European v US automobile technology

Never mind the brands, comment on the priciple:

formatting link
What do you guys think?

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 ...

-----------

The Solstice is a sports car?

The author is too hung up on badges. If the Solstice is technically a "sports car", then maybe it has been 50 years since a US car company has come up with a new badge to slap on a "sports car". But that's wrong. The Viper came out in what - 1992? That's not 50 years ago. Is the Crossfire a "sports car" ? That's not 50 years ago.

Again, UK auto journalists let truth and accuracy give way to exageration and embellishment.

"Zesty" RWD convertible? Chrysler used to make that - try a 1970 'Cuda.

Who does he think will buy a bathtub on wheels?

Get over it buddy - that's exactly what it is.

Ok, acceleration.

What's a horse box?

Ok, acceleration.

Is this guy on drugs? He just said that US/Europe talks about the same thing (acceleration/hp/torque) while trying to make it seem that US/Europe talks about different things.

Irrelvant side-track here. Anyone and everyone is outsourcing major chasis components. You want to talk about handling and grip, then it comes down to tires - and OEM tires will not be the sticky ones that cost $200 each or over-sized cross-drilled rotors.

What decade is this guy living in?

Win on Sunday, sell on Monday is long gone in the US.

Which crowd is he writing to?

Sucks to be a Brit living in Britain then eh?

Then go back to your bathtubs on wheels with paper-thin sheet metal.

As much as we'd like to, it's very rare to be able to unwind on an empty, curvy, 2-lane road on your commute to work. His opinions and evaluations are hardly useful for the typical car buyer. A 4.6L Mustbang is more than enough car for most people.

Most people I know in their (late) 30's are too busy choosing which minivan they're going to buy. They already own 1 or 2 Nissan's or Maxima's or Honda's or VW's. Oh well, no accounting for taste.

Reply to
MoPar Man

Keep the comments coming...

BTW, a horsebox is a tariler in which one carries a horse.

Handling is not just a function of tyres. How about suspension? Rear-axle design?

Do you not think a BMW or Merc two-seater qualifies as "zesty"?

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Uh, no. Torque is not the same as acceleration.

acceleration is fairly closely linked to HP, but torque is different.

Max torque usually occurs at much lower revs than the revs at which peak power occurs, so by measuring max torque you are not measuring maximum power. (if all engines had flat torque curves, then power and torque would be linked VERY closely, but they don't). It is quite possible to take two engines (of similar displacement) and find that one produces the highest torque and the other produces the highest peak power. The one that produces the higest torque will produce more power than the other at lower engine speeds and thus will probably make the vehicle in which it is installed easier to drive and better suited to pulling large loads. Engines that are optimised for the maximum power usually produce that peak power at higher engine speeds and thus take more effort (at least in a stick shift) to use that power.

Secondly, acceleration is a function of many things, not just torque: the 2 major items being power and WEIGHT.

Reply to
Whoever

One of the best handling "American" Sports sedans is the very european Ford Contour / Mercury Mystique (aka Mondeo) built for 5 short years in both Kansas and Mexico for the north American market. With the (Cosworth head equipped Porsche derived) 2.5 Liter V6 pumping 170+HP it is"zesty" too. Too bad it's not RWD ---.

Reply to
nospam.clare.nce

And power has 2 components - RPM and Torque. You FEEL the torque. You HEAR the RPM. Without torque, the RPM cannot exist - and the more torque you have for a given weight, the quicker the RPM will climb - which IS accelleration.

All else being the same, more torque = more accelleration.

Reply to
nospam.clare.nce

So, according to you, I can get quicker accelleration by staying in higher gear, which I may get more torque, than by changing down to a lower gear, where I can increase the engine revs to get more power out of the engine and a better gear ratio (better in this case meaning more engine revolutions per mile)?

Yes, but "all else" is not equal. Weight (mass reallly), engine speed, power curve, transmission efficiency, gearing ratio, all have a significant effects.

Reply to
Whoever

So what you are saying is that one of the best "American" sports cars is in fact a European designed car, with a European designed engine?

Reply to
Whoever

IOW, its simple, reliable, powerful, efficient, and doesn't sound and feel like a weed-whacker when you need to merge into traffic.

If Europeans really use 300+ horsepower juicers, I'll eat my computer. Patently stupid statement.

Beautiful, isn't it? Unlike the Jaguar (and unfortunately unlike the new Charger and Magnum), it'll actually launch HARD and in a straight line without wheel-hopping your fillings out. Yeah a solid axle gives up a

*little* on cornering on rough surfaces, but actually gains in cornering on smooth roads (better roll center, less demand on a stablilizer bar). never needs alignment or camber adjustments either.

This guy needs to get a grip on the difference between "engineering a car to perform a task" and "engineering for engineerings sake," which is also called "dog-lick engineering" and is what European carmakers are increasingly good(?) at. Just ask BMW owners how they like that "one knob does everything" control... :-p

Reply to
Steve

Uh, yes.

Torque pretty much IS the same as acceleration. Remember "F=MA" from physics? Rearrange the equation to solve for acceleration: Acceleration=(Force applied)/(Mass to be accelerated). Torque IS the (Force applied) term when multiplied by gear ratio and divided by tire radius and various other constants (none more complicated than "pi"). So acceleration is DIRECTLY proportional to torque.

Reply to
Steve

Yes, but that is force AT THE WHEELS -- not at the output of the engine. Also you correctly point out that MASS is a major factor.

Torque is only proportional to accelleration if the gear ratio remains constant. My cars have transmissions that change the gear ratios. The engines in my cars don't have perfectly flat torque curves. I don't know about your cars though.

Tell me, if you are give the max torque number for a car, can you tell me the 0-60 time that car will achieve? It could be hugely different depending on the mass of the car, the power/torque curves, tranmission, etc. Torque does NOT measure accelleration.

Reply to
Whoever

Let me say it again: the force AT THE WHEELS is exactly proportional to the force AT THE ENGINE, so for all intents and purposes torque=acceleration.

But you can't change the mass of a car a great deal. Sure, you can completely change CLASS of car and get a Miata instead of a Mustang, but I don't think that was the point of the point. The point was to deflate some blow-hard weed-whacker driver who thinks that 200 HP from 1.8 liters at 8000 RPM or with twin turbos is somehow "technologically superior" to 300 HP from 4.6 liters at 5000 RPM.

Duh. Again, ALL cars have transmissions, but the more torque the engine produces the better.

But the 4.6L v8 has a HELL of a lot flatter torque curve than some twin-turboed 2-liter class engine that the writer seems to think is so "superior" to a simple v8.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point.

But we're not comparing different cars. We're talking about whether the "American engineering style" car with a big simple v8 accelerates better than the sime size car with "Eurpoean style" engineering (allegedly according to the writer- Mercedes makes some NICE big v8s!) and a small-displacement "high tech" engine.

Reply to
Steve

It might be all the things you say, but it's not EFFICIENT, or at least not as efficient, in terms of bang for the buck (KW/l)

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

I disagree... where can you get ANY other car with a Mustang GT's performance at that price? Since there's no longer a Camaro/Firebird and the Corvette is now up close to Viper prices, the answer is "nowhere."

Any BMW or Mercedes that can keep up with the Mustang will cost a whole lot more than it does.

Reply to
Steve

It is only proportional if you have one gear. As soon as you change gear the ratio changes. Also, your claim of "exactly proportional" is untrue even if you only consider one gear because it ignores the effects of power loss in the transmission.

Completely missing the point. The claim of the OP was that torque = accelleration when comparing different cars. This is clearly wrong, since one must consider gearing, mass, etc. when comparing different cars. It's quite possible that a lightweight car with a 1.8L, 200 HP engine could out-accellerate a heavy car with a 4.6L/300HP engine. That's why torque does not equal accelleration.

All other things equal, yes. But that's not the point. All other factors are not equal.

No. You are missing the point. The original poster said that torque = accelleration. Clearly more torque is generally better, but a lighweight, car may be able to out-accellerate a heavier car which has an engine with a higher torque rating. That's why torque does not equal accelleration: IT'S ONLY ONE FACTOR OUT OF MANY.

Ah, but that is your mistake: who said we are talking about the same size car? Or more to the point, the same weight car?

Anyway, as I was explaining, the major factors are the usable power at the wheels and the weight of the car. An engine with a higher peak torque may put out less power, because the smaller, higher power engine puts out more torque when both engines are running at their peak power speed (and each engine will have a different speed for peak power). Of course, the smaller, higher-revving engine will require a transmission with different ratios in order to make use of that power. These are all factors that affect accelleration.

>
Reply to
Whoever

No, you will have less torque at the rear wheels in a higher gear. A gearbox multiplies torque, but power is unchanged at a given RPM. Acceleration is largely a function of torque as was stated. Top speed is a function of horsepower.

But all of these, except weight, are taken into account when the torque at the drive wheels is measured. And torque at the drive wheels is what provides acceleration.

Matt

Reply to
Matt Whiting

Yes, and force at the wheels comes from torque at the drive axle which comes from torque out of the engine. Simple.

Torque is proportional to acceleration in any gear. More torque = more acceleration no matter what gear you are in. You multiple torque at the gears with ratios greater (numerically) than 1:1 which is why the lower gears (higher numerically) provide greater acceleration. They multiply the engine torque more. Acceleration is less in higher gears because there is less torque multiplication. There are other factors such as wind drag which increases rapidly with speed, but the proportionality still holds.

Nobody said torque was a measure of acceleration. Everybody said that acceleration was proportional to torque.

Matt

Reply to
Matt Whiting

Bang for the buck doesn't have units of kW/l, it has units of kW/$ or hp/$!!! In that regard, most American engine designs are well ahead of many European designs.

Matt

Reply to
Matt Whiting

It is still proportionality, it is just that there is now a different constant of proportionality. I think I now see the problem. You don't know what proportional means.

Matt

Reply to
Matt Whiting

Uh, no. I think you need to go back and read the original postings. Someone posted that discussing accelleration was the same as discussing torque -- in the context of comparing cars.

Reply to
Whoever

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.