will American cars get better??

[j cAT]

Originally Posted by emanunet

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...

[slideways...]

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.

[curtis73]

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.

[emanunet]

slideways..., exacatly what i was sayong

[ShadowWulf2K]

Originally Posted by emanunet

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.

[slideways...]

Originally Posted by ShadowWulf2K

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.

[ShadowWulf2K]

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...

[slideways...]

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]

Originally Posted by slideways...

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.

[slideways...]

Originally Posted by ShadowWulf2K

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.

[j cAT]

Originally Posted by slideways...

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.....

[slideways...]

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.

[200sx power]

Originally Posted by slideways...

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.

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.




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]

Originally Posted by j cAT

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.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by KiwiBacon

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?