US v European car technology

Never mind the brands, comment on the priciple:

formatting link
DAS

Ford Mustang By Jeremy Clarkson Bite the Bullitt, buy the fantasy

The new Pontiac Solstice is America's first attempt at making a sports car in more than 50 years. And not since David Beckham's wayward penalty kick against Portugal have we seen anything go so wide of the mark. It is comically awful. And that sets a question. How come America's massive car industry can't make what is basically beans on toast? A light, zesty, pine-fresh car with an engine at the front, a simple foldaway roof in the middle and rear-wheel drive at the back? Lotus can make a sports car using nothing but a melted-down bathtub and the engine from a Rover. Alfa Romeo can make a sports car using steel so thin you can read through it, and an engine that won't start. Then there was Triumph, which made a sports car even though its entire workforce was outside the factory warming its hands around a brazier and chanting.

So what's America's problem? Well, here in Europe early cars were expensive coach-built luxury goods for the tweedy and well-off. It wasn't until the 1940s that cars for the common man came to France, Germany and Britain, and it wasn't until the 1950s that they came to Italy. They haven't arrived in Spain even today.

As a result we still have an innate sense that a car is something you save up for, something a bit decadent and exciting. Whereas in America the everyman Model T Ford came quickly after the introduction of internal combustion so there was never a chance for cars to earn that upmarket cachet. As a result, they've always seen the car as a tool: nothing more than an alternative to the horse.

In Europe we talk about style and how fast a car accelerates. In America they talk about how many horse boxes their trucks can pull and how much torque the engine produces.

If you do encounter someone over there who's fond of performance cars they're only really interested in how much g can be generated in the bends, whereas here those of a petrolhead disposition don't care at all about grip, only what happens when it's lost and the car is sliding. Then you are into the world of handling. A world where nothing but skill keeps you out of the hedge.

There's more, too. From day one American motor sport was all about sponsorship, which is why the oval raceway was developed. It meant the whole crowd could see all the sponsors' names all the time. The cars never zoomed off into a wood.

Here, they did. Motor racing was a rich man's game, held far from hoi polloi on airfield perimeter roads. And on twisty tracks like this, grip was nowhere near as important as decent handling.

Add all this together and you start to understand why we have Lotus, Ferrari, Maserati and Aston Martin. And they have the Ford F-150 Lightning pick-up truck: 0-60mph in a millionth of a second. Enough space in the back for a dead bear. And on a challenging road about as much fun as a wasabi enema

Add all this together and you start to understand why we have Lotus, Ferrari, Maserati and Aston Martin. And they have the Ford F-150 Lightning pick-up truck: 0-60mph in a millionth of a second. Enough space in the back for a dead bear. And on a challenging road about as much fun as a wasabi enema.

They also have the Ford Mustang and last week that's what I was using to cruise up the 101 from Monterey to San Francisco. The sun was shining, 104.3 the Hippo was massaging my ear bones with soothing West Coast sounds and, like everyone else, I was doing a steady 65mph, my heart beating in slow monotonous harmony with the big V8.

This new version has been styled to resemble the original from

1965, and that's a good thing. Less satisfactory is the news that it's also been engineered to resemble the original with all sorts of technology that in Europe would have been considered old fashioned by Edward Longshanks.

There's no complex double-stage turbocharging here; no elegantly machined swirl chamber to extract the best possible power and economy from the smallest possible engine. It's a 4.6 litre V8 with just one camshaft, three valves per cylinder and the sort of power output the average European would expect from a juicer.

The platform for the new Mustang comes from a Jaguar S-type. But then the Americans take it back in time by fitting a solid rear axle such as you'd find on a Silver Cross pram, and a Panhard rod, dismissed by Newcomen as being "a bit too last year".

So what's it like to drive? Well, the previous day I'd taken it on a hard lap of the extraordinarily beautiful Laguna Seca raceway, which, because it's the curliest track in North America, is regarded by racing drivers all over the world as one of the greats. Mansell. Villeneuve. Even Top Gear's Stig go all misty eyed at the mention of it.

And frankly it was more than a match for Ford's big daft horse. Its brakes were cooked by turn six; the final slow corner completely overwhelmed the live rear axle; and through the fearsome Corkscrew, which twists down a gradient so steep you can't even walk up it, I'm afraid Mr Ed was about as pin sharp as a punt gun. I damn nearly soiled myself.

Is it fast? Well, you get 300bhp, which is about 200bhp less than BMW gets from a similarly sized engine. But nevertheless it will get from 0-60mph in

5sec and reach a top speed of 150. That's not bad for an ox cart. But by European standards this car is rubbish. Its engine has wasteful, unused capacity that turns fuel into nothing, it couldn't get from one end of a country lane to the other without running out of brakes and it handles like a newborn donkey.

There's more, too. It's got a gruff engine note, its interior has the panache of an Afghan's cave and . . . and . . . and I can't go on. You see, I'm running through all this car's bad points but I'm afraid my mind is consumed by the bit where I was doing 65mph on the 101, listening to some Eagles on 104.3.

And then by the subsequent memory of grumbling along the waterfront in San Francisco itself, the city setting for Bullitt, the film that etched the Mustang for all time on the petrolhead's radar.

You see, I kept thinking I'm in a Mustang in San Francisco on a glorious September afternoon. And I liked that a lot. I liked it so much that I became consumed with the notion of maybe taking a small part of the experience home with me.

The numbers look good. Because the Mustang is made from pig iron and lava it is extraordinarily cheap: $25,000. And £13,800 for 300bhp is tempting. Even if you factor in the cost of shipping, changing the lights and paying Mr Blair some tax, it'll still only be £22,000.

For that you could have a Golf GTI, which, alongside Ford's canoe looks like the Starship Enterprise. It's more practical, easier to run, and around Laguna Seca undoubtedly it'd be a whole lot more competent. Whenever I drive a GTI I'm always full of admiration for its abilities, but when I was driving that Mustang I liked it. And that's sort of more important.

Of course, the American way means they'll never be able to build a sports car. It explains why the Pontiac Solstice is so dire. But the simplistic, covered wagon approach doesn't really matter on a car like the Mustang, not when you're doing 65mph in the sunshine and the Doobies are serenading you with Long Train Running. Not when it means you get a car this handsome for

13 grand.

The only worry is that if I did buy a Mustang, I'd get the car over here and on a wet November night realise that, actually, what I wanted to bring home was San Francisco.

The Mustang, then, is a great car in America. But here you're better off with a Golf.

VITAL STATISTICS

Model Ford Mustang 4.6 litre Engine 4600cc V8 Power 300bhp @ 5750rpm Torque 320lb ft @ 4500rpm Transmission 5 speed manual Fuel 18/23mpg urban/extra urban CO2 N/A Acceleration 0-60mph: 5 sec Top speed 143mph Price $25,225 (not sold in UK) Rating 3/5 Verdict Horrid but very loveable

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling
Loading thread data ...

Thanks for posting this article. Its the (typical) arrogant Euro point of view, but certainly fun to read.

Jeremy doesn't seem to realize that here in the US of A, driving is basically different. Reliabilty, and long distance driving are far more important here than in Europe. And yes, there are many folks here that appreciate exotic engines and good handling. Go to one of the many Brit car shows like the one held in Palo Alto earlier in the month. Lots of exotics there (cars and people).

BTW, we'll be happy to sell you our new Mustangs and Corvettes, but we'll keep San Francisco! ;-)

Steve

Reply to
Steve

You forget that he was testing something called a *sports car*. If he was testing luxo barges you would have a point. And what makes you think that a Golf GTi would be any less acceptable on a long drive? Or any less reliable for that matter?

Huw

Reply to
Huw

This scribbler seems to have stretched his cleverness and then some - to fill xxx words' space.

Economics: Leaving him aside, the US auto industry has always been one of mass (vs. class). We don't produce finely tuned machines that achieve

400 HP from 3.0L - it just doesn't work that way here. We produce a cruder but simpler, low maintenance vehicle that's based on common parts, and do so for a relatively low price. Detroit must think in terms of 100,000 units, not 5,000 units. The median family income in the USA is about $44,000 - that's the US auto market's heart and when one sees annual new car sales of 17 million units, including imports, the idea of "mass" really takes hold for American's spend about 12% of their income on transportation - about $440 per month. Not a lot of money for new auto purchases. That's why some of the US auto makers don't even make money building cars! (The Big 3's retirement and health care costs are enormous ($1,500/car) vs. the foreign start-ups.) One needs a car in all but center city neighborhoods. The mass dispersion of autos, US per capita auto ownership vs. European per capita auto ownership, I'd suspect is substantially higher in the US, even when per capita income is similar. The more socially oriented Europeans have robust railway service vs. our ever regressive Amtrack service over freight rails. All these factors create demand but a profitless prosperity for Detroit's Big 3, so they "push the iron out the door" just to stay in business.

Technology: A new Corvette uses an ancient push rod V-8 design that's been vastly improved over the years; I had one of these 5.7L V-8s in my '72 Chevy, it made 165 HP with a two barrel carburetor! Simple and reliable engine. The cited Pontiac model is based, I understand, mostly on common parts that have been assembled as a "sports car". And its aggressive price reflects that "heritage". So it's not a BMW, well, nobody said it WAS a BMW, or a Lotus or a Mercedes. And then to run a pick up truck through a race course and complain that it's not a sports car is truly absurd. It's a truck, designed to haul goods!

Application: Then there's the actual use that cars encounter in the US. Mostly suburban - low speed and lots of idling in traffic - and speed limited (to 65 - 75 mph) freeway and interstate use. Driving 150 mph is a one time experience for one will not be driving at all thereafter. So "performance" is essentially limited to acceleration up to freeway speed and the relatively large Detroit iron does that reasonably well before it drops into overdrive to save fuel.

Attitude: IMHO the US auto industry ought to stop resisting change and start embracing it. Ever since emissions controls arose - even the very simple crankcase vapor capture - the US auto makers have been resistant. Too costly, too complicated, etc. etc. But they've always done it in the end, perhaps not the most efficient way but done it. Now Toyota's Prius is showing Detroit a new path and we're seeing their same begrudging reaction to this new Castor Oil. Oh well, if we MUST!

A historical parallel is the British - French Concorde vs. the 747. Class vs. mass, cutting (or was it bleeding) edge technology vs. proven technology. Passengers loved the Concorde but its economics, age and lack of new SST aircraft finally killed SST service.

Detroit is in business and that, today, means avoiding big risks, keeping the doors open and collecting a paycheck. Given the industry's economics, its breadth and after market infrastructure maintenance and repair skill set I believe Detroit is delivering a good product for the price. Of course auto columnists scribble about cars but they ought to do so with a bit more perspective, IMHO.

Reply to
T.G. Lambach

Odd then that BMW 3 series outsell the Ford Mondeo in the UK and BMW are mass market manufacturers by any measure.

Does that exclude the building of fine cars. You seem to be making excuses for producing crap cars and in so doing are agreeing with Clarkson.

Your idea of European motoring is not accurate. There are big differences between individual Countries but in general multi-car families are normal and huge trafic problems fairly universal in towns if not in the countryside.

What he was implying was that a number of US cars, such as his test car, use truck technology and have truck-like handling.

Same in most of Europe.

- and speed

The same as most of Europe except that speeds are generally about 10mph higher in the 'fast' lanes.

So

So a 'sports car' is really just a truck just tarted up to look sporty. How can anyone buy into such dishonesty without feeling badly cheated?

No doubt most of their product is perfectly good, sometimes very good, witness the Chrysler 300C.

Of course auto columnists scribble about cars but they ought to

Oh but that is exactly what he did. Look at it in perspective. A spots car that is apparently not sporty because it uses ancient technology like a live rear axle in combination with all that torque, which it cannot handle and results in a car that does not handle. To-whit, a 'sports car' that is not.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

Agreed, plus: JC did point out that in the USA motoring was always a democratric, mass activity, whereas in Europe it was a rich person's activity until quite recently. That's not critical of the US industry.

As regards engine efficiency, if the price of fuel were double in the US I am sure the Big Two or Three would introduce better engines. They just have to dip into their European spares boxes...

BTW, I don't think the hybrid is being embraced with enthusiasm by many manufacturers. It is the endorsement by celebrities in the USA and the resulting fashion-fad. Thus if you are a Merc or BMW you worry about market penetration in the US and do what you think is fashionable with customers.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

I suggest a different reason for the failure of Concorde. When developing the aircraft, a target of about 1400/1500 mph was set. Whilst challenging, it was doable based on the existing technology with relatively little development work.

Boeing, not wanting to be left out, started a project to build a rival that was faster, namely 2000 mph. There was no way this was achievable for a private company and Boeing gave up.

The Concorde was launched. The US government forbade supersonic overflight of the Continental US. Other countries followed suit and the rest is history. Practically nowhere to fly, necessarily high prices, no market, no development (which manufacturer will develop a better engine for 14 aircraft?). Kaput. THAT'S what killed the Concorde.

DAS

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

In Europe the 300C will soon have a V6 diesel of course, which will allow about 40mpgUK on average. I predict that it will sell very well. The Chrysler Neon el-cheapo has bombed however.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

Yes of course. US protectionism in action, driven by politics, just as in the present day where four of its biggest airlines are protected from the bankruptcy they should endure. They are trading while insolvent.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

Unfortunately state subsidies are not on one side, and Boeing/US government and Airbus/EU governments play that, too.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Yes but I have a feeling that some Americans are under the impression that they live in a whiter than white free market economy. This is patently not so and the USA is damned clever in protecting its industry to the detriment of other countries. I just focused on the air industry because it was brought up and because it is topical. One can look at steel which leads to the subsidised production of cars if you like or any number of other industries. They are not unique in this of course but they have no moral high ground to stand on.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

Arrogant but correct. Watch the show Top Gear and you'll understand what real driving is about. Most of the episodes are available on Gnutella.

You're posting on a mercedes newsgroup and you're claiming reliability is more important than in Europe?

cp

Reply to
cp

As I remember the Boeing SST had the variable wing design to allow reasonably efficient subsonic flight which would be the mode where supersonic flight was not permitted. This development cost plus extensive utilization of titanium vs aluminum in the air frame drove up the development cost of the aircraft. One of the benefits would be the rollover of newly developed technology to military programs such as the supersonic bomber. I do not recall the extent of the financial support for the development from the U.S. Government, but it was a hot political issue at that time. The storm clouds generated by environmentalists were already forming on the horizon plus several marketing/cost studies indicated that it would be a loser financially during the entire program cycle. As it turned out Politics killed this ambitious R&D program. If my memory serves me correctly the target speed for the Concord as about

1200 mph and the Boeing SST 1800 mph. Peter

challenging,

Reply to
Peter W Peternouschek

Chevy, it made 165 HP with a two barrel carburetor!

That's hilarious, my '66 w110 has a 2L 4cyl engine that produces 105hp

$25,000 for 300bhp is quite impressive

bit more perspective, IMHO.

He was doing a comparison to the reality in the rest of the world.

cp

Reply to
cp

What on earth makes you think celebrities know anything about cars? Most are idiots that can't speak three words of English without using the "F" word. If you spent 15 minutes on a stage lot you'd think they all flunked school and skipped every single grammar class ever offered. BTW this comes from personal experience and a total distain for most actors. You'd enjoy spending time with a very few.....unless, of course, you think like they do.

Reply to
Ernie Sparks

Here in the US they put a PT Cruiser body on the Neon, pumped the price and sold more than anyone ever dreamed. They're sort of cute to look at but I'd never waste my money on one.

>
Reply to
Ernie Sparks

Sort of like a private company going into space. Wait! Burt Ratan did that after he flew non-stop around the world without refueling.

Anyone dumb enough to live where sonic booms were a daily occurence would probably consider living under 750,000-volt electric transport lines.

Perhaps a little like the US space shuttle.

>
Reply to
Ernie Sparks

Anyone claiming morality of any sort exists in Washington at all is living in a fantasy world. IMHO Ronald Reagan (and I interviewed the man myself) was the last really moral individual to occupy the oval office. Judgment hasn't been passed on W yet (by those who really understand the time/history factor) but those in between were sure losers.

Reply to
Ernie Sparks

LOL! Reagan moral!

He killed more innocent people then Bin Ladden (Sp?) can dream of...

Reply to
Martin Joseph

We get the PT Cruiser here in the UK also and it has sold more volume than the Neon. Still very low volume.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.