will American cars get better??
emanunet
03-11-2008, 07:11 AM
with cars around the world getting better and better every year, rurmor has it that American cars might actually start to get better aswell, i.e - better built, better fuel ecconomy, might actually go around bends and last longer. what do you think? will the US realize that cars are not just a disposable item that you need to throw away after 2 monthes? will the American car industry be able to match the European/Japanese market? will it be possible that not only 1 in 10 cars we test here in Europe from American brand be worth the money?
what do you say, is the American car industry starting to build real cars?
what do you say, is the American car industry starting to build real cars?
KiwiBacon
03-11-2008, 03:51 PM
There're two things the US car makers need to sort out IMO.
First thing is diesel engines, I suspect the solution to this problem will simply be imported from their partners in Europe and Asia.
Second thing is small cars, but again I see imports and badge engineering being the winners there.
First thing is diesel engines, I suspect the solution to this problem will simply be imported from their partners in Europe and Asia.
Second thing is small cars, but again I see imports and badge engineering being the winners there.
J-Ri
03-11-2008, 04:42 PM
IMO, I would MUCH rather have an "American" (all parts of all cars made everywhere now) car. Asian (Japanese) cars such as Honda and Toyota are as good as American, but are nothing special. Asian (Korean) cars like Daewoo and Kia just plain suck. Initial cost would be the only benefit there. European cars seem to be the worst of all. They are no more reliable than American cars, and when they break just as often, parts are WAY too expensive (I know part of that is shipping them over here).
I have no idea what you mean by disposable (maybe a 'chips' vs. 'French fries' kindda difference?). I own 3 GM vehicles, and all have far out lasted similar vehicles imported from various other countries. '86 Silverado 170,000 miles, it runs PERFECT. I have replaced the water pump, master cylinder, and power steering pump (and of course wear items). EVERY other part is original. Find me an import that can compare to that!
I also have a '96 Beretta (159,000 miles) and a '98 Grand Am (190,000 miles). In 2 years NOTHING has gone wrong with the Beretta (and I was told only the A/C compressor had been replaced when I bought it). I have only owned the Grand Am for ~6 months, but have hardly driven it due to worn out tires and lots of snow. Both of them run great. I have seen Toyota engines that have worn out around 130,000 miles, both the 3L V6 and the 2.4L I4.
Do you have any sources to back up what you said or is this all just opinion?
I have no idea what you mean by disposable (maybe a 'chips' vs. 'French fries' kindda difference?). I own 3 GM vehicles, and all have far out lasted similar vehicles imported from various other countries. '86 Silverado 170,000 miles, it runs PERFECT. I have replaced the water pump, master cylinder, and power steering pump (and of course wear items). EVERY other part is original. Find me an import that can compare to that!
I also have a '96 Beretta (159,000 miles) and a '98 Grand Am (190,000 miles). In 2 years NOTHING has gone wrong with the Beretta (and I was told only the A/C compressor had been replaced when I bought it). I have only owned the Grand Am for ~6 months, but have hardly driven it due to worn out tires and lots of snow. Both of them run great. I have seen Toyota engines that have worn out around 130,000 miles, both the 3L V6 and the 2.4L I4.
Do you have any sources to back up what you said or is this all just opinion?
emanunet
03-11-2008, 07:09 PM
well, it is just based on the fact that here this is they way American cars are percived (in Europe). it is a fact that people here reject American cars without even trying them - you say that there is a reason to doubt that rejection? maybe. i work as an assistant mechanic (i have only been in the business for 2 years) in a small garage but i have seen a great deal of ppl complaining about the running costs and built qualities of American cars much more than i have seen complaints about European/Asian cars.
i hear and read ALL the time about just how bad american cars can get, and from that i have come to realiza that there is something wrong with them. i mean, you can buy an american car here - even something as crazy as a Vette/Viper - for the price you pay for a midsized BMW - around 30-70K GBP (remember that you have to import it yourself most of the time, which almost doubles the cost, meaning it's original price is ranged between 20-40K GBP) - that must mean something, dosen't it?? there must be a reason that American built cars are SO cheap, even ones with 450+ bhp!
i know that you cannot possibly genralize all American cars as bad cars, but somce you hear all the time just how truly bad they are - what reason do you have to think otherwise??
when i was in the states two years ago,i hired with a friend 3 different cars: a PT cruiser, Pontiak GTO and a Dodge Neon. now, these three cars were appaling to drive, thier build quality did not even come near the one of even a cheap European hatchback and thier fuel economy was really a dissaster (around 10mpg from the GTO on a freeway!). i admit, it was nice to cruise at 70-100 mph with a meaty V8 under the bonnet, but everything elsed made the whole experience so bad that i just came to hate American rides.
but if you think that this is not the case, then please, enlighten me. this is exactly why i posted this thread.
EA
i hear and read ALL the time about just how bad american cars can get, and from that i have come to realiza that there is something wrong with them. i mean, you can buy an american car here - even something as crazy as a Vette/Viper - for the price you pay for a midsized BMW - around 30-70K GBP (remember that you have to import it yourself most of the time, which almost doubles the cost, meaning it's original price is ranged between 20-40K GBP) - that must mean something, dosen't it?? there must be a reason that American built cars are SO cheap, even ones with 450+ bhp!
i know that you cannot possibly genralize all American cars as bad cars, but somce you hear all the time just how truly bad they are - what reason do you have to think otherwise??
when i was in the states two years ago,i hired with a friend 3 different cars: a PT cruiser, Pontiak GTO and a Dodge Neon. now, these three cars were appaling to drive, thier build quality did not even come near the one of even a cheap European hatchback and thier fuel economy was really a dissaster (around 10mpg from the GTO on a freeway!). i admit, it was nice to cruise at 70-100 mph with a meaty V8 under the bonnet, but everything elsed made the whole experience so bad that i just came to hate American rides.
but if you think that this is not the case, then please, enlighten me. this is exactly why i posted this thread.
EA
KiwiBacon
03-11-2008, 08:06 PM
when i was in the states two years ago,i hired with a friend 3 different cars: a PT cruiser, Pontiak GTO and a Dodge Neon. now, these three cars were appaling to drive, thier build quality did not even come near the one of even a cheap European hatchback and thier fuel economy was really a dissaster (around 10mpg from the GTO on a freeway!). i admit, it was nice to cruise at 70-100 mph with a meaty V8 under the bonnet, but everything elsed made the whole experience so bad that i just came to hate American rides.
but if you think that this is not the case, then please, enlighten me. this is exactly why i posted this thread.
EA
That PT Cruiser and the Neon are basically the same vehicle. The Pontiac GTO is actually an Australian Car (Holden Monaro). But Australia is the closest thing to American outside the US anyway.
but if you think that this is not the case, then please, enlighten me. this is exactly why i posted this thread.
EA
That PT Cruiser and the Neon are basically the same vehicle. The Pontiac GTO is actually an Australian Car (Holden Monaro). But Australia is the closest thing to American outside the US anyway.
curtis73
03-11-2008, 09:21 PM
J-ri, he's probably referring to literally millions of independent studies which have shown for 30 years that japanese cars are on the average much more reliable than any car America ever made. That is why when American companies needed small reliable cars in the late 70s and early 80s, they teamed up with Japanese companies. Chevy started the Geo line by buying cars from Toyota, Isuzu, and Suzuki. Dodge teamed up with Mitsubishi and bought everything from sports cars to trucks to rebadge. Ford has long been in bed with Mazda and most of their small cars are Mazda designs, not Ford. I buy American cars because I like the styling and price. I bought my wife a 97 Toyota because I knew it would last longer. 120k without any repairs except maintenance. Compare that to my 96 Chevy Impala SS that has a cracked exhaust manifold, is on its third water pump, second distributor, fourth power steering pump, the tranny slips pretty badly, the stock radio died and almost set fire to my car, and the cruise control doesn't work, all in the same 120k miles.
I had a BMW that went 300k without ever opening the engine, a Toyota that made 380k with a new head, and a mercedes diesel that made 280k without ever doing anything... and that was 10 years ago and I suspect its still on the road with over 400k.
American cars sucked for LONG time. They are now starting to get the picture and are already becoming much more reliable. The Chevy Malibu just received some award for being the most reliable car in its class, so its starting to happen.
I had a BMW that went 300k without ever opening the engine, a Toyota that made 380k with a new head, and a mercedes diesel that made 280k without ever doing anything... and that was 10 years ago and I suspect its still on the road with over 400k.
American cars sucked for LONG time. They are now starting to get the picture and are already becoming much more reliable. The Chevy Malibu just received some award for being the most reliable car in its class, so its starting to happen.
Moppie
03-12-2008, 12:11 AM
Chrysler has been trying to enter overseas markets for about 40 odd years at least now. And every time they get knocked back by local brands.
Every time.
They have even produced some nice cars in that time, and at one point were even badge engineering cars from england and Australia. It still didn't work.
But then you look at the new Chrysler's being sold out side the US and you wonder why they even bother.
They are big, ugly, and use very out dated technology. Live axles, single cam engines or 1 or 2 generation old Mercedes platforms that have passed their sell by date. They handle like bags of jelly and the performance might have been considered average 10 years ago.
They sell in small numbers to fanatics and people who think being an "American" (as in the ideal from the movies) is cool.
Daewo's and Kia's are more popular and sell in much larger numbers.
Small note, Honda and Toyota both make a large range of American only cars and light trucks.
These are designed in the US, built in the US, and only sold in North America.
They are MORE American that most "American" cars.
Which is interesting, especially the bit about the are sold ONLY in North America. e.g. Tundra, Tacoma, US Civic, Element, Ridgeline. (some of these actually get EXPORTED to Japan. the old Civic coupe, and Accord Wagon for example).
Does this perhaps indicate that the problem is not with the American Car Makers, but with the American Market.
After all in the past American manufacturers have done some very clever things, and overseas they have Produced some very good cars, the Ford Mondeo for example.
Is it possible that either the Market simple demands big, stupid cars, or, is it so blind to what the rest of the world is getting, its happy with big, stupid cars?
Every time.
They have even produced some nice cars in that time, and at one point were even badge engineering cars from england and Australia. It still didn't work.
But then you look at the new Chrysler's being sold out side the US and you wonder why they even bother.
They are big, ugly, and use very out dated technology. Live axles, single cam engines or 1 or 2 generation old Mercedes platforms that have passed their sell by date. They handle like bags of jelly and the performance might have been considered average 10 years ago.
They sell in small numbers to fanatics and people who think being an "American" (as in the ideal from the movies) is cool.
Daewo's and Kia's are more popular and sell in much larger numbers.
Small note, Honda and Toyota both make a large range of American only cars and light trucks.
These are designed in the US, built in the US, and only sold in North America.
They are MORE American that most "American" cars.
Which is interesting, especially the bit about the are sold ONLY in North America. e.g. Tundra, Tacoma, US Civic, Element, Ridgeline. (some of these actually get EXPORTED to Japan. the old Civic coupe, and Accord Wagon for example).
Does this perhaps indicate that the problem is not with the American Car Makers, but with the American Market.
After all in the past American manufacturers have done some very clever things, and overseas they have Produced some very good cars, the Ford Mondeo for example.
Is it possible that either the Market simple demands big, stupid cars, or, is it so blind to what the rest of the world is getting, its happy with big, stupid cars?
curtis73
03-12-2008, 01:44 AM
Does this perhaps indicate that the problem is not with the American Car Makers, but with the American Market.
After all in the past American manufacturers have done some very clever things, and overseas they have Produced some very good cars, the Ford Mondeo for example.
Is it possible that either the Market simple demands big, stupid cars, or, is it so blind to what the rest of the world is getting, its happy with big, stupid cars?
Amen, kudos, and otherwise, hell yes.
As gas prices continue to increase at an epic rate, people still keep buying Escalades with 26" wheels. Its market and the consumer perception.
After all in the past American manufacturers have done some very clever things, and overseas they have Produced some very good cars, the Ford Mondeo for example.
Is it possible that either the Market simple demands big, stupid cars, or, is it so blind to what the rest of the world is getting, its happy with big, stupid cars?
Amen, kudos, and otherwise, hell yes.
As gas prices continue to increase at an epic rate, people still keep buying Escalades with 26" wheels. Its market and the consumer perception.
72chevelleOhio
03-12-2008, 02:34 AM
Don't forget about the "people" curve....When something is good, nobody thinks about it. When something is bad, "The whole world has to know what a piece of junk it is"......
emanunet
03-12-2008, 06:57 AM
Does this perhaps indicate that the problem is not with the American Car Makers, but with the American Market.
After all in the past American manufacturers have done some very clever things, and overseas they have Produced some very good cars, the Ford Mondeo for example.
Moppie, i think that is exactly the point. American consumers cant be bothered about the quality of thier cars. they are living in a society that everything needs to be big and cheap (food, clothes, cars, houses etc.). i do believe that American car companies can manufactur a well built car (heck, i owned a 2000 focus - perhaps the best car i ever owned) it is just that the American ppl simply dont see quality as mandatory. they are still living in thier bubble of "yeah-ill-take-the-1$-superzise-meal" lifestyle and that implicates on everything that they consume. Ford here in Europe is producing cars that can out-score top of the line Bimmers, yet they simply dont see it as something that ppl in thier home country would want.
i mean, just look at America's motor sport, what is thier most viewed car race?? Nascar. no disrespect for Nascar, but still, when u look at that compared to F1, you think that america is still in the middle of the stone age(!).
but i blame the car companies more than i blame the American ppl themeselves; they (car companies) are the ones that can make the change, they can produce better vehicles for the American market but they simply dont. if they would have started to show the American ppl just how a car these days could be built they (American public) might actually understand just how ridicules what they drive is!
but then, it all comes to money, dosn't it? i assume these kind of cars would be much more expensive to produce and also to buy and both sides woudnt want that (of course....). second of all, oil companies will simply not allow (in whichever way they can) manufaturing cars which are more efficient in a massive scale (yes, you have cars like the Prius, but thier number is insignifcant compared to the number of huge SUV's trucks and "muscle cars").
so what can be done?? i guess America in condemned to live like ignorants in every way that has anything to do with consumerism, including cars.
maybe the change should come from within? maybe the American public would wake up one day? who knows...
till then, though, American cars (including the ones pruduced by foriegn companies for the American market) will stay in my mind as they worst cars you can probably buy today.
EA
After all in the past American manufacturers have done some very clever things, and overseas they have Produced some very good cars, the Ford Mondeo for example.
Moppie, i think that is exactly the point. American consumers cant be bothered about the quality of thier cars. they are living in a society that everything needs to be big and cheap (food, clothes, cars, houses etc.). i do believe that American car companies can manufactur a well built car (heck, i owned a 2000 focus - perhaps the best car i ever owned) it is just that the American ppl simply dont see quality as mandatory. they are still living in thier bubble of "yeah-ill-take-the-1$-superzise-meal" lifestyle and that implicates on everything that they consume. Ford here in Europe is producing cars that can out-score top of the line Bimmers, yet they simply dont see it as something that ppl in thier home country would want.
i mean, just look at America's motor sport, what is thier most viewed car race?? Nascar. no disrespect for Nascar, but still, when u look at that compared to F1, you think that america is still in the middle of the stone age(!).
but i blame the car companies more than i blame the American ppl themeselves; they (car companies) are the ones that can make the change, they can produce better vehicles for the American market but they simply dont. if they would have started to show the American ppl just how a car these days could be built they (American public) might actually understand just how ridicules what they drive is!
but then, it all comes to money, dosn't it? i assume these kind of cars would be much more expensive to produce and also to buy and both sides woudnt want that (of course....). second of all, oil companies will simply not allow (in whichever way they can) manufaturing cars which are more efficient in a massive scale (yes, you have cars like the Prius, but thier number is insignifcant compared to the number of huge SUV's trucks and "muscle cars").
so what can be done?? i guess America in condemned to live like ignorants in every way that has anything to do with consumerism, including cars.
maybe the change should come from within? maybe the American public would wake up one day? who knows...
till then, though, American cars (including the ones pruduced by foriegn companies for the American market) will stay in my mind as they worst cars you can probably buy today.
EA
curtis73
03-12-2008, 01:06 PM
Well, look at the government we settle for all the time. Huge money, terrible policy. Every election we just vote for the lesser of two evils and then complain for 4 years.
emanunet
03-12-2008, 02:44 PM
thats a good way to put it.
J-Ri
03-12-2008, 03:34 PM
I think a huge part of the reason American cars are so "terrible" is that often times the owner doesn't maintain them. A customer who comes in with a Toyota/Honda/Mazda, etc. wants us to do everything the owners manual says, every time it says it. A lot of the GM/Ford/Chrysler owners will not fix something until it breaks. If the transmission fluid is black and smells like burnt toast, they let it go until the transmission goes out. Same thing with engine oil, I've seen hundreds of cars that are 5,000 miles past the oil change. I've seen several that are 10,000 miles or more over. No wonder things break.
I completely agree with what was said about Americans wanting the biggest and cheapest (some of them). However, calling all of us ignorant when you think everyone is like that makes you seem a bit ignorant yourself. Sure, there are people who buy a $50,000 (or more) truck and have never had anything in the back and never pulled a trailer and only drive on roads. They're idiots, your right. (I should point out that the truck in my avitar has been driven less than 1,000 miles in the past year, so don't bring that up) Not all Americans are like that. Do you put malt vinegar on everything you eat, don't have two teeth that are parallel, and think that crossdressing is the absolute funniest comedy there is? Saying all Americans are alike is as rediculous as that.
I completely agree with what was said about Americans wanting the biggest and cheapest (some of them). However, calling all of us ignorant when you think everyone is like that makes you seem a bit ignorant yourself. Sure, there are people who buy a $50,000 (or more) truck and have never had anything in the back and never pulled a trailer and only drive on roads. They're idiots, your right. (I should point out that the truck in my avitar has been driven less than 1,000 miles in the past year, so don't bring that up) Not all Americans are like that. Do you put malt vinegar on everything you eat, don't have two teeth that are parallel, and think that crossdressing is the absolute funniest comedy there is? Saying all Americans are alike is as rediculous as that.
emanunet
03-12-2008, 05:10 PM
when i say "Americans", u know i mean the majority and not everyone. i am sure you understand that i dont think that EVERY single american is ignorant or drives a ridicules car. but, the vast majority does. and that's a fact. i am sorry if you took it personally (i am sure the ppl it dosnt concern know it).
curtis73
03-12-2008, 05:39 PM
I think a huge part of the reason American cars are so "terrible" is that often times the owner doesn't maintain them. A customer who comes in with a Toyota/Honda/Mazda, etc. wants us to do everything the owners manual says, every time it says it. A lot of the GM/Ford/Chrysler owners will not fix something until it breaks. If the transmission fluid is black and smells like burnt toast, they let it go until the transmission goes out. Same thing with engine oil, I've seen hundreds of cars that are 5,000 miles past the oil change. I've seen several that are 10,000 miles or more over. No wonder things break.
while I agree with the maintenance things, I don't think Toyota owners are a high pride-of-ownership crowd. Many of their smaller economy/commuter vehicles are owned by people who get in, turn the key, and push the pedal. I think its a credit to Toyota that they last the way they do given the terrible maintenance I see on most of what I work on.
Contrast that with the 30 or more American vehicles I've owned and meticulously maintained and parts still fail miserably. I would much rather have a classic American car that fails because I can replace a $55 AC compressor in 15 minutes. If the AC compressor goes on my wife's Tercel, its $235 wholesale and requires some major disassembly to get to it from the bottom of the car. Its preference in many cases. Americans on the average have shown that they want the most for the least amount of money; cars, supersize fast food, electronics. We are a pretty decadent society.
while I agree with the maintenance things, I don't think Toyota owners are a high pride-of-ownership crowd. Many of their smaller economy/commuter vehicles are owned by people who get in, turn the key, and push the pedal. I think its a credit to Toyota that they last the way they do given the terrible maintenance I see on most of what I work on.
Contrast that with the 30 or more American vehicles I've owned and meticulously maintained and parts still fail miserably. I would much rather have a classic American car that fails because I can replace a $55 AC compressor in 15 minutes. If the AC compressor goes on my wife's Tercel, its $235 wholesale and requires some major disassembly to get to it from the bottom of the car. Its preference in many cases. Americans on the average have shown that they want the most for the least amount of money; cars, supersize fast food, electronics. We are a pretty decadent society.
j cAT
03-12-2008, 05:52 PM
with cars around the world getting better and better every year, rurmor has it that American cars might actually start to get better aswell, i.e - better built, better fuel ecconomy, might actually go around bends and last longer. what do you think? will the US realize that cars are not just a disposable item that you need to throw away after 2 monthes? will the American car industry be able to match the European/Japanese market? will it be possible that not only 1 in 10 cars we test here in Europe from American brand be worth the money?
what do you say, is the American car industry starting to build real cars?
american made vehicles are not built to last....they continue to design for failure.... the asian vehicles are better equipted with longer lasting parts.. also because of the cost/labor american cars have to be made with inferior parts......this is like comparing a mac computer to a Ibm computer the Mac is far superior in design and performance were as the IBM computer is constantly in need of up dates and fixes... but the price is the only reason people will put up with IBM type...just look at ford/gm the stock is falling GM losses in billions how long will america make vehicles? the future is grim for USA...if you like working on vehicles buy american...
what do you say, is the American car industry starting to build real cars?
american made vehicles are not built to last....they continue to design for failure.... the asian vehicles are better equipted with longer lasting parts.. also because of the cost/labor american cars have to be made with inferior parts......this is like comparing a mac computer to a Ibm computer the Mac is far superior in design and performance were as the IBM computer is constantly in need of up dates and fixes... but the price is the only reason people will put up with IBM type...just look at ford/gm the stock is falling GM losses in billions how long will america make vehicles? the future is grim for USA...if you like working on vehicles buy american...
slideways...
03-12-2008, 07:05 PM
its all about the consumer, well not really. its also about retarted people who work for said companies who 'think' they know what the u.s. consumer wants. for example, ford as you know sells many quality cars in europe. but here, the focus is garbage. its a rehash of the origional, nothing added. in europe its now based on the volvo s40 chassis. why? also, it says something when a companies only sporty car (the mustang) gets a glass roof. wtf. and you cant even say the GTO is the holden monaro. its an embarrassment to holden to even compare the two. the GTO is worse in almost every area, except maybe rush hour traffic comfort. and yes i did get a chance to drive both. the difference is huge.
its partly the consumer, and partly the company needs to wake the $%^# up.
its partly the consumer, and partly the company needs to wake the $%^# up.
curtis73
03-12-2008, 07:26 PM
American cars' choice of lower quality parts shows up pretty quickly. The leather in my American cars is so thin and cheap, it starts creasing and cracking in very short order. I had an 87 BMW with 176k and original leather that looked better than any American car I ever had. How quickly the panels rust, how soon the paint wears off labels like power window switches, turn signal stalks, and dash switches, and how soon dashboards crack in the sun... all indicators of getting materials from the lowest possible bidder.
Its just that other countries tend to place more emphasis on other things. Japanese companies tend to focus on affordable reliability. European companies tend to put alot of engineering into reliability and driving enjoyment/ergonomics. American companies tend to put emphasis on flash, styling, and keeping consumers just interested enough to keep buying parts that fail. American companies put huge emphasis on sales, which keeps the interest up in buying new. The average trade-in mileage on American cars is much lower. By convincing American car owners that the newer models are improved, they can sell you a new one while your "old" one is in for service.
Its just that other countries tend to place more emphasis on other things. Japanese companies tend to focus on affordable reliability. European companies tend to put alot of engineering into reliability and driving enjoyment/ergonomics. American companies tend to put emphasis on flash, styling, and keeping consumers just interested enough to keep buying parts that fail. American companies put huge emphasis on sales, which keeps the interest up in buying new. The average trade-in mileage on American cars is much lower. By convincing American car owners that the newer models are improved, they can sell you a new one while your "old" one is in for service.
emanunet
03-13-2008, 04:16 AM
slideways..., exacatly what i was sayong
ShadowWulf2K
03-13-2008, 11:45 AM
when i say "Americans", u know i mean the majority and not everyone. i am sure you understand that i dont think that EVERY single american is ignorant or drives a ridicules car. but, the vast majority does. and that's a fact. i am sorry if you took it personally (i am sure the ppl it dosnt concern know it).
I'm an American, a patriotic one even, and I agree with you. We have a lot of dumb people in this country. Hard working, but dumb, and this applies to the SUV phenomena that happened here. It's lessening, though. When I was car shopping, I saw tons of SUV's and full-sized sedans in the used car ads.
Everytime I'm on the road, some moron in a big ROFL-wagon is doing something dumb. Going slow in the passing lane, swerving, not signaling, not paying attention. It really gets annoying sometimes.
Not all of our cars fit into the American Car stereotype. Personally I own a 2007 Mustang, which got the #1 award for initial quality in it's class, and Ford took #1 overall, unseating Toyota. Also, Mustangs produced this decade are known for really good reliability. The old "lulz, dumbestics break down" mentallity doesn't apply here.
Finally, my mustang can handle... it takes turns very well, almost to the point I can't hold myself straight in my seat under hard cornering (and my car is stock, currently) The interior is a bit cheap, but I don't mind at all, I'm having too much fun driving it to even pay attention to my interior.
Keep this in mind, for the typical American performance car: America is a nation of highways. Long, straight highways. The old classic muscle car era vehicle's reflect this perfectly. Most American automotive enthusiasts are about raw, unrefined speed. Whereas Europeans like refinement. It's just different cultures, neither is better than the other. People who work on cars in Europe may not be as familiar with the way American cars are layed out, and think it's "dumb", but over here I know American mechanics hate working on VW's and Audi's. Are they bad cars? No. They're just designed differently.
I'm an American, a patriotic one even, and I agree with you. We have a lot of dumb people in this country. Hard working, but dumb, and this applies to the SUV phenomena that happened here. It's lessening, though. When I was car shopping, I saw tons of SUV's and full-sized sedans in the used car ads.
Everytime I'm on the road, some moron in a big ROFL-wagon is doing something dumb. Going slow in the passing lane, swerving, not signaling, not paying attention. It really gets annoying sometimes.
Not all of our cars fit into the American Car stereotype. Personally I own a 2007 Mustang, which got the #1 award for initial quality in it's class, and Ford took #1 overall, unseating Toyota. Also, Mustangs produced this decade are known for really good reliability. The old "lulz, dumbestics break down" mentallity doesn't apply here.
Finally, my mustang can handle... it takes turns very well, almost to the point I can't hold myself straight in my seat under hard cornering (and my car is stock, currently) The interior is a bit cheap, but I don't mind at all, I'm having too much fun driving it to even pay attention to my interior.
Keep this in mind, for the typical American performance car: America is a nation of highways. Long, straight highways. The old classic muscle car era vehicle's reflect this perfectly. Most American automotive enthusiasts are about raw, unrefined speed. Whereas Europeans like refinement. It's just different cultures, neither is better than the other. People who work on cars in Europe may not be as familiar with the way American cars are layed out, and think it's "dumb", but over here I know American mechanics hate working on VW's and Audi's. Are they bad cars? No. They're just designed differently.
slideways...
03-13-2008, 06:57 PM
Not all of our cars fit into the American Car stereotype. Personally I own a 2007 Mustang, which got the #1 award for initial quality in it's class, and Ford took #1 overall, unseating Toyota. Also, Mustangs produced this decade are known for really good reliability. The old "lulz, dumbestics break down" mentallity doesn't apply here.
Finally, my mustang can handle... it takes turns very well, almost to the point I can't hold myself straight in my seat under hard cornering (and my car is stock, currently) The interior is a bit cheap, but I don't mind at all, I'm having too much fun driving it to even pay attention to my interior.
Keep this in mind, for the typical American performance car: America is a nation of highways. Long, straight highways. The old classic muscle car era vehicle's reflect this perfectly. Most American automotive enthusiasts are about raw, unrefined speed. Whereas Europeans like refinement. It's just different cultures, neither is better than the other. People who work on cars in Europe may not be as familiar with the way American cars are layed out, and think it's "dumb", but over here I know American mechanics hate working on VW's and Audi's. Are they bad cars? No. They're just designed differently.
i dont disagree with you, but i do have to disagree with your opinion of the mustang. unless there was some huge overhaul from the '05 model, the mustang cant handle at all. nor can it do much well besides cruise. i rented an '05 for a week when they were new, took it up to some twisties up in northern minnesota, to see what it could do. now maybe this is because im used to driving a 240sx, but the mustang felt like it weighed 5000 pounds every corner and every time i had to get on the brakes. the rear end was too jittery, and wanted to break traction much too early when the road wasnt perfectly smooth. and when it was, it understeered horribly. this is because of the rear solid axle, but a flaw is a flaw. dont get me going on how the mustang motors are just rehashed taurus and f150 motors, only the 5.4 is even adequate. but the supercharged 5.4 is pretty badass, i will give it that. oh and like i said, when a car company's only sports car offering suddenly comes out with a glass roof option, who are they marketing towards? its obvious that ford and chevy do not understand the segment we like to call performance enthusiasts. i almost thought ford started to get it a few years ago, when the SVT focus came out, and the mustang cobra R had an independent rear suspension, but then both of those ideas were canned right away, almost if ford was embarrassed that it had a good idea. i really dont understand it.
Finally, my mustang can handle... it takes turns very well, almost to the point I can't hold myself straight in my seat under hard cornering (and my car is stock, currently) The interior is a bit cheap, but I don't mind at all, I'm having too much fun driving it to even pay attention to my interior.
Keep this in mind, for the typical American performance car: America is a nation of highways. Long, straight highways. The old classic muscle car era vehicle's reflect this perfectly. Most American automotive enthusiasts are about raw, unrefined speed. Whereas Europeans like refinement. It's just different cultures, neither is better than the other. People who work on cars in Europe may not be as familiar with the way American cars are layed out, and think it's "dumb", but over here I know American mechanics hate working on VW's and Audi's. Are they bad cars? No. They're just designed differently.
i dont disagree with you, but i do have to disagree with your opinion of the mustang. unless there was some huge overhaul from the '05 model, the mustang cant handle at all. nor can it do much well besides cruise. i rented an '05 for a week when they were new, took it up to some twisties up in northern minnesota, to see what it could do. now maybe this is because im used to driving a 240sx, but the mustang felt like it weighed 5000 pounds every corner and every time i had to get on the brakes. the rear end was too jittery, and wanted to break traction much too early when the road wasnt perfectly smooth. and when it was, it understeered horribly. this is because of the rear solid axle, but a flaw is a flaw. dont get me going on how the mustang motors are just rehashed taurus and f150 motors, only the 5.4 is even adequate. but the supercharged 5.4 is pretty badass, i will give it that. oh and like i said, when a car company's only sports car offering suddenly comes out with a glass roof option, who are they marketing towards? its obvious that ford and chevy do not understand the segment we like to call performance enthusiasts. i almost thought ford started to get it a few years ago, when the SVT focus came out, and the mustang cobra R had an independent rear suspension, but then both of those ideas were canned right away, almost if ford was embarrassed that it had a good idea. i really dont understand it.
ShadowWulf2K
03-19-2008, 07:05 AM
Slideways, you probably rented a base V6 model. That's what the rental car companies usually always have. The base V6 has a front, but no rear sway bar, so yes, it has horrible understeer.
I have a V6 pony package, which comes with both a front/rear swaybars. It has great handling (tiny bit of factory understeer, but WAY more managable). Of course the Mustang will feel like it weighs 5000lbs if you're coming from a 240sx. The v6 mustangs weigh about 3400 lbs. I'm coming from a 3800 lb minivan, the mustang feels like a lightweight compared to that thing.
Also, the new mustangs come with a Panhard bar from the factory, the 2004 and earlier mustangs didn't, so the live axle was a pain in the ass. Now it's much more managable. That, plus a body with a very high stiffness to weight ratio, a live axle is no problem on corners as long as you know how to handle the car.
I'll definatly agree with you that Ford, as a company, makes some pretty stupid decisions regarding performance vehicles. But keep in mind that the mustang's design puts affordability before performance. They left out the IRS to keep the cost of the car down. Personally I can't think of a better, currently on the market, RWD car for $20,000...
I have a V6 pony package, which comes with both a front/rear swaybars. It has great handling (tiny bit of factory understeer, but WAY more managable). Of course the Mustang will feel like it weighs 5000lbs if you're coming from a 240sx. The v6 mustangs weigh about 3400 lbs. I'm coming from a 3800 lb minivan, the mustang feels like a lightweight compared to that thing.
Also, the new mustangs come with a Panhard bar from the factory, the 2004 and earlier mustangs didn't, so the live axle was a pain in the ass. Now it's much more managable. That, plus a body with a very high stiffness to weight ratio, a live axle is no problem on corners as long as you know how to handle the car.
I'll definatly agree with you that Ford, as a company, makes some pretty stupid decisions regarding performance vehicles. But keep in mind that the mustang's design puts affordability before performance. They left out the IRS to keep the cost of the car down. Personally I can't think of a better, currently on the market, RWD car for $20,000...
slideways...
03-20-2008, 02:20 AM
its true, i have yet to drive one of the higher end cobra/shelby/saleen models, so i dont know how good the actual platform is. oh and i did drive an 05, my mistake i thought they still had live axles. but still, panhard bar? minivan technology at its worst. you cant convince me that an IRS on every model would increase cost more than a glass roof. but a better RWD car for 20k? you can see this as an excuse, but its not a great time for rwd right now. the s2k is a hell of a car and under 20k slightly used, the saturn sky on paper is a great car (havent driven one yet) but only if it has a turbo, and the redline sky is way too expensive. the rx-8 is much like the s2k but without the reliability. anyways, the mustang isnt a bad car, just ford decided to market towards people who dont care how fast they get from point a to point b, except for the occasional perfectly smooth straight freeway onramp.
ShadowWulf2K
03-20-2008, 09:09 AM
anyways, the mustang isnt a bad car, just ford decided to market towards people who dont care how fast they get from point a to point b, except for the occasional perfectly smooth straight freeway onramp.
Now you're gettin' it! lol Yeah, I didn't buy the Mustang because I wanted to be the fastest thing on 4 wheels. I just wanted a cheap, torquey RWD daily driver that I can do some mods to.
And mod's are really the mustang's strongest point. From the factory, the mustang isn't all that great, just like you're describing. But from an aftermarket perspective, you can do ANYTHING to a mustang. Show car, drag car, road racer, auto-x, drift, whatever you want can be done to a mustang because our aftermarket is absolutely MASSIVE, lol. Plus the Mustang community, in general, is pretty friendly and laid back.
I've always said that the best mustang's aren't bought, they're built.
But getting back to the main topic, reliability, the 99-04 and the current 05+ mustangs have really good reliability. But then again, reliability is really dependant on how well the owner takes care of the car. I know many Mustang owners who keep there stang's in IMMACULATE condition, and others who own Honda's and never bother to change the oil and wonder why their engine is messed up.
Oh, and about what you said about IRS cost: According to Ford, the S197 mustangs were supposed to get IRS but they dropped it at the last minute to keep the cost down. It was supposedly going to add $5000 to the cost of the car (this maybe just PR BS on Ford's part) I'm hoping that, with the Challenger and Camaro getting IRS, that Ford will step up and offer IRS on the 2010 update.
Now you're gettin' it! lol Yeah, I didn't buy the Mustang because I wanted to be the fastest thing on 4 wheels. I just wanted a cheap, torquey RWD daily driver that I can do some mods to.
And mod's are really the mustang's strongest point. From the factory, the mustang isn't all that great, just like you're describing. But from an aftermarket perspective, you can do ANYTHING to a mustang. Show car, drag car, road racer, auto-x, drift, whatever you want can be done to a mustang because our aftermarket is absolutely MASSIVE, lol. Plus the Mustang community, in general, is pretty friendly and laid back.
I've always said that the best mustang's aren't bought, they're built.
But getting back to the main topic, reliability, the 99-04 and the current 05+ mustangs have really good reliability. But then again, reliability is really dependant on how well the owner takes care of the car. I know many Mustang owners who keep there stang's in IMMACULATE condition, and others who own Honda's and never bother to change the oil and wonder why their engine is messed up.
Oh, and about what you said about IRS cost: According to Ford, the S197 mustangs were supposed to get IRS but they dropped it at the last minute to keep the cost down. It was supposedly going to add $5000 to the cost of the car (this maybe just PR BS on Ford's part) I'm hoping that, with the Challenger and Camaro getting IRS, that Ford will step up and offer IRS on the 2010 update.
slideways...
03-20-2008, 11:33 PM
But getting back to the main topic, reliability, the 99-04 and the current 05+ mustangs have really good reliability. But then again, reliability is really dependant on how well the owner takes care of the car. I know many Mustang owners who keep there stang's in IMMACULATE condition, and others who own Honda's and never bother to change the oil and wonder why their engine is messed up.
but on the other hand, a honda will run without any oil in it for a LONG time. its kind of all relative though, and i hate to say it but manufacturing costs are beginning to catch up with imports now too. why did honda suddenly get rid of double wishbones? why are good nissan motors becoming more and more likely to spin bearings? and dont get me started on toyota. they arent cutting costs on their sports models because they have none. overengineered cars are becoming a thing of the past.
but on the other hand, a honda will run without any oil in it for a LONG time. its kind of all relative though, and i hate to say it but manufacturing costs are beginning to catch up with imports now too. why did honda suddenly get rid of double wishbones? why are good nissan motors becoming more and more likely to spin bearings? and dont get me started on toyota. they arent cutting costs on their sports models because they have none. overengineered cars are becoming a thing of the past.
j cAT
03-21-2008, 10:09 AM
overengineered cars are becoming a thing of the past.
the enginnering is much improved. It is the quality of the devices produced that is the problem, as the vehicles are manufactured for weight/cost and mileage. So when a very new vehicle is in an accident it crushes like a beer can......also if driven on bad roads the vehicle is making all kinds of noises as the plastic fasteners are worn.. in 4years these new vehicles are body wise worn out.....
the enginnering is much improved. It is the quality of the devices produced that is the problem, as the vehicles are manufactured for weight/cost and mileage. So when a very new vehicle is in an accident it crushes like a beer can......also if driven on bad roads the vehicle is making all kinds of noises as the plastic fasteners are worn.. in 4years these new vehicles are body wise worn out.....
slideways...
03-21-2008, 10:46 AM
im talking over engineered like how honda used double wishbones in every car they made. or how older hondas could run forever with very little or no oil(ive been part of 2 intentional honda motor deaths and even with no fluids, a brick on the accelerator and the motor bouncing off redline, it ran for a LONG time). or how nissan made several 4 cylinder motors that can take buttloads of boost and are strong enough from the factory to make over 400whp but only made 140. or how toyota and nissan made straight sixes that could handle more power with completely stock parts than the car could ever put to the ground. nissans (notably the vq motors) are being made with spin happy rod/main bearings for cost cutting/emissions reasons(mostly cost cutting). hondas switched to struts. toyota got rid of all its sports cars, and it seems straight sixes are a thing of the past for everyone (its really too bad).
the overall engineering quality has gone down because of cost cutting, and its the enthusiast who has to pay the price. now we must spend extra to make sure our motors/cars perform like we want with some durability.
its really time for ford to invent a hovercar or something. then see whos the first to turbo that bitch and run 10s.
the overall engineering quality has gone down because of cost cutting, and its the enthusiast who has to pay the price. now we must spend extra to make sure our motors/cars perform like we want with some durability.
its really time for ford to invent a hovercar or something. then see whos the first to turbo that bitch and run 10s.
200sx power
03-21-2008, 01:02 PM
im talking over engineered like how honda used double wishbones in every car they made. or how older hondas could run forever with very little or no oil(ive been part of 2 intentional honda motor deaths and even with no fluids, a brick on the accelerator and the motor bouncing off redline, it ran for a LONG time). or how nissan made several 4 cylinder motors that can take buttloads of boost and are strong enough from the factory to make over 400whp but only made 140. or how toyota and nissan made straight sixes that could handle more power with completely stock parts than the car could ever put to the ground. nissans (notably the vq motors) are being made with spin happy rod/main bearings for cost cutting/emissions reasons(mostly cost cutting). hondas switched to struts. toyota got rid of all its sports cars, and it seems straight sixes are a thing of the past for everyone (its really too bad).
the overall engineering quality has gone down because of cost cutting, and its the enthusiast who has to pay the price. now we must spend extra to make sure our motors/cars perform like we want with some durability.
its really time for ford to invent a hovercar or something. then see whos the first to turbo that bitch and run 10s.
:iagree:
They don't make 'em like they used to. I'd rather drive one of these/be seen driving one of these than any new Toyota.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c265/kamesama980/88%20Cressida/DSCF0136.jpg
My experience with American cars is that it depends on the model. GM cars with anything smaller than a 3800 like to blow head gaskets, but nothing beats a chevy with a 350. they pretty much cheaped out when bringing out cars with more modern technology to compete with the imports, so the more old fashioned, the better. If gas were 99 cents, I would rock a caprice or a chevy truck over a honda without any hesitation.
the overall engineering quality has gone down because of cost cutting, and its the enthusiast who has to pay the price. now we must spend extra to make sure our motors/cars perform like we want with some durability.
its really time for ford to invent a hovercar or something. then see whos the first to turbo that bitch and run 10s.
:iagree:
They don't make 'em like they used to. I'd rather drive one of these/be seen driving one of these than any new Toyota.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c265/kamesama980/88%20Cressida/DSCF0136.jpg
My experience with American cars is that it depends on the model. GM cars with anything smaller than a 3800 like to blow head gaskets, but nothing beats a chevy with a 350. they pretty much cheaped out when bringing out cars with more modern technology to compete with the imports, so the more old fashioned, the better. If gas were 99 cents, I would rock a caprice or a chevy truck over a honda without any hesitation.
KiwiBacon
03-21-2008, 04:46 PM
So when a very new vehicle is in an accident it crushes like a beer can....
Nope.
Old cars didn't deform in an accident, their occupants did.
New cars have crumple zones front and back, a really solid cage around the occupants and a lot of airbags to stop the occupants from hitting that really solid cage when the car hits something.
There's a lot of misinformation in this thread. Especially regarding suspension.
One very valid point that ShadowWulf made about the huge market for aftermarket modifications in some american cars. The only similar scenario I can think of regarding modifcations of non US vehicles would be offroad vehicles and the huge number of bolt-on's available there.
Here landrover would be king of that with their defender. It has suspension and chassis components which date back to the original rangerover in 1970.
Nope.
Old cars didn't deform in an accident, their occupants did.
New cars have crumple zones front and back, a really solid cage around the occupants and a lot of airbags to stop the occupants from hitting that really solid cage when the car hits something.
There's a lot of misinformation in this thread. Especially regarding suspension.
One very valid point that ShadowWulf made about the huge market for aftermarket modifications in some american cars. The only similar scenario I can think of regarding modifcations of non US vehicles would be offroad vehicles and the huge number of bolt-on's available there.
Here landrover would be king of that with their defender. It has suspension and chassis components which date back to the original rangerover in 1970.
Moppie
03-21-2008, 05:28 PM
There's a lot of misinformation in this thread. Especially regarding suspension.
Care to elaborate?
The Live Axle is long dead, about 45 years dead. The idea that two wheels need to be connected to each other by a solid link is just stupid.
It is done purely for cost reduction and always has a negative impact on performance. At least Ford have been honest in admitting this, and by getting away with it have perhaps shown it is the American market that is the problem.
But when the new Honda Type R Civic comes out with beam axle at the back, and Honda still try and tell people its better than the last one, when it clearly isn't, you know something is wrong. For 12 years Honda made some of the best handling road cars in the world, and made the Type R brand name famous purely because of the handling. Even the very first Civic had IRS.
They still make great engines, but their current list of chassis designs have been a huge leap backwards to 1980, which was the last time they made cars with beam axles at the back.
There is a legitimate use for a solid axle in a limited number of racing types: Drag racing and Oval racing, where the ability to handle an un-even surface is less important than strength and simplicity.
There have been huge leaps forward in engine design outside the US, even by Nissan.
The current range of Nissan engines are far superior to previous generation.
The SR and RB engines might have been very, very strong, but only as a throw back to the over engineered, 1960s Mercedes engines they evolved from.
While they could make lots of power under lots of boost because of their strength, they were terrible motors with out it, and needed a lot of work to even get close to making respectable numbers n/a.
The new range of engines are lighter, better built, more powerful and a lot more efficient. The same is true for any of the Japanese, European and Korean car makers.
I'm not sure about the Americans though, the new Ford V8 sounds like it is popular, and a huge leap forward over the old one, while the reworked chevy small block is also better. But how do they compete with a Toyota, BMW or Merc V8?
I know he new chevy 3.2L V6 as sold in Australia is nothing special. It might be more powerful and more efficient that the old 3.8, but it is still just as responseless and dead to throttle changes.
As for a other American "sports" car engines, don't they just throw old truck motors into them, and hope the huge amounts of torque will stop people thinking about things like throttle response and usable power band?
Care to elaborate?
The Live Axle is long dead, about 45 years dead. The idea that two wheels need to be connected to each other by a solid link is just stupid.
It is done purely for cost reduction and always has a negative impact on performance. At least Ford have been honest in admitting this, and by getting away with it have perhaps shown it is the American market that is the problem.
But when the new Honda Type R Civic comes out with beam axle at the back, and Honda still try and tell people its better than the last one, when it clearly isn't, you know something is wrong. For 12 years Honda made some of the best handling road cars in the world, and made the Type R brand name famous purely because of the handling. Even the very first Civic had IRS.
They still make great engines, but their current list of chassis designs have been a huge leap backwards to 1980, which was the last time they made cars with beam axles at the back.
There is a legitimate use for a solid axle in a limited number of racing types: Drag racing and Oval racing, where the ability to handle an un-even surface is less important than strength and simplicity.
There have been huge leaps forward in engine design outside the US, even by Nissan.
The current range of Nissan engines are far superior to previous generation.
The SR and RB engines might have been very, very strong, but only as a throw back to the over engineered, 1960s Mercedes engines they evolved from.
While they could make lots of power under lots of boost because of their strength, they were terrible motors with out it, and needed a lot of work to even get close to making respectable numbers n/a.
The new range of engines are lighter, better built, more powerful and a lot more efficient. The same is true for any of the Japanese, European and Korean car makers.
I'm not sure about the Americans though, the new Ford V8 sounds like it is popular, and a huge leap forward over the old one, while the reworked chevy small block is also better. But how do they compete with a Toyota, BMW or Merc V8?
I know he new chevy 3.2L V6 as sold in Australia is nothing special. It might be more powerful and more efficient that the old 3.8, but it is still just as responseless and dead to throttle changes.
As for a other American "sports" car engines, don't they just throw old truck motors into them, and hope the huge amounts of torque will stop people thinking about things like throttle response and usable power band?
slideways...
03-21-2008, 09:04 PM
<insert suspension woes here>...
There have been huge leaps forward in engine design outside the US, even by Nissan...
As for a other American "sports" car engines...
#1. agreed. plus nissan small cars, the old SE-R had a completely independed suspension, but then in 1995 they switched to struts/beam axle...and still use that today. it seems like the only cars that still get multi link rear suspensions (besides the z and one or two others) are camrys and accords. yknow, cars that cant use it. and how long are automakers gonna take to start using aluminum for all suspension parts? the technology has been around since the 80s, but still no dice.(i know it was around before, im talking in general use)
#2. we're getting sort of a half picture from both of us...i'm talking about over engineering. i completely agree, engine tech for nissan (using the example) has grown significantly, but theres a big difference between technology and engineering. the VQ was built to rev well and has a powerband that suits this ability, but internals that for some reason do not.
#3. im sorry i dont mean to offend but 200sx power, your sorely lacking in information if you think old chevy 350s are where its at. shit even the 80s corvette could barely break 200hp. there always seems to be a tradeoff, whether it be durability for power, driveability for dynamic performance, or cost for anything.
There have been huge leaps forward in engine design outside the US, even by Nissan...
As for a other American "sports" car engines...
#1. agreed. plus nissan small cars, the old SE-R had a completely independed suspension, but then in 1995 they switched to struts/beam axle...and still use that today. it seems like the only cars that still get multi link rear suspensions (besides the z and one or two others) are camrys and accords. yknow, cars that cant use it. and how long are automakers gonna take to start using aluminum for all suspension parts? the technology has been around since the 80s, but still no dice.(i know it was around before, im talking in general use)
#2. we're getting sort of a half picture from both of us...i'm talking about over engineering. i completely agree, engine tech for nissan (using the example) has grown significantly, but theres a big difference between technology and engineering. the VQ was built to rev well and has a powerband that suits this ability, but internals that for some reason do not.
#3. im sorry i dont mean to offend but 200sx power, your sorely lacking in information if you think old chevy 350s are where its at. shit even the 80s corvette could barely break 200hp. there always seems to be a tradeoff, whether it be durability for power, driveability for dynamic performance, or cost for anything.
KiwiBacon
03-21-2008, 09:29 PM
Care to elaborate?
Sure, I was referring to Slideways common on struts being far worse than double wishbone.
The packaging constraints of a double wishbone (not only space for the upper links, but enough metal to make a rigid enough mount) make it a poor choice for a passenger car.
Live rear axles lead themselves to suspension geometry with a lot more anti-squat. Hence their popularity in musclecars, drag cars and offroad. Few people connect offroad vehicles with optimised squat/antisquat, but get it wrong and you get a vehicle that hops up and down while getting not much traction.
Much like a holden at the traffic lights.
I'm not against the beam rear axles (talking fwd cars now) in modern cars like you and many others are. It has a lot of advantages including consistent camber regardless of chassis attitude.
I didn't know that Honda had reverted back to it though. Last honda I saw like that was a City. But some of those were independent too.
Regarding engines.
The future is diesel, the US don't know how to play that game.
Sure, I was referring to Slideways common on struts being far worse than double wishbone.
The packaging constraints of a double wishbone (not only space for the upper links, but enough metal to make a rigid enough mount) make it a poor choice for a passenger car.
Live rear axles lead themselves to suspension geometry with a lot more anti-squat. Hence their popularity in musclecars, drag cars and offroad. Few people connect offroad vehicles with optimised squat/antisquat, but get it wrong and you get a vehicle that hops up and down while getting not much traction.
Much like a holden at the traffic lights.
I'm not against the beam rear axles (talking fwd cars now) in modern cars like you and many others are. It has a lot of advantages including consistent camber regardless of chassis attitude.
I didn't know that Honda had reverted back to it though. Last honda I saw like that was a City. But some of those were independent too.
Regarding engines.
The future is diesel, the US don't know how to play that game.
slideways...
03-22-2008, 01:02 AM
Sure, I was referring to Slideways common on struts being far worse than double wishbone.
The packaging constraints of a double wishbone (not only space for the upper links, but enough metal to make a rigid enough mount) make it a poor choice for a passenger car.
Live rear axles lead themselves to suspension geometry with a lot more anti-squat. Hence their popularity in musclecars, drag cars and offroad. Few people connect offroad vehicles with optimised squat/antisquat, but get it wrong and you get a vehicle that hops up and down while getting not much traction.
Much like a holden at the traffic lights.
I'm not against the beam rear axles (talking fwd cars now) in modern cars like you and many others are. It has a lot of advantages including consistent camber regardless of chassis attitude.
Regarding engines.
The future is diesel, the US don't know how to play that game.
i was referring to such 'passenger cars' like the RSX type S, civic SI, civic type R, ect. yknow the ones that are geared toward performance? struts have no camber change under suspension compression. a definite negative when it comes to performance. it forces you to dial in extra static camber to compensate, and thats a comprimise for straight line traction. and again, im talking about how japanese cars used to be over engineered. made far better than they needed to be, so the enthusiast didnt have to spend as much on modifications.
regarding live rear axles and anti-squat...yeah sure but its still a huge comprimise especially on a street car. and how many wrc cars use live axles? none... you can dial in anti-dive and anti-squat into any suspension, so when it comes down to it the axle just limits ground clearance.
and im sorry but "consistent camber regardless of chassis attitude" is not an advantage. you want the tires to be as flat against the road as possible, and any situation that consistent camber would lend itself to predictability is already a situation where adding camber would help traction. if your in a FWD car in a skid, you want the rear tires to have as much traction as possible. yknow, so you dont end up backed into a retaining wall.
The packaging constraints of a double wishbone (not only space for the upper links, but enough metal to make a rigid enough mount) make it a poor choice for a passenger car.
Live rear axles lead themselves to suspension geometry with a lot more anti-squat. Hence their popularity in musclecars, drag cars and offroad. Few people connect offroad vehicles with optimised squat/antisquat, but get it wrong and you get a vehicle that hops up and down while getting not much traction.
Much like a holden at the traffic lights.
I'm not against the beam rear axles (talking fwd cars now) in modern cars like you and many others are. It has a lot of advantages including consistent camber regardless of chassis attitude.
Regarding engines.
The future is diesel, the US don't know how to play that game.
i was referring to such 'passenger cars' like the RSX type S, civic SI, civic type R, ect. yknow the ones that are geared toward performance? struts have no camber change under suspension compression. a definite negative when it comes to performance. it forces you to dial in extra static camber to compensate, and thats a comprimise for straight line traction. and again, im talking about how japanese cars used to be over engineered. made far better than they needed to be, so the enthusiast didnt have to spend as much on modifications.
regarding live rear axles and anti-squat...yeah sure but its still a huge comprimise especially on a street car. and how many wrc cars use live axles? none... you can dial in anti-dive and anti-squat into any suspension, so when it comes down to it the axle just limits ground clearance.
and im sorry but "consistent camber regardless of chassis attitude" is not an advantage. you want the tires to be as flat against the road as possible, and any situation that consistent camber would lend itself to predictability is already a situation where adding camber would help traction. if your in a FWD car in a skid, you want the rear tires to have as much traction as possible. yknow, so you dont end up backed into a retaining wall.
Moppie
03-22-2008, 06:43 AM
Sure, I was referring to Slideways common on struts being far worse than double wishbone..........
I didn't know that Honda had reverted back to it though. Last honda I saw like that was a City. But some of those were independent too.
Regarding engines.
The future is diesel, the US don't know how to play that game.
Ah yes, Struts do definitely have their place, and its a bit like the FWD vs RWD argument, you have to be pretty damn far up the performance scale before you notice a difference, and even then the WRC has proven that struts win out of wishbones on a Rally car. They all use struts for a number of different reasons.
They have also proven quite clearly that squat/dive etc, can be easily controlled on an independent set up. Even the FWD F2 cars, can accelerate on gravel from a standing start with explosive speed.
Packaging is a poor excuse for using a beam axle.
The first Honda Civic had strut based IRS and has more room in the boot than the current generation fit/logo which uses a beam axle, because according to honda it, takes up less space.
Of course on a car like the logo/fit, cost and simplicity take precedence over performance, so I can accept a beam axle at the back.
Strength is a known weakness of most double wishbone set ups, especially when you try and pack them into tight spaces, and keep the weight down.
I know from personal experiance how easy it is to bump the double wish bone equipped Honda's out of alignment. They also a little more complex to work on, than say your typical Toyota Corolla.
But, we are getting off topic here I fear, all this talk of 10 and 20 year old Japanese cars with technology the Americans are still trying to figure out might confuse the issue.
I didn't know that Honda had reverted back to it though. Last honda I saw like that was a City. But some of those were independent too.
Regarding engines.
The future is diesel, the US don't know how to play that game.
Ah yes, Struts do definitely have their place, and its a bit like the FWD vs RWD argument, you have to be pretty damn far up the performance scale before you notice a difference, and even then the WRC has proven that struts win out of wishbones on a Rally car. They all use struts for a number of different reasons.
They have also proven quite clearly that squat/dive etc, can be easily controlled on an independent set up. Even the FWD F2 cars, can accelerate on gravel from a standing start with explosive speed.
Packaging is a poor excuse for using a beam axle.
The first Honda Civic had strut based IRS and has more room in the boot than the current generation fit/logo which uses a beam axle, because according to honda it, takes up less space.
Of course on a car like the logo/fit, cost and simplicity take precedence over performance, so I can accept a beam axle at the back.
Strength is a known weakness of most double wishbone set ups, especially when you try and pack them into tight spaces, and keep the weight down.
I know from personal experiance how easy it is to bump the double wish bone equipped Honda's out of alignment. They also a little more complex to work on, than say your typical Toyota Corolla.
But, we are getting off topic here I fear, all this talk of 10 and 20 year old Japanese cars with technology the Americans are still trying to figure out might confuse the issue.
slideways...
03-22-2008, 01:08 PM
Regarding engines.
The future is diesel, the US don't know how to play that game.
oh yeah forgot to touch on this.
your sorely mistaken if you believe this. but our experience and stuff is all centered around what we have here, namely diesel trucks. but we know how to play, just wait until diesel catches on here. ever seen a full size street driven diesel truck run 10s? we have the knowledge just not the will to adapt to diesel cars...yet.
The future is diesel, the US don't know how to play that game.
oh yeah forgot to touch on this.
your sorely mistaken if you believe this. but our experience and stuff is all centered around what we have here, namely diesel trucks. but we know how to play, just wait until diesel catches on here. ever seen a full size street driven diesel truck run 10s? we have the knowledge just not the will to adapt to diesel cars...yet.
200sx power
03-22-2008, 02:43 PM
#3. im sorry i dont mean to offend but 200sx power, your sorely lacking in information if you think old chevy 350s are where its at. shit even the 80s corvette could barely break 200hp. there always seems to be a tradeoff, whether it be durability for power, driveability for dynamic performance, or cost for anything.
I was talking about the 350's durability, not its lack of dynamic performance. lack of perceived reliability has hurt american cars more than anything. performance be damned if the car can't go over 100,000 miles without falling apart. toyota built their reputation by building reliable cars with the dynamic performance of a wnba player. a neon could run circles around a civic or a corolla while getting BETTER fuel economy and costing less, but nobody gives a shit about that when all the neons have been turned into beer cans.
I was talking about the 350's durability, not its lack of dynamic performance. lack of perceived reliability has hurt american cars more than anything. performance be damned if the car can't go over 100,000 miles without falling apart. toyota built their reputation by building reliable cars with the dynamic performance of a wnba player. a neon could run circles around a civic or a corolla while getting BETTER fuel economy and costing less, but nobody gives a shit about that when all the neons have been turned into beer cans.
Steel
03-22-2008, 05:04 PM
They dont use aluminum on regular passenger car suspensions because its more expensive and weaker.
And diesel is the future of engines. Europe knows this, which is why half its cars are diesel powered. Diesel is much more efficient, lasts longer, and is much easier to drive due to the way it puts out torque. And biodiesel technology is getting better. I'm hoping they can perfect algae farm biodiesel and then we'll be more or less set.
The real future of cars is nuclear fusion powerplants, and completely electric cars. If they can figure out room temperature superconductors, our battery problems will be solved as well.
And diesel is the future of engines. Europe knows this, which is why half its cars are diesel powered. Diesel is much more efficient, lasts longer, and is much easier to drive due to the way it puts out torque. And biodiesel technology is getting better. I'm hoping they can perfect algae farm biodiesel and then we'll be more or less set.
The real future of cars is nuclear fusion powerplants, and completely electric cars. If they can figure out room temperature superconductors, our battery problems will be solved as well.
Moppie
03-22-2008, 05:31 PM
a neon could run circles around a civic or a corolla while getting BETTER fuel economy and costing less,
Might want to lay off the crack dude, it's messing with your perception of reality.
Chrysler tried selling Neons outside North America once. It cost them dearly.
They simply didn't stand up to the standards of the Japanese, Europeans and Koreans.
Might want to lay off the crack dude, it's messing with your perception of reality.
Chrysler tried selling Neons outside North America once. It cost them dearly.
They simply didn't stand up to the standards of the Japanese, Europeans and Koreans.
bus_this
03-22-2008, 06:06 PM
Engine-wise, yes, I do believe they will get better, more powerful, and more efficient.
Body-wise, absolutely not. Everything is made out of fiberglass now, it's completely ridiculous. Not only that, but apparently everything being rounded off is the new fad. Pretty soon everyone will be driving bubbles. I like how Dodge re-introduced the Charger, if they would have used metal body panels and didn't make it so cheap looking, I might actually buy one.
Body-wise, absolutely not. Everything is made out of fiberglass now, it's completely ridiculous. Not only that, but apparently everything being rounded off is the new fad. Pretty soon everyone will be driving bubbles. I like how Dodge re-introduced the Charger, if they would have used metal body panels and didn't make it so cheap looking, I might actually buy one.
200sx power
03-22-2008, 06:26 PM
Might want to lay off the crack dude, it's messing with your perception of reality.
Chrysler tried selling Neons outside North America once. It cost them dearly.
They simply didn't stand up to the standards of the Japanese, Europeans and Koreans.
it met and exceeded performance and mpg expectations. go drive a neon ACR. the only problem was its epic breakability. did I mention they have one of the best stock stereo systems of any car I've ever been in?
at least the neon made money for chrysler, the piece of crap that it was. the koreans are still losing money iirc.:2cents:
Chrysler tried selling Neons outside North America once. It cost them dearly.
They simply didn't stand up to the standards of the Japanese, Europeans and Koreans.
it met and exceeded performance and mpg expectations. go drive a neon ACR. the only problem was its epic breakability. did I mention they have one of the best stock stereo systems of any car I've ever been in?
at least the neon made money for chrysler, the piece of crap that it was. the koreans are still losing money iirc.:2cents:
KiwiBacon
03-22-2008, 07:13 PM
oh yeah forgot to touch on this.
your sorely mistaken if you believe this. but our experience and stuff is all centered around what we have here, namely diesel trucks. but we know how to play, just wait until diesel catches on here. ever seen a full size street driven diesel truck run 10s? we have the knowledge just not the will to adapt to diesel cars...yet.
Nope.
The duramax is designed by Isuzu, cummins don't make anything car sized and neither do navistar. A pickup truck running 1/4 miles has no relevance to developing diesel car engines.
The US carmakers don't have any knowledge of car diesels, their only attempt at breaking that market was so poor that 30 years on it still tarnishes the US public's perception of diesel vehicles as being slow, smokey and unreliable.
By the time the US public catch onto diesel they'll still be 20 years behind and playing catchup with japan, europe and korea.
your sorely mistaken if you believe this. but our experience and stuff is all centered around what we have here, namely diesel trucks. but we know how to play, just wait until diesel catches on here. ever seen a full size street driven diesel truck run 10s? we have the knowledge just not the will to adapt to diesel cars...yet.
Nope.
The duramax is designed by Isuzu, cummins don't make anything car sized and neither do navistar. A pickup truck running 1/4 miles has no relevance to developing diesel car engines.
The US carmakers don't have any knowledge of car diesels, their only attempt at breaking that market was so poor that 30 years on it still tarnishes the US public's perception of diesel vehicles as being slow, smokey and unreliable.
By the time the US public catch onto diesel they'll still be 20 years behind and playing catchup with japan, europe and korea.
200sx power
03-22-2008, 07:48 PM
By the time the US public catch onto diesel they'll still be 20 years behind and playing catchup with japan, europe and korea.
don't forget china:wink::runaround:
don't forget china:wink::runaround:
KiwiBacon
03-22-2008, 08:12 PM
don't forget china:wink::runaround:
India too.:grinyes:
India too.:grinyes:
j cAT
03-23-2008, 05:16 PM
Regarding engines.
The future is diesel, the US don't know how to play that game.
diesel engines will never be allowed in the US..... diesel exhaust is a cancer causing agent.....the europeans and other countries don't care about health issues.... in the long run with cleaner fuel technology , the us will once again be top dog....the other countries , that stay on petroleum, will suffer the effects of petroleum addiction.....
just look at china. the olympics will probably not be held there because of the huge pollution problems.....they will have to stop all vehicles from operating for 2weeks.... can you imagine that in the US!
The future is diesel, the US don't know how to play that game.
diesel engines will never be allowed in the US..... diesel exhaust is a cancer causing agent.....the europeans and other countries don't care about health issues.... in the long run with cleaner fuel technology , the us will once again be top dog....the other countries , that stay on petroleum, will suffer the effects of petroleum addiction.....
just look at china. the olympics will probably not be held there because of the huge pollution problems.....they will have to stop all vehicles from operating for 2weeks.... can you imagine that in the US!
UncleBob
03-23-2008, 06:08 PM
diesel engines will never be allowed in the US..... diesel exhaust is a cancer causing agent.....the europeans and other countries don't care about health issues.... in the long run with cleaner fuel technology , the us will once again be top dog....the other countries , that stay on petroleum, will suffer the effects of petroleum addiction.....
you are so off based there.
Diesels can be very clean. The US has pretty strict regulations on new gas cars, but our diesel regulations dont' compare with EU regulations
China isn't all that far behind, and their MPG requirements are way ahead of us (as is every country). China has more coal-fired power plants, granted, but so does the US.
The US has little to brag about in any category when it comes to cars and regulations.
you are so off based there.
Diesels can be very clean. The US has pretty strict regulations on new gas cars, but our diesel regulations dont' compare with EU regulations
China isn't all that far behind, and their MPG requirements are way ahead of us (as is every country). China has more coal-fired power plants, granted, but so does the US.
The US has little to brag about in any category when it comes to cars and regulations.
Moppie
03-23-2008, 07:05 PM
diesel engines will never be allowed in the US..... diesel exhaust is a cancer causing agent.....the europeans and other countries don't care about health issues.... in the long run with cleaner fuel technology , the us will once again be top dog....the other countries , that stay on petroleum, will suffer the effects of petroleum addiction.....
just look at china. the olympics will probably not be held there because of the huge pollution problems.....they will have to stop all vehicles from operating for 2weeks.... can you imagine that in the US!
ye haw Pa, did you hear them neighbors got one of them black n white telingvisions? There was a man if that wee box telling us how we goin to war on them thar comminuniaists.
just look at china. the olympics will probably not be held there because of the huge pollution problems.....they will have to stop all vehicles from operating for 2weeks.... can you imagine that in the US!
ye haw Pa, did you hear them neighbors got one of them black n white telingvisions? There was a man if that wee box telling us how we goin to war on them thar comminuniaists.
Steel
03-23-2008, 10:06 PM
Diesel exhaust as a carcinogen? Proof.
Switching to diesel is the best thing that could happen to this country. Hint: biodiesel.
Switching to diesel is the best thing that could happen to this country. Hint: biodiesel.
KiwiBacon
03-24-2008, 02:20 AM
diesel engines will never be allowed in the US..... diesel exhaust is a cancer causing agent.....the europeans and other countries don't care about health issues.... in the long run with cleaner fuel technology , the us will once again be top dog....the other countries , that stay on petroleum, will suffer the effects of petroleum addiction.....
That's funny.:iceslolan
Unless of course you're being serious, cause that'd be funnier still.
That's funny.:iceslolan
Unless of course you're being serious, cause that'd be funnier still.
200sx power
03-24-2008, 02:03 PM
Diesel exhaust as a carcinogen? Proof.
Switching to diesel is the best thing that could happen to this country. Hint: biodiesel.
:grinno:
Switching to diesel is the best thing that could happen to this country. Hint: biodiesel.
:grinno:
Polygon
03-25-2008, 01:10 AM
To put it mildly, I wouldn't buy a new car from an American manufactures.
curtis73
03-25-2008, 04:06 AM
you are so off based there.
Diesels can be very clean. The US has pretty strict regulations on new gas cars, but our diesel regulations dont' compare with EU regulations
.
You have no idea how proud I am of you, Bob :)
I do have to say I've been watching this thread with much interest but I haven't really jumped in.
We're all dancing around politically correct things. No one wants to say that for decades, Japanese cars have been driven by employees who would be personally disgraced by a substandard car while American union labor of the past were held in a self-entitled, politically driven workplace. If you've ever watched the movie "Gung-Ho" you know what I'm talking about. That movie (while comical and exaggerated) hit the nail on the head concerning car companies in the 80s.
While Japanse cars shot to the forefront of reliability, their general employees' family life sucked. I know because I was there watching as substandard employees were flogged and confined to employee housing until their performance improved. In America, we focused on employee rights and the cars sucked.
The bottom line is that American cars are getting infinitely better while "westernization" of foreign civilizations tends to drag employee devotion down a peg. I can see the writing on the walls. American cars are getting much more reliable. Japanese (and other Asian) cars are in a bit of a holding pattern. As quickly as they add reliability, they are adding complicated luxury to keep up with the market. European cars are blossoming quickly with a fair share of reliability issues, but overseas cooperation is helping.
What I'm seeing is a more globally focused goal. In the past, Japanese cars were reliable, European cars were stylish and ergonomic but problematic, and American cars were brutish cavalier muscle. Now (given the universally available market) I see a homologization of directive. All continents tend to focus on the same things. Now that all of the major automakers are targeting every market and continent, they have to ascribe value to every aspect. It used to be that each continent's manufacturers sold mainly to their own continent. Now that isn't the case and we're seeing the target demographic change accordingly. For cripes sake we now have Cadillac, Mercedes, BMW, and Lexus/Toyota all competing for the same market. Would that have happened in 1970? I think not.
Diesels can be very clean. The US has pretty strict regulations on new gas cars, but our diesel regulations dont' compare with EU regulations
.
You have no idea how proud I am of you, Bob :)
I do have to say I've been watching this thread with much interest but I haven't really jumped in.
We're all dancing around politically correct things. No one wants to say that for decades, Japanese cars have been driven by employees who would be personally disgraced by a substandard car while American union labor of the past were held in a self-entitled, politically driven workplace. If you've ever watched the movie "Gung-Ho" you know what I'm talking about. That movie (while comical and exaggerated) hit the nail on the head concerning car companies in the 80s.
While Japanse cars shot to the forefront of reliability, their general employees' family life sucked. I know because I was there watching as substandard employees were flogged and confined to employee housing until their performance improved. In America, we focused on employee rights and the cars sucked.
The bottom line is that American cars are getting infinitely better while "westernization" of foreign civilizations tends to drag employee devotion down a peg. I can see the writing on the walls. American cars are getting much more reliable. Japanese (and other Asian) cars are in a bit of a holding pattern. As quickly as they add reliability, they are adding complicated luxury to keep up with the market. European cars are blossoming quickly with a fair share of reliability issues, but overseas cooperation is helping.
What I'm seeing is a more globally focused goal. In the past, Japanese cars were reliable, European cars were stylish and ergonomic but problematic, and American cars were brutish cavalier muscle. Now (given the universally available market) I see a homologization of directive. All continents tend to focus on the same things. Now that all of the major automakers are targeting every market and continent, they have to ascribe value to every aspect. It used to be that each continent's manufacturers sold mainly to their own continent. Now that isn't the case and we're seeing the target demographic change accordingly. For cripes sake we now have Cadillac, Mercedes, BMW, and Lexus/Toyota all competing for the same market. Would that have happened in 1970? I think not.
UncleBob
03-25-2008, 04:47 AM
not to mention all the odd ball international company mixing we have going on. GM and Saab, Ford and Jaguar and Volvo, Chrysler and Mitsubishi and Mercede's...just to name a small few...its becoming quite a mixing pot of ideas, ideals and engineering
Imagine what will happen when Ford gets bought out by Toyota....there's been talk anyway.
My biggest worry is the "little guys" getting swallowed up and turning into ugly monopolies.....I'd rather see competition stay alive. But I fear it will be harder and harder the further we go. Its just too difficult to be small scale in this market
Imagine what will happen when Ford gets bought out by Toyota....there's been talk anyway.
My biggest worry is the "little guys" getting swallowed up and turning into ugly monopolies.....I'd rather see competition stay alive. But I fear it will be harder and harder the further we go. Its just too difficult to be small scale in this market
Moppie
03-25-2008, 11:53 PM
My biggest worry is the "little guys" getting swallowed up and turning into ugly monopolies.....I'd rather see competition stay alive. But I fear it will be harder and harder the further we go. Its just too difficult to be small scale in this market
I would like to introduce exhibit a: British Leyland - How not to form a larger corporation out of a nations worth of individual manufacturers.
There are VERY few independents left.
Honda and BMW are the only 2 that stand out on a global scale with large mass production and only limited interaction with other manufacturers.
Ferrari simply don't produce the volume to really qualify, but would be in there just.
Toyota would come in next, but are heavily involved in badge engineering with GM.
I would like to introduce exhibit a: British Leyland - How not to form a larger corporation out of a nations worth of individual manufacturers.
There are VERY few independents left.
Honda and BMW are the only 2 that stand out on a global scale with large mass production and only limited interaction with other manufacturers.
Ferrari simply don't produce the volume to really qualify, but would be in there just.
Toyota would come in next, but are heavily involved in badge engineering with GM.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025