Try again. It isn't that America doesn't have good engineering, it is that they have terrible and almighty accountants. Car design is not design for function but rather design for assembly. If a process can save a penny a car, they will do it. If that process adds 3 hours to you changing the oil in your driveway, well, too bad. That is the accountants in the Big Three running the show.
You may love the idea of fresh new car designs every 5 years, but the accountants see that as $250 million that won't be recouped for several years.
You scream because they could have used screws for a panel you need access through but instead they used plastic rivets that you can't replace. you cry, but they saved 10 cents a car. Big deal you say, well on a 10 million car run, that saved $1,000,000. When was the last time you saved your company $1,000,000?
Most GM engineers don't like to go backwards in technology. The torque tube connection between the front and the rear goes back a long time. Try the
50s, 40s, and 30s. The same for the transverse front leave spring going back to the Model T. Finally they gave in on Corvette because it was the best idea for the job. GM had a rear transaxle and front engine long ago, like the early 60s Pontiac Tempest. Corvette for 1960 had it in the works, but the 1960 Q-Corvette never surfaced due to the recession in '58.928, the car that had a better Coefficient of Drag going backward than forward. In embarrassment, Porsche hung a rear spoiler on not to improve the forward efficiency, but to destroy the rearward efficiency. Now that is high tech engineering.
And no matter how much you cry about the differences in technology, in the real world, the difference between drivers far exceeds the differences in cars. Learn to drive better and smarter and you'll probably beat the other guy all the time. With the difference in price of the cars, you can buy a lot of track time.