaly unable to release global car models that will appeal to the global car market.
Given that Ford invented the idea with the Model T, you would think they might have perfected the idea by now.
Instead its the Japanese and the Europeans who are showing them how it should be done, cars like the VW/Audi Golf/A3, Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic are sold all over the world in pretty much the same form with small differences to allow for local market variations.


And for the record I'm not a "mopar" fan.

I know there are faults with Chevys and Fords.... but that doesn't mean that they are crap. These faults are just too minimal to be real hard issues.
If there is one thing that these companies produce is really good engines. So much so that they are used by many different manufacturer.

I'm not surprised that the Germans make such good cars... the car is originally a German invention (by Mercedes)....
All ford did was device a way to make cars easier and faster. The model T was the first modern produced car.

I know there are faults with Chevys and Fords.... but that doesn't mean that they are crap. These faults are just too minimal to be real hard issues.
If there is one thing that these companies produce is really good engines. So much so that they are used by many different manufacturer.

I'm not surprised that the Germans make such good cars... the car is originally a German invention (by Mercedes)....
All ford did was device a way to make cars easier and faster. The model T was the first modern produced car.


The model T was the first mass produced car, I wouldn't call it modern :)

With the exception of very, very low volume manufacturers I can't think of anyone who uses GM and Ford engines.
Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Peugeot and Mercedes are the only manufacturers I can think of who have had their engines used by other companies.

Of course the Small block V8s from both Ford and GM have their place in history, they have been made in mind boggling numbers, have proven their reliability, and their ability to make good power, and have done so using a very basic design.
Sadly there is more to a car than its engine.

Many GM cars can and have been pounded down the road for several hundred thousand miles before the engine is rebuilt. Then its pounded down the road for a couple hundred thousand more before the process is repeated once again... Countless cars here in america have half a million miles or more on the same body. GM engines, especially the older ones are long lasting and are known for this. Its not unusual at all to see over 300K on stock engines/trans owned by a complete moron who never gets the oil changed on time or keep it maintained in any other way.

Fact is most older GM cars are on 2nd or 3rd engines (or more), each lasting between 200k-300k on average. Most of these im speaking of are owned by people who couldnt even tell you how to change the oil... So as "obsolete" as they may seem, i dont see any of the other cars mentioned in this thread capable of this. They are what i call "throw away cars". They arent worth the cost of repair IMO. I mean who wants to drive a Civic or Corolla for that many miles even if it was possible? I WILL NOT put my family in a car like that, its simply not safe on a road with so many big trucks like Ford Excretions or cars like my 72 Catalina. If my Catalina was to hit a Civic nothing would be left of the civic to speak of. Hell my HOOD is as long as a civic. And the CAT gets 17MPG and has enough torque to pull down a MC Donalds.

Perhaps the dependability of our american cars are why the big three are in a sales slump. The cars dont die and when they do, they are so cheap to fix it would be a waste of money to go get another car when this one is doing just fine and has done so for 20+ years needing minor $ worth of repairs.

Rightly said....

Perhaps the sales figures of Japanese and German cars are not on how many cars are sold, but how many times one has to replace the car... :grinyes:

Its true that American cars can pound on the miles and keep on going till they finally die.... but it must be said that here in the Middle East... Its a not very often to see an American car havin an engine changed, but you'll find that doing it is a tiny bit more expensive than for the Jap models...

Many GM cars can and have been pounded down the road for several hundred thousand miles before the engine is rebuilt..................



Anyone can tell stories of cars that have done very high milages.
There are plenty of none GM and Ford cars that have done hundreds and thousands, or even millions of ks on original engines.
A very simple, un-stressed engine design is not something that is somehow unique to GM and Ford.
Plenty of Toyota's and Honda's have traveled huge distances as well.
I personally know of a Honda Accord with over 750,000kms, while one of the reps at work had his brand new Ford Falcon blow up on his way home from the dealer.



The simple fact is GM and Ford both sell extremely outdated vehicles to the American public, and get away with it by hiding behind marketing and rhetoric.

There is a very good reason the Mustang and the Camaro are sold in such limited numbers out side of the US to a very small niche market of die hard fans. Here in NZ the cost of a new Mustang is twice what it costs in the US, thanks to conversion to RHD and the huge mark up the importer (Ford NZ) can get away with putting on them.

I hear you....

Toyotas and Hondas are able to pile on the miles.... but only if used in a way that the engines are not overloaded all the time.....

If there is one thing that the GM and Ford engines have is huge amounts of Torque at low revs.... so you also get the ability of dragging heavy loads as you pile on miles with incredible ease....

if you argue that Toyota Land Cruisers and Hilux pickups do the same... I agree... but there is a limit and you can't cross it because of their engine sizes....

I hear you.....


Almost.

Any car, with the exception of some very bad designs, and those with very highly tuned engines, can pile on huge distances.
99% of the cars on the road are using engines that are operating at less than 25% of the potential out put assuming enough fuel and air could be supplied.
So there is a huge margin for error and lots of inbuilt reliability.

What kills any motor is turning it on, once its up to temperature and running very, very little wear occurs.
If you rally wanted a measure of how worn an engine might be you would have a started counter, not a distance traveled counter.
Distance traveled only really gives you some idea of how worn out drive line components might be, things that are usually age dependent, rather than distance traveled dependent. Most rubber parts for example will expire from old age before over use.

If there is one thing that the GM and Ford engines have is huge amounts of Torque at low revs.... so you also get the ability of dragging heavy loads as you pile on miles with incredible ease....



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

Large capacity engines tend to make lots of torque at low rpm, and it just so happens that Ford and GM both make a variety of large capacity engines that are fitted to the larger vehicle range.
In fact they both have the market pretty well cornered when it comes to large capacity V8s sold globally, and now that Ford has dropped its old 351 motor for a new 4.2L, that leaves GM out on its loan some with a single cam 6L V8 to share with the world.
Not that there is anything wrong with the Chevy small block, its been an important engine for GM, is one of the best V8s ever built and is clearly still quite capable.
Its just that after 30 or 40 or however many years it's been around, you would think GM would have developed something better by now.
BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Ford (yes ford) and VAG all make 8 Cylinder engines that are just as effective, last just as long, can make just as much hp, but are all much, much smaller in capacity.

Well I've seen engines give way for a variety of reasons.... Chief among which is just nothing but pure neglect.

Over here in the Middle East, engines give out due to extreme heat and lack of proper cooling, overloading and running huge distances.. thus causing the engine to constantly be on high revs and strain & not replacing worn parts in time....

So far here people take care of GM n Ford motors because of their value and the simple fact that it costs more to replace one than with a Japanese motor. :lol:

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: LOL

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

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.

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.

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..:lol:

Anything but my feet FTW!!!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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/technology/default.htm

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

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.

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.