Why do people keep buying American cars?

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by Chris V

You really dont' know much about cars, do you Moppie?

For large trucks and vans, live axles and heavy duty leaf or coil springs are teh strongest to do what trucks have to do. IRS is a BAD engineering choice in most cases.

For Large trucks, yes.
But, your definition of large, and my definition of large are different things.
This is as small as a large Truck gets: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.nz/trucks/canter_euro/?_$ja=kw:mitsubishi+canter|cgn:Canter|cgid:1895651 800|tsid:9890|cn:Fuso+-+Model|cid:58142680|lid:41291452|mt:Broad|nw:searc h|crid:6738367000&gclid=CMHoqdiegqsCFQslpAodxTLpzQ

A live axle and leaf springs works very well only because its very simple, cheap to make and doesn't compromise load capacity.
But in a commercial vehicle, those things all out weigh comfort, road holding and performance.


On the other hand, a large Van like a Toyota Granvia is about the same size as Chev van, like a GMC Savana. But where the Savana has a live axle and leaf springs, with drum brakes, the Granvia has independent suspension and 4 wheel discs.
The similar options from VW and Mercedes come standard with IRS. A live axle is an option for commercial customers on a budget, but it's still coil sprung.

I bet the Savana still uses a ladder chassis, and it's basic structural design has not changed in 30 years.
It's big, it's ugly and it's stupid.

Pushrod engines allow for smaller overall packaging and lighter weight for a given displacemetn, allowing for more engine for less money and less mass. Which is why those GM australia cars still use them, too. Making an engine more complex jsut to make it more complex is also a bad engineering choice. FOrd's 5.0 Coyote engine is a great engine, but it's physically MUCH larger than the 6 and 7 liter GM pushrod V8s, which weigh less AND put out more power, for less money.

Waffle.
The new Ford Modular V8s are bigger mostly because they use a wide V angle than the old Windsor and Cleveland motors they replaced.
While the cylinder head on an over head cam engine is usually larger than on a push rod engine, the difference is small, and the intake manifold on either engine type normally takes up more space.
As do other engine mounted accessories.

If engine size was such an issue, then why do the worlds smallest mass produced cars, all use over head cam engines?

The VERY few pushrod V6s are done for the same reason. In an average mid size car, having an engine with more power and more torque over a wider band for less money is a GOOD thing, so a pushrod engine, that does the job in less space for less money is a bonus. No one needs to be drag racing those mid size sedans, so overall power isn't an issue.

More waffle.


The rest of the world has moved onto over head cams, including Ford America (thanks to Ford Europe).
GM is the only one left with pushrod engines in large scale mass production, and they are only used in America and Australia.
For the record, Holden have been trying for years to get an over head cam engine.
Ford Australia even went as far as developing an DOHC version of their inline 6 while they waited for Ford America to develop something to replace it, and they switched to the modular V8 as quickly as they could.

I would love to know in what universe the laws of physics allow a push rod engine to make more power, torque and provide better power delivery than a DOHC equivalent

A pushrod is a very in-efficient way to transfer motion from the cam shaft to a valve.

The pushrods themselves take up space in the block, require lubrication, limit the number of valves that can be used per cylinder, limit the head design with respect to valve placement and port design, and add a complication during manufacture.

Moving the cam shaft to the top of the engine allows for complete freedom in cylinder head design, resulting in a considerably more powerful/efficient engine for a given capacity.
GM was forced to make the small block chev larger in capacity in order to compete with Ford on HP.


While the Small Block Chev has more than earned it's place in history, it's antiquated design means it has no place in a modern future.

As for as engineering goes, GM and Ford ar global companies. How a car is engineered has nothing to do with the location of the particular engineering office, and more with where it's most economical for the company to do so. Engineers move around in the company all the time and are no tied to their location nor does theri location determine their nationality, nor does their nationality determine what they are good at.

Ford and GM are global corporations.
Each region is however operated as a separate company.
Holden and GM Europe made this very, VERY clear when GM North America got in so much shit last year.
While they still share designs, the design work itself is done independently in each region.
Holden have made it very clear that they are responsible for the Zeta platform, and all the work was done in Australia, by Australians.
Likewise Daewoo claim full ownership of their designs, as to Opel/Vaxhaul.
It is why there is a vast difference in the level of technology, sophistication, safety and performance between an Astra GTC and a Silverado 1500.

Chrysler and dodge were owned by Mercedes and during that time Mercedes raped them of theri cash resources, then hobbled theri development, and sold them off liek redheaded step children to an investment firm that only wanted to make money off of reselling them. Fiat owns them now and we'll see if they do a better job of managing the companies

And how did they get into the position in the first place?
That's right, they made really badly built, poorly designed, out dated cars that no body wanted to buy.

Still, the hemi Chryslers are a foce to be reckoned with. If I had the money, a new Dodge Challenger R/T Classic in Plum Crazy would be in my driveway.

Which raises another point, is that the best Ford, GM and Chrysler can do
Rehash old designs and ideas from 40 years ago?
Ford have an excuse for the Mustang, it's a model with an unbroken lineage, but even then, why does the new one look so much like and attempt to be so much like the original?
GM and Chrysler have no excuse.
It reeks of a total lack of imagination, creativity and passion in their design departments.

so we first of 3 Range Rovers.

Ahhh, smart man

[wishIhad12]

I'm going to show up late but crash this party anyway. Sadly this guy doesn't know much about what he is going on about.

First, when talking about what American companies make it's important to also look at what NON-American companies sell here. This will give you an idea if something is sold because that's all the American car companies know how to make or if it's because that's what American buyers want. Note that when Nissan and Toyota decided to produce trucks they were basically modeled after US trucks. Sure they were different in many small ways but the current Toyota Tundra, or Nissan Titan is obviously designed to be very similar to a US brand truck. Big displacement, gas V8 with leaf springs and a rigid axle. Honda thought they would try something different and the Ridgeline failed in the market. American cars were typically softer riding and didn't handle as sharply as European cars. Well when the Japanese started adjusting cars to American tastes, guess what. Their cars became larger and softer too. VW has dumped the Euro standard Jetta and Passat. Instead we get US specific versions which are larger, cheaper (both in construction and price) and softer than the Euro versions. Ignoring those facts would be just as dumb as me complaining that European or Japanese cars in their respective home markets are too small and have small motors. Well both have narrow streets, small parking spots, expensive gas and tax laws that make large displacement motors unpopular. Go figure they prefer smaller cars.

[quote=Moppie;6924550]
For Large trucks, yes.
But, your definition of large, and my definition of large are different things.
This is as small as a large Truck gets: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.nz/trucks/canter_euro/?_$ja=kw:mitsubishi+canter|cgn:Canter|cgid:1895651 800|tsid:9890|cn:Fuso+-+Model|cid:58142680|lid:41291452|mt:Broad|nw:searc h|crid:6738367000&gclid=CMHoqdiegqsCFQslpAodxTLpzQ

A live axle and leaf springs works very well only because its very simple, cheap to make and doesn't compromise load capacity.
But in a commercial vehicle, those things all out weigh comfort, road holding and performance.
[\quote]
Glad you see the cost benefits. Of course with pickups the same benefits apply. Also, a leaf spring solid axle on a pickup doesn't have to ride badly at all. I doubt you have ever ridden in a modern US pickup (Japanese or American brands). They aren't sports sedans but they actually are quite comfortable on the highway.

On the other hand, a large Van like a Toyota Granvia is about the same size as Chev van, like a GMC Savana. But where the Savana has a live axle and leaf springs, with drum brakes, the Granvia has independent suspension and 4 wheel discs.

The Savana is very old. It is also rather cheap and really, it's not a passenger vehicle. Also, as it shares many parts with the GM trucks I'm sure if rear discs are needed (and you haven't proven they are) I suspect GM can deliver that version. Several of GM's trucks do have rear disks. BTW, while many car nuts bitch when a car doesn't have rear discs the case for rear discs is often not as strong as one might assume. With ABS systems on of the big issues with rear drums, ie they lock early, is addressed. The other issue is fade. Well in the US we normally don't need as much braking capacity as in other countries simply due to our driving styles and roads. So unless you can show the brakes are actually inadequate, you are complaining without understanding.

The similar options from VW and Mercedes come standard with IRS. A live axle is an option for commercial customers on a budget, but it's still coil sprung.

The Sprinter is similar to the Savana. It has live axles. All versions of the Sprinter Van sold in the US had leaf springs in back. Please show a version that didn't use leaves in other countries. Do note that the full size SUVs in the US have a range of suspension types. Ford uses IRS, GM uses a multi-link, coil spring with live axle setup. It is certainly clear US companies can deliver those features IF the market demands them.

I bet the Savana still uses a ladder chassis, and it's basic structural design has not changed in 30 years.
It's big, it's ugly and it's stupid.

It, like the Sprinter van does use a ladder chassis. It's effective for the job it's asked to do. I agree the GM vans are ugly. The Ford one was OK but not with the new nose. The new Nissan Van, which follow the full size van pattern set by GM and Ford is also ugly... and uses a new ladder chassis. Of course you are wrong when you say ladder chassis technology hasn't evolved. GM, Ford, Nissan, Chrysler and Toyota have all show new ideas in that technology.

The new Ford Modular V8s are bigger mostly because they use a wide V angle than the old Windsor and Cleveland motors they replaced.

Ummm, the Modular V8s aren't at all new. They first came out 20(!) years ago. You are also wrong about the V angle. The old and current V8s were all 90 degree blocks. This picture should help you understand the size difference between pushrod heads and DOHC heads....

302 CI is 4.9L

While the cylinder head on an over head cam engine is usually larger than on a push rod engine, the difference is small, and the intake manifold on either engine type normally takes up more space.
As do other engine mounted accessories.

Wrong again. There is a reason why the GM small block engines are so popular for transplants. They are very compact and quite light. The Corvette's LS7 weighs the same as a Nissan 3.7L V6!

If engine size was such an issue, then why do the worlds smallest mass produced cars, all use over head cam engines?

It's not hard to figure this one out if you think for a bit. Most of the world has heavy displacement based taxes or other fees. Most of the world (and even in the US) is using I4 motors. The pushrod packaging advantages don't work with I4s for a number of reasons. If you would like I can go into this in another post. Basically it's only in the V blocks where the packaging advantage of pushrods works. Regardless, the results of the LSx and HEMI motors are self evident.

The rest of the world has moved onto over head cams, including Ford America (thanks to Ford Europe).

Wrong. Bentley still has a home grown pushrod V8. Ford moved to DOHC but not via Europe. Ford's first DOHC V6 family (the Duratec) was developed in the US. The DOHC V8 family was done in the US. I believe the Zetec I4 was a European project but then again, with global markets it makes sense to have Europe develop a motor that works for both the US and Europe while the US can develop the motor that's largely just for the US market.

GM is the only one left with pushrod engines in large scale mass production, and they are only used in America and Australia.

Wrong again. Chrysler and Bentley both have pushrod motors. Chrysler, like GM chose to make a NEW pushrod motor (GM in the mid 90s after having released a DOHC V8) and Chrysler after 2000). People often don't understand the pros and cons of pushrods. The funny thing was the Ford OHC motors were typically seen as inferior to the pushrod rivals.

For the record, Holden have been trying for years to get an over head cam engine.
Ford Australia even went as far as developing an DOHC version of their inline 6 while they waited for Ford America to develop something to replace it, and they switched to the modular V8 as quickly as they could.

It seems many people are quite happy with the LS motor. Can you cite people who are, after driving an LS family V8, complaining that the motor should be OHC or is this your own bias and lack of familiarity coming through?

I would love to know in what universe the laws of physics allow a push rod engine to make more power, torque and provide better power delivery than a DOHC equivalent

A pushrod motor allows more displacement in a given physical size. A stock Miata comes with a 1.8L I4. A 7L ! pushrod V8 will fit under the hood of a Miata. Can you name another normally aspirated engine that would fit in a Miata and deliver more power? The standard Corvette V8 has about the same weight and physical size as the 4L V8 used in the BMW M3. The Corvette motor produces more power. So what is "equivalent"? Do we do same displacement or same size?

A pushrod is a very in-efficient way to transfer motion from the cam shaft to a valve.

Prove that. Heywood's fundamentals of combustion engineering book wouldn't agree.

The pushrods themselves take up space in the block, require lubrication, limit the number of valves that can be used per cylinder, limit the head design with respect to valve placement and port design, and add a complication during manufacture.

You are generally wrong again. You are correct that pushrods take up space in the valley between the cylinders. What did you want to put there instead? Pushrods do limit head setups but like many things it's a trade off. They allow more displacement for a given sized engine bay. They aren't harder or more expensive to manufacture. That argument runs counter to one of the common slams against pushrods, that they are only used to save money! Your arguments really aren't very logical.

Moving the cam shaft to the top of the engine allows for complete freedom in cylinder head design, resulting in a considerably more powerful/efficient engine for a given capacity.

Powerful for a given displacement? Yes. More efficient? No. Efficiency is typically rated at part throttle where the extra breathing ability of the DOHC engine doesn't help.

GM was forced to make the small block chev larger in capacity in order to compete with Ford on HP.

Not really, the older Ford OHC V8s in the trucks were similar in displacement and power to the GM motors (neither had great power per L but the GM engines were much smaller). The 6.2L LSx motor produces about the same power as the current 5L Mustang V8. So in this case you are correct but the GM motor is smaller and lighter. Also, since when did displacement cost money in the US? We have no displacement taxes so why should we act like displacement needs to be conserved? The airplane engine guys don't care about displacement. They don't care about HP/L. A Corvette with a 6L V8 returns the same mileage as the Honda S2000 with a 2L I4. What was your point?

While the Small Block Chev has more than earned it's place in history, it's antiquated design means it has no place in a modern future.

That's a well supported argument... really well supported.

Sorry, you typed almost as much as I did but it's pretty clear you didn't understand the subject.

And how did they get into the position in the first place?
That's right, they made really badly built, poorly designed, out dated cars that no body wanted to buy.

That's a very simplistic view of a very complex problem.

Which raises another point, is that the best Ford, GM and Chrysler can do
Rehash old designs and ideas from 40 years ago?

Yup, I don't recall VW or BMW-MINI or Fiat (500) doing anything similar.

[wishIhad12]

Moppie,
Having just scanned though a few of your posts I get the feeling you have a lot of experience working on cars but you may not have as much background in understanding the design of cars.

Not a bad thing but I still think you don't understand much of what you were posting.

[blazee]

wishIhad12, you are my new favorite member.

[boxerman]

And to add to Moppie's comment: why o why is it possible that this summer I was driving around in Europe in a VW Touran and Opel Zafira (family size cars) that easily make 40 miles/gallon, while here in the US you got to be very lucky if such a size car gives you 20 miles/gallon?? Am I missing some essential difference here in how cars for the European market are built compared to US? Maybe there is a legal difference in engine performance. Can somebody enlighten me?

[wishIhad12]

Originally Posted by boxerman

And to add to Moppie's comment: why o why is it possible that this summer I was driving around in Europe in a VW Touran and Opel Zafira (family size cars) that easily make 40 miles/gallon, while here in the US you got to be very lucky if such a size car gives you 20 miles/gallon?? Am I missing some essential difference here in how cars for the European market are built compared to US? Maybe there is a legal difference in engine performance. Can somebody enlighten me?

Was it a diesel car or were you using British gallons which are bigger than US gallons? Both VW and Opel (GM) sell cars here so we aren't talking about a lack of technology. Also the Euro fuel economy test returns higher numbers than the EPA test for the same vehicle. You should try comparing the exact same model sold in both markets such as a Golf GTI or the older Passat or something like a Volvo.

In the US we have the Mazda 5 which is the same size as the VW. It doesn't return anywhere near 40 in the US. In the US it has a 2.5L engine and returns 28mpg highway (EPA). In England the largest motor is a 2L and it returns 40 mpg (from spec sheet). The two engines are almost the same power at 150 ps for the UK vs 156 SAE hp for the US. The increase in displacement, contrary to the belief of some doesn't necessarily hurt mileage because it's typically accompanied by a lower gear ratio which helps efficiency.

So what's the difference? Well the size of the UK gallon is 4.55L while a US gallon is 3.79L. So the UK car should with no other changes get 20% more range. Using UK gallons the US version would get 34 mpg. Next the UK car will be tested via a test which returns mileage that is honestly unrealistic in the US. We have seen this when dealing with cars that are unchanged from Europe to hear then comparing their Euro vs EPA numbers. Given the new mileage targets for manufactures selling in the US it is foolish to think that tricks that improve gas engine mileage in Europe wouldn't be used hear.
http://www.mazda.co.uk/showroom/mazda5/specification/
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/disp...ehicleCode=MZ5

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by boxerman

And to add to Moppie's comment: why o why is it possible that this summer I was driving around in Europe in a VW Touran and Opel Zafira (family size cars) that easily make 40 miles/gallon, while here in the US you got to be very lucky if such a size car gives you 20 miles/gallon?? Am I missing some essential difference here in how cars for the European market are built compared to US? Maybe there is a legal difference in engine performance. Can somebody enlighten me?

Driven under the same conditions, the same car should get the same MPG regardless of what country it's in.

And, as has been pointed out, the European tests are a bit of a joke.
If you watch any of the 5th gear or Autocar content on youtube they always point out that in real world driving, you will never get close to the claimed figures.


I think what your getting at though is the big difference between the European designed cars and the American designed ones.

And your right, the level of sophistication, technology, safety, efficiency etc, is considerably higher in the European cars.

[wishIhad12]

Originally Posted by Moppie

Driven under the same conditions, the same car should get the same MPG regardless of what country it's in.

And, as has been pointed out, the European tests are a bit of a joke.
If you watch any of the 5th gear or Autocar content on youtube they always point out that in real world driving, you will never get close to the claimed figures.


I think what your getting at though is the big difference between the European designed cars and the American designed ones.

And your right, the level of sophistication, technology, safety, efficiency etc, is considerably higher in the European cars.

You are correct on the first part but not so much on the second. The level of sophistication etc is about on part for cars of the same price. Look what happened when Ford brought the Mondeo over. In 1995 the US Contour and the European Mondeo were all but the same car. Over time Ford pulled costs out of the US version. It ended up as a less impressive car but it also cost quite a bit less than the Euro version.

Of course when you make statements like that we need to clarify, are you referring to US brand cars or cars targeted at the US regardless of brand (US Passat vs Euro Passat or US Accord vs Euro Accord for example)?

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by wishIhad12

Moppie,
Having just scanned though a few of your posts I get the feeling you have a lot of experience working on cars but you may not have as much background in understanding the design of cars.

Not a bad thing but I still think you don't understand much of what you were posting.

First of all, welcome to AF, I do enjoy a good debate


Second, just a couple of points:


The Ford Duratec was not Fords first entry into OHC modular designs.
To the best of my knowledge it made an appearance in 1995 in Europe in the Mondeo and in America in a number of different cars. It was sold here in the Mondeo as a EUROPEAN designed engine, and I think you will find it was sold globally before it was made in the US.
The Duratec name is used on a LOT of engines though, including some that were designed by Mazda. I don't doubt that some of the engines are designed and built in the US, but the original concept came out of Europe.

Fords first entry into the world of OHC V6's was with the Yamaha/Ford/Mazda designed engine used in the Ford Telstar and the Ford Taurus SHO, starting in 1989. It was also used in a variety of Mazda's.




Your comparison photo of the DOHC and Pushrod V8s is good at showing the difference in block and head size, but is missing some crucial parts.
Stick exhaust, inlet and accessories on both engines and see what the size difference is then.
You will find that the Pushrod engine is not that much smaller any more.
It's why the Nissan and Toyota/Lexus DOHC V8s are so popular.I know of several builds where they used because the Chev Small block wouldn't fit once the exhaust and intake were installed.


On that note, the Chev Small block is not popular in engine conversions/swaps because of it's size, it's popular because it is easily obtainable, easy to work on, easy to make big HP from and has an enormous amount of aftermarket support.



My comments about Drum brakes were just to get a wind up
In reality they offer more braking force than a similar sized disc set up, and they are making a come back on lots of small cars.
The down side is more rotational mass and un-sprung weight, but on Grand Ma's shopping cart that isn't really a problem.


My comments about leaf springs however are very true.
A leaf sprung set up will never give the same levels of ride and handling that a coil set up will. Not even a complex progressive multi-leaf set up
(the exception being a transverse leaf, although its coil equivalent, in board springs/dampers, is superior again).


As for why so many manufacturers, Ford now included, have switched to OHC engines, it's because they ARE cheaper and easier to build.
It has nothing to do with them being more complex, and using more parts than a push rod engine, it's because the production line can be made versatile and more efficient.

If you ever learn anything about Inventory Control, Work Center Planning, MRP etc, then you will learn that it makes sense to build modular engines (it's why Ford call their engines Modular, it refers to the manufacturing process).
The best modular design for an internal combustion engine is one where the Cylinder is self contained and separate from a self contained bottom end.

It's a whole manufacturing philosophy with the happy side effect that an OHC engine allows for more freedom with the combustion chamber design.
Show me a push rod engine that has variable valve timing and lift, and that can make 90% of it's peak torque over a range of 5,000rpm, with a usable power curve that covers 7,000rpm.

[Moppie]

I'm making a pretty blanket statement with my opening post, and clearly there are a lot of Global cars sold in the US, as well as localized variants of cars like the Jetta, Focus, etc.

What I'm referring to though are the traditional US models that are designed and built in North America (or Mexico) by the big 3. Ford, GM and whats left of Chrysler.
Cars like the Impala, F150, Caliber etc.

These are not sophisticated, not well built, old fashioned designs under lots of ugly plastic and metal bodies that claim to be "modern designs".

Why do Americans buy this crap?

Originally Posted by wishIhad12

In 1995 the US Contour and the European Mondeo were all but the same car. Over time Ford pulled costs out of the US version. It ended up as a less impressive car but it also cost quite a bit less than the Euro version.

I think this is getting to where I'm going here.

The big 3 make some pretty crap cars that DO not sell any where else in the world.

Is it because so many Americans are too proud, or too stupid to demand anything better, or is it because the big 3 have been to lazy and cheap to product and market anything better?

Have they been riding the coat tails of isolationist economics for so long that big crap cars, SUV's and Trucks have become the accepted Norm, and anything modern and sophisticated is shunned because it's different?

[wishIhad12]

I'm making a pretty blanket statement with my opening post, and clearly there are a lot of Global cars sold in the US, as well as localized variants of cars like the Jetta, Focus, etc.

What I'm referring to though are the traditional US models that are designed and built in North America (or Mexico) by the big 3. Ford, GM and whats left of Chrysler.

Well that’s a rather open ended statement isn’t it? A lot of what we have in the US isn’t stuff that lacks sophistication. At the same time with global companies it makes sense to divide the load. Why is it that Ford of Europe seems to design so many cars with pathetically small motors? Well because they sell there and not here. It certainly doesn’t make sense for Europe to develop an F-150. Since there clearly is a market for trucks in makes sense to develop them here and let Europe develop cars that are specific for Europe. At the same time when we have projects that will be used in many markets to divide the work. Ford US does the larger displacement motors (the modular V8 and the new 5.0 V8 as well as the V6s. Mazda did the I4s).

Cars like the Impala, F150, Caliber etc.

The Impala is the last of the W-body cars. It’s kept around for fleet sales. It’s design dates back to the 1980s. It’s not a great example because it’s a legacy car.
The F series is the best selling vehicle in the world. Clearly there is a market. Prior to the big increase in gas prices I could really see trucks as a practical personal vehicle. In the US, the size isn’t a complicating factor. If you don’t mind the gas price then that excuse goes away. Note that when gas prices went up here the sales of trucks fell. So how do they work as personal transport? Well really just fine. Any more the newest models ride nicely. They are quite. They have lots of space. They have all that cargo space when you need it. Honestly, mileage aside, it’s hard to fault them.
The Caliber was a POS designed during the dark days at Chrysler after MB had decided to under fund new R&D. Compare the Caliber to the original Neon. The original Neon was very innovative in how it was assembled and in how Chrysler creatively reduced part count. In fact Toyota used the Neon as their design for manufacturability benchmark in the mid 90s.
Conversely, the domestics do have sophisticate cars though most are based on world chassis (as I mentioned earlier it’s dumb to have two efforts). Yes, the latest GM RWD platforms were done in Australia. Are you suggesting that people in Detroit couldn’t have done the same work? I mean GM could just shutter Holden’s R&D and move the work back to the US. GM is doing their high end V6 and I4 motors in the US. Ford is only doing the V6s here (not sure what the future I4 plans are). Chrysler is doing all of their V6 and V8 motors here though with Fiat in the picture that could change. BTW, the first of the “new” MINIs weren’t powered by a BMW designed motor, that was a Chrysler designed motor.
Of course the Corvette is designed in the US and contrary to what some think it is a sophisticated design. The magnetic dampers were very trick and developed by Delphi when it was still part of GM. Now they are being used by Audi and Ferrari as well.

These are not sophisticated, not well built, old fashioned designs under lots of ugly plastic and metal bodies that claim to be "modern designs".

Show me the claims and then we can discuss them. I wouldn’t defend the Caliber but I also don’t accept your blanket statement.

Why do Americans buy this crap?

If you checked the sales you would see that we don’t buy many Impalas or Caliber’s for personal use. On the other hand we buy many trucks because they actually work well for the intended purpose and price.

I think this is getting to where I'm going here.

The big 3 make some pretty crap cars that DO not sell any where else in the world.

Who’s definition of crappy? First, it’s not just the US companies. When Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, and VW all make US specific models don’t you think it MIGHT be because our market isn’t the same as others? Your criticism basically applies to any of the US specific models. The fact that they sell well here and that others are doing US specific models suggest something about our market. Nearly 100 years ago GM and Ford both realized that the US market wasn’t like Europe and much of the rest of the world. That’s why both companies had overseas operations.

Is it because so many Americans are too proud, or too stupid to demand anything better, or is it because the big 3 have been to lazy and cheap to product and market anything better?

This statement really reflects more about the lack of intelligence of the poster than the US market. Sorry, the Japanese and European cars have been in our market long enough that anyone with common sense can see that we know much of what sophisticated cars were like in the rest of the world. We still get many of those cars. You know what, the car makers also understood that we, on average, don’t want to pay $26k for a sophisticated Corolla vs the more basic Corolla. I mean I could be just as ignorant and ask why you are to stupid or stuck in your ways to demand VALUE for your car buying dollar. Why don’t you demand that your manufactures deliver more for less? Sorry the market is simply different.

Have they been riding the coat tails of isolationist economics for so long that big crap cars, SUV's and Trucks have become the accepted Norm, and anything modern and sophisticated is shunned because it's different?

Again this statement is laughably ignorant. The US has the most open car market in the world. That was one of the things that hurt the Big 3 so much is that we let imports right in while Europe made it harder for the Japanese to come in and Japan makes it all but impossible to enter their market.

After reading much of this you have simply painted yourself as ignorant and arrogant. You aren’t doing a good job of processing the information in front of you. Even worse, much of the information you have presented is just flat out wrong. I would suggest more reading and learning would help as well as throwing away your preconceived ideas. Don’t start off assuming that a populous is dumb, instead assume they aren’t but made a choice you didn’t agree with THEN try to understand why they made that choice. Certainly it would be dumb for me to ask why Europeans want a Fiesta sized car that cost as much as a Modeo sized car in the US. “Why are they so dumb and don’t demand a bigger car with more HP since neither costs the manufacture much more?” Anyone with half a brain could tear up that question but in total absence of any knowledge of Europe and only knowledge of the US market the underlying question (having been stripped of the derogatory implications) would be worth asking. You should try the same. It would keep you from looking foolish when the obvious reasons are presented.

[wishIhad12]

Note: I've modified this post based on what I wanted to post. I think being a newbie the system didn't want me to included external links (not a bad idea). I've now embedded the pictures which I hadn't intended to do and the X-V8 links were replaced with requests to google the motor.

The Ford Duratec was not Fords first entry into OHC modular designs.
To the best of my knowledge it made an appearance in 1995 in Europe in the Mondeo and in America in a number of different cars. It was sold here in the Mondeo as a EUROPEAN designed engine, and I think you will find it was sold globally before it was made in the US.
The Duratec name is used on a LOT of engines though, including some that were designed by Mazda. I don't doubt that some of the engines are designed and built in the US, but the original concept came out of Europe.
Fords first entry into the world of OHC V6's was with the Yamaha/Ford/Mazda designed engine used in the Ford Telstar and the Ford Taurus SHO, starting in 1989. It was also used in a variety of Mazda's.

You are mixing things up here. I didn’t mention the Yamaha-Ford V6 because it was largely a Yamaha design. IIRC the block was a Ford block. Also it was not used in a bunch of cars as you claim, it was only used in the Taurus SHO. Several other demo vehicles were created but they weren’t for general sale.
Look up wikipedia Ford_SHO_V6_engine
The Duratec name started on the family of 2.5L and later 3.0L V6 motors that were first seen in the Mondeo (1994 in Europe 1995 in the US, I believe they were all made in the US since that was expected to be the primary market). The name was later applied to other motors. Some of the R&D was done in Europe (Cosworth casting technologies for example) but much was done in the US as well. BTW, Ford’s modular DOHC V8 predates the Duratec V6 and it was developed in the US for the US market. I’m not referring to the later Duratec I4s which were Mazda based and replaced the Zetec. The deal with Mazda was Ford did the V6s (Mazda dropped theirs) and Mazda did the small inline motors for the Ford world at the time.
I don’t see any evidence to back the idea that “the concept came out of Europe”. What does that even mean? It’s not like Europe was the only place that ever saw a DOHC motor. They weren’t used by the Big 3 because displacement is a cheaper way to get power (it’s damned near free). That said the US does have a history of such motors.

Your comparison photo of the DOHC and Pushrod V8s is good at showing the difference in block and head size, but is missing some crucial parts.
Stick exhaust, inlet and accessories on both engines and see what the size difference is then.
You will find that the Pushrod engine is not that much smaller any more.
It's why the Nissan and Toyota/Lexus DOHC V8s are so popular.I know of several builds where they used because the Chev Small block wouldn't fit once the exhaust and intake were installed.


On that note, the Chev Small block is not popular in engine conversions/swaps because of it's size, it's popular because it is easily obtainable, easy to work on, easy to make big HP from and has an enormous amount of aftermarket support.

No question that the small block Chevy has a lot of support. However, much of that is because it’s such a good engine.
Your claims about the exhaust manifolds aren’t correct. They actually exit down from the head in factory form. GM loads this motor in through the bottom of the Corvette chassis so width is a big deal to them. Just to give people more idea how small these motors really are consider these pictures of the LSx motor next to a Miata (Mazda) 1.8.


Note that the V8 has its exhaust installed and it doesn’t protrude as you claim.
Here’s another pair of pictures to consider. The 3L Ford DOHC V6 under the hood of a Miata vs the 5.0 under the hood of a Miata. Are you starting to see the fact that pushrod motors can be very compact?

My comments about Drum brakes were just to get a wind up
In reality they offer more braking force than a similar sized disc set up, and they are making a come back on lots of small cars.
The down side is more rotational mass and un-sprung weight, but on Grand Ma's shopping cart that isn't really a problem.

I’m glad we agree about the brakes then. The problem with wind up sort of statements is too many of your points aren’t correct. It’s hard to tell when you are going for fact vs effect.

My comments about leaf springs however are very true.
A leaf sprung set up will never give the same levels of ride and handling that a coil set up will. Not even a complex progressive multi-leaf set up
(the exception being a transverse leaf, although its coil equivalent, in board springs/dampers, is superior again).

I agree with this. However, leaf springs are for the most part only used on pickups in the US. I agree that other types of suspension can ride better. Dodge has even switched their truck to multi-link and coils in back. That said, leaf springs are very cost effective for the job they are being asked to do this a good choice. That is also why they are used on things like the Sprinter Van. You were critical that US companies used them but clearly other companies have reached the same conclusion. Perhaps that’s because the conclusion was sound, not because those making the choice weren’t smart.

As for why so many manufacturers, Ford now included, have switched to OHC engines, it's because they ARE cheaper and easier to build.
It has nothing to do with them being more complex, and using more parts than a push rod engine, it's because the production line can be made versatile and more efficient.

No, a DOHC V8 is not cheaper to make than a pushrod V8. That is just plain wrong. BTW, we really need to keep discussion of OHC vs DOHC vs multi-valve and for that matter V vs I blocks sorted out. Ford and the other domestics have done a number of OHC engines over the years. The domestics dumped pushrod inline engines almost as fast as Europe. The delay was likely due to the I4 only being the base engine in most US cars. If you wanted more power you went to the larger V6 vs going to a DOHC I4. Either way, the difference was as much differences in market as anything.
When GM created their only current pushrod motor, the LSx family, it was a contious choice to stick with pushrods. GM had already created the very good Northstar DOHC V8 at that point and clearly showed they could do a DOHC V8 if they wanted. Chrysler again stuck with pushrods when creating the current HEMI in 2003. Remember that in 2003 Chrysler had created plenty of DOHC motors and they were paired with Mercedes at the time so they could have help from Mercedes if it was needed (it wasn’t and Chrysler was actually charged with designing what would have been a new family of V6s for the whole company. That family was delayed due to the turmoil at Chrysler but was recently released to rave reviews). Chrysler chose do to a pushrod V8 instead of a OHC V8. The resulting HEMI engine is a very good motor and, like the LSx motor, the results vindicate the choice.
And since you want to be critical of the sophistication of pushrod motors, how many DOHC motors have cylinder deactivation capabilities? Honda does, who else?

If you ever learn anything about Inventory Control, Work Center Planning, MRP etc, then you will learn that it makes sense to build modular engines (it's why Ford call their engines Modular, it refers to the manufacturing process).
The best modular design for an internal combustion engine is one where the Cylinder is self contained and separate from a self contained bottom end.

I know a lot about that subject. I also know you are mixing terms. You are right that Ford’s motors were modular in design. Of course virtually all modern engines would be modular in scope if not in name.
Your second statement is poorly explained. First, WHY would you claim that’s the best? Your post comes off as someone who has heard the terms but didn’t get the concept (you might understand it but your post doesn’t reflect that). What do you mean by self-contained cylinder. When the pressures from one cylinder are shared with another we typically refer to that as a blown gasket. Not a cool thing.

It's a whole manufacturing philosophy with the happy side effect that an OHC engine allows for more freedom with the combustion chamber design.

Show us what you are talking about. Again I think you are mixing up information here. Being modular doesn’t ensure more freedom in the combustion chamber design. I can have a non-modular, single purpose DOHC engine and have that same chamber design freedom.

[wishIhad12]

(I've split this post)

Show me a push rod engine that has variable valve timing and lift, and that can make 90% of it's peak torque over a range of 5,000rpm, with a usable power curve that covers 7,000rpm.

I’m not going to bother to look up power curves for you. Real a review of the Corvette. One of the common statements is the engine has a very broad power curve. Let me take your post a step further to show how inane is the request. First, not that many engines DOHC or otherwise have redlines over 7K. I mean plenty of sporty motors do but if you look at say a Lexus V6 or a BMW I6 you will find most redline around 7K. So 5000 RPM range of 90% peak torque and a 7k redline. That means 90% of peak torque at 2000 RPM. Sounds like a job for a turbo motor. Conversely, I suspect a high reving motorcycle engine might meet your requirements.
Really, you would have to be clueless to think that the nice large displacement pushrod motors aren’t known for a great power band. I would suggest you refer to these comments from Road and Track after testing 4 V8 powered sports cars:

Originally Posted by R&T

Who makes the best V-8? That's the question we set out to answer.
We all agreed — without doubt — that the always hard-hitting LS3 of the Corvette had the best power delivery and was by far the easiest with which to tap its potential.
But everyone also agreed the Ferrari sounded the best. Said Steve, "The F430's engine goes through melodies of sound that start out throaty, move on to a bark and finish in a high-revving scream." It's about as sexy-sounding a package as you'll ever find.
So when it came to choosing an absolute favorite V-8, we were torn: Two of us chose the Corvette's torque-rich 6.2-liter, the other two the Ferrari's high-revving 4.3. In a tie-breaker, we went with the Corvette's LS3. This engine is truly phenomenal in its everyday usability and civility, yet it's insanely fast when you ask it to be — all the while rewarding our ears with that most American of V-8 thunder.

www_roadandtrack_com/tests/comparison/v-8-exotics/v-8_exotics-3a_final_thoughts_page_10
And just in case you think no one has thought about clever ideas for pushrod motors, Chrysler has dual VVT in the Viper’s pushrod motor. GM also created this gem a few years back.
(Google for GM X-V8)

[blazee]

Originally Posted by wishIhad12

Note: I've modified this post based on what I wanted to post. I think being a newbie the system didn't want me to included external links (not a bad idea). I've now embedded the pictures which I hadn't intended to do and the X-V8 links were replaced with requests to google the motor.

You are correct. It is an anti-spam measure that hides suspicious posts until we get a chance to look at them. A new member posting a lot links/pictures will trip it.

I can easily exchange your posts if you'd prefer to have your original post visible rather than the edited version.

[AF Mascot]

What an awesome thread! It's great to see auto enthusiasts of differing opinions discussing their points of view in such an informative and respectful manner. This is what we're here for.