Talks about needing a status symbol, but buys limited edition(and makes a big deal of it) bright orange Challenger. Okay man. Compensating much? Or are you just old and want to relive the old days.
I also find it hilarious how you feel the need to put words in my mouth, you implying the reasons I prefer a european or japanese car. Or that I can’t handle the pure muscle of a modern muscle car.
I don’t want to draw this out any more than I have with this and my past posts so let’s drop it. You guys can go ahead and get the final words in, quick reply is right down there at the bottom.
And after 1000 mile one way trip, on pretty much straight road with not so perfect road surface, and stuck on 65MPH and 3 other people and their road trip equipment in the car. Sure, that Evo/M3 beats it. =)
there isn’t a car that actually “sucks” they just are DIFFERENT
“Muscle cars” 50’s to early 70"s offered better all around performance in their price range How ever fuel consumption was notably worse than anything else in their price range.
Therefore they were rather EQUAL with anything that came out, again in their respected price range. Of course, they couldn’t beat Ferraris, Astons etc. which were 4 times more expensive. how ever they never really competed with those cars. That’s why I had trouble comparing them in the OP.
That thing seemed to go completely unnoticed with almost everyone in the thread.
Then there was late 70’s to 80’s and America didn’t have pretty much anything running for them. at least on performance front. At the time cars were selling with standard equipment more than performance capabilities. And unsurprisingly there isn’t too many cars coming out of America in game from that era, specially as Vector W8 isn’t displayed in the game. Vector W8 was the first real American attempt to compete with cars like Lotus, Ferrari, and Lamborghini.
90’s to 2000 we are starting to see “few glimpses of hope” again. but it took almost 30 years for America to really recover from that oil crisis and new emission regulations of late 70’s All of that really slow’d the actual progress but they have finally caught up the lead of “the rest of the world”
when talking about average consumer market, I’d say this is the classic Rabbit and Turtle race, America being the rabbit here. After WWII america was going off faster, Oil crisis forced america to “take a nap” while turtle passed it, and now america has caught up the turtles lead. although the finishline is still not in sight, so we can only wait and see what happens in the future.
Also in this thread was something else that I’d like to bring up.
On bottom of 1st page, I brought up the list of my most disliked make (Citroen) but I was talking about how Citroen had the most comfortable suspension compared to any car that I have ever driven.
Now that is bit off topic, but still could we think that some things are just Different, Not better, or worse, just different.
After reading this whole thread I feel that I should chime in on an area that hasnt been covered. This is my reason for not liking american cars (not so much referring to muscle cars but they can be included in this category)
America is still stuck in the nature that bigger is better which they are starting to stray away from but I dont think it will ever actually be achieved. Why I say this is, the 2014 Dodge challenger when equipped with its smallest motor a 3.6L V6 makes 305 hp @ 25k-35k . Why is so much waste required to make this hp? For the same price a 2014 WRX sti, 2014 mitsu evo, and golf R all net right around the same hp and better fuel economy, All of which come with about 500 lbs less weight. So power to weight ratio is better, all 4 being awd are likely to have better handeling especially in inclimate weather. They may have a little smaller cargo room etc, but atleast they arent wasting what they do have. American engineering is so behind the times, everyone else is moving forward the us is sticking with what works i guess.
The fact that the us doesnt even have a marketable tdi is beyond me. I know we have this notion here that hybrid is going to save the world but its not. TDI isnt either, but if im going to drive a car for the fuel economy i will take a jetta tdi all day over a prius. It’s a real car not a remote control crap box.
Yeah!!! Reason and logic, now we have something to discuss.
Well considering that over the years every foreign make has made their cars larger to suit American tastes, I’d say that is driven by the market instead of engineering. As I’ve said many times, the US is a BIG country. I’ve personally driven a 1,000 miles in a day, nonstop, which would put me roughly in Italy from the UK. Furthermore gas is cheap and it is easily possible to live in the suburbs as oppose to the city. Why take a smaller car if you can get a larger one for the same price an inconsequential running costs? It’s a personal decision, but the mass aggregate is obvious in the market.
I can never understand the preoccupation with HP/L, especially for a country that doesn’t tax based on engine displacement. Anyway, you listed two perimeters, HP/L (for whatever reason) and price. If the price ceiling is 35K why would you go for the 3.6L engine at $26.5K (base) or $30K (loaded) when you can get the V8 at $30K? Personally I think all the cars mentioned are in completely different classes and not often cross shopped. If I wanted a smaller more full efficient performance car, I’d certainly look at the cars you mentioned (or the American Ford ST). However, none of those cars offer muscle car style, muscle car attitude, muscle car heritage, at any price. And in V8 form, none of them offer the kick in the back torque or sound of muscle car performance.
The Challenger (and Camaro and Mustang) are modified full size cars. The cars you mentioned (WRX, Evo, Golf R) are modified compact cars. It makes sense that cars in two different size classes are, um, two different sizes. The question of whether you need the size is of course different, but that depends on buyer preference. That being said American full size cars are roughly the same weight as their European and Japanese counterparts. I don’t know why just American cars are singled out as being heavy. Once again I don’t see the point of HP/L in the argument.
The Cruze turbo diesel cost roughly the same as the Golf TDi (or whatever it competes with) and gets better highway mileage. In any case, diesel cars aren’t popular in the US (outside of trucks) for a number of reasons.
I understand what you are saying, and it was hard to come up with comparables in class, so i was just coming up with comparables in hp. What I was arguing is why it takes chevy ford engineers these huge engines (often not fuel efficient) to get the same power that most of these european/jap cars are getting with an engine 2/3 to 1/2 the size.
To get a more accurate class to class comparison, the 2014 bmw m3 is getting about 430 hp from its 6 cylinder engine, whereas it is taking the 2014 Stingray 8 cylinders to get 450 hp… their is no efficiency in the american designs that is my issue with them. Not to mention the m3 still has a rear seat, and both have a pricetag of about 60k and both cars weigh about the same thing. M3 boasts a 27mpg epa average whereas the corvette is at 21. Just doesnt seem right that we cant get these cars to make more power commonly and be more efficient at the same time.
There is also comfort factor involved. TDi, most 2.Xl - 3l engines makes barely 20-80lb-ft on 1000rpm, while US style V8 makes 100-200 lb-ft Of course soon as the euro & asian engine get’s the turbos spooling ~1300-1800rpm they gain that “lost” power and torque.
Well it’s true that moving car does need only 20-60 hp to keep the speed up (assuming we have speed limit of 30-70mph) and euro & asian style small displacement turbo engines save a lot of fuel here, No boost, so not much fuel consumption. While American V8 makes constantly 100+hp of excess power.
Let’s not bring any makes up here, but few years ago, one van make was “blacklisted” by almost every delivery company in the country I live in. Not because it would have been “bad” on fuel economy, but because it proved to be unreliable in long run specially the smaller engine models. Broken engines and broken transmissions, and the reason was assumed to be because it was very fuel efficient,
In fact it was so fuel efficent that the small engines couldn’t take the beating when the van was loaded up, and gearing was lo long, that the engine was practicly idling on highway speeds.
Those vans which were often on the highway, and therefore running on high gear, practicly taking everything out of this nearly idling engines started to brake down quite often.
I must agree. To put things in perspective, I can shift my C5 corvette into 4th gear at about 15 mph without lugging the engine (in fact the car tries to automatically make you take that gear), accelerate to the end of the gear, which is 130 mph, and then slow down to 70 mph, shift into 6th gear and make 28mpg. There are merits to a big cube V8 in the real world that aren’t apparent with HP/L. The sporting fun in “effortless” acceleration can be just as fun if not more so than a high reving screamer.
…Well that’s not exactly true. Thermodynamics is thermodynamics. If the car was making 100hp more the car would accelerate. The throttle limits how much hp (really torque) is made at any given time. So both cars are making the same hp to maintain a given speed assuming all else is equal. If car A makes 100 hp more than car B, car A suffers more pumping losses due to the throttle being more closed for the given hp. A high displacement motor can get some of those pumping losses back (stated simply) by using longer gearing, which makes the throttle more open for a given speed due to greater engine load. So an old four speed muscle car was rpm limited to about 130 mph for maximum acceleration, like my corvette in 4th gear. But the six speed in the corvette has two overdrives for fuel efficiency. So you get the old style acceleration of a four speed with the ability to lope along at highway speed for good fuel efficiency and less noise. Modern vettes now have three overdrives added onto the same acceleration optimised four speed ratios, for the same or better fuel economy despite having 100 more horsepower.
Umm, the V8 pony cars get EPA gas milage comparable to or better than a WRX STI despite having in some cases more than a 100 more hp and several hundred more pounds of weight to lug around.
I wouldn’t really call a M3 in the same peformance class as a Vette, but let’s play. GM directly compared the LT1 to BMW’s 4.4L twin turbo V8 (yes I know you mentioned the V6). The LT1 is physically smaller than that engine and is lighter by 40 lbs while making more power and better gas milage (as installed in a corvette). Once again, I don’t see why HP/L is so often citied as a performance metric. The LS7 was converted to an aircraft engine where power to weight ratio is the prime performance metric (as it is in cars without government intervention). I know of no case where that happened with european or japanese automotive engines (expect maybe in old Mooney Bravos from Porsche). The efficiency in american engines is in packaging, cost, power, weight, and fuel economy (generally speaking). To date, no one, anywhere, offers a over 350hp (LS1 territory from 1997) V8 performance car from $30-50K other than american car manufactures. No one.
And to put this further into perspective let’s compare the Corvette (which you mentioned) to the Jaguar F-Type (it’s most similar in physical atributes)
The corvette is about an inch longer, has a longer wheel base, is about two inches narrower, and has a bigger trunk with the same number of seats. To get a price competitive F-Type it will cost you about $66K verse about $55K for the Vette. For this you get a V6 engine that has 340hp verse 450hp for the Vette. The Vette gets roughly the same EPA milage as the V6 on the highway (28 vs 29 with the Vette being higher) and slightly worse milage in the city (17 vs 20 with the Vette being lower). The Vette is also roughly 100 lbs lighter than the Jag. To get a performance comparable F-Type you have to step up to the near $100K Supercharged V8 version. You get 550hp from the Jag verse 450hp from the Vette. However, the Jag is now about 200 lbs heavier than the Vette and gets drastically worse highway fuel economy (17/29 vs 16/23). The Jag will walk away from a Vette in a straight line, but is slower everywhere else in any version. The upcoming Z06 will humilate the Supercharged V8 F-Type in every performance metric if it perfroms at least as well as the outgoing ZR1 while costing about the same and returning slightly worse fuel economy (14/21 vs 16/23).
Once again I don’t really see the point in HP/L when almost every other measure of efficiency (most especially the pocket book) is quite a bit worse.
Well again we are straying away from the subject, and even getting personal…
And what was my point?
no matter the origin country, or being from some exact make does not make the car bad.
Let’s face it.
I have driven old muscle cars on highways and in citys, even on the track. and I have had fun, although parking space was pretty hard to come by in city.
I have driven european and japanese compact cars, on highways and on citys, and on track had fun. Althuogh that high pitch engine screaming on highway was annoying.
I’ve driven rather high class european cars (BMW 750 / Mercedes E class) on highways, and in citys they were quite boring, but then again I can see why someone likes them.
I’ve driven Exotics (Ferrari / lotus / Lamborghini) on higways and in city. I hated them but I can see why someone likes them.
Therefore NONE of the cars I have driven have been ultimately bad, and therefore none of them “suck”. Although I have to admit there is just too many cars for me to try out.
Indeed, I’ll get back to that later today when I have time. But I think your point has been well received by all, which seems to be (in summary), “All cars are bad, all cars are good, it’s just a matter of context.” I don’t really see what else need be said on that point.
I think it’s about time we let this stay on topic. Also, there seems to be a few just trolling the thread. If you don’t have something constructive to add then just move on. I would really hate to lock this and issues a few bans.
On these forum I often end up in the position of defending American cars, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t be critical of them at the same time. And since a discussion where “everything is good, everything is bad, it’s all relative” is a bit boring to me, let me list some ways I think American performance cars (in mass aggregate) are deficient as compared to their European or Japanese counterparts.
Chassis Rigidity: Stated VERY simply the best general setup for a performance car is a very stiff chassis complemented by a relatively soft suspension for a good ride. The average American performance car (American’s aren’t the only one who do this) had/has a relatively loose chassis with a very hard suspension to keep the tires pointing in the desired direction for handling. It doesn’t help that their is about a 4% weight to rigidity penalty inherent in a front engine rear drive car verse a mid or rear engine car (the drive shaft compromises the structure). Nevertheless, the hard suspension loose chassis accounts in large part for most of the complaints regarding the refinement in American performance cars.
A good example is the 3rd gen Camaro Z28 and the C4 Corvette Z51. They were some of the best handling cars of their day, however, they rode horribly (relatively speaking). Furthermore, the hard suspension makes the car only handle well on smooth roads/racetracks and more easy to spin as there is not as much feedback as to the grip limits of the tires (the car handles well until it doesn’t).
Dampers: The issue of damping is somewhat related to chassis rigidity. Forza actually does a pretty good job showing the underdamped nature (body roll, pitch, heave) of most American performance cars. What Forza doesn’t cover is the ability to have different valving for bumps and body control (at least for more expensive shocks). This is less of an issue with the latest mag ride shocks, but average American cars met bumps harshly and controlled body motions poorly giving the feeling that the car was again unrefined and nervous when encountering mid-corner bumps.
Aerodynamics: The first GM production car to produce measurable downforce front and rear was the 2012 Camaro ZL1! There is an ascetic aspect to this as well. The Ferrari 355 used underbody aero to produce downforce and looks like this:
The upcoming ZO6, however, has to look like this to produce aero:
I’m not trying to say that the ZO6 is an ugly car, but I will say that other manufacturers have been far better at adding aero pieces that are a cohesive part of the design.
Heritage: This is a double edged sword. The Mustang will always enjoy some level of sales success (even if it is not sustainable for the car) just because it is a Mustang. It will, however, lose sales to some competitor because it is a Mustang. The Mustang, and others, will always be what they are and can not effectively change without giving up or risking their market share. Corvette, or Viper for that matter, can’t slot in a Boxster or Cayman equivalent car below them or a 918 above them like Porsche can. The Corvette, for instance, rules its market but can’t effectively go upmarket t compete there or down market and stay what makes a corvette a corvette. This extends also to styling. The retro styling of the pony cars, though I like it, hampers further evolution of the design language without wholesale giving up said design language (corvette tail lights are a good example of this). The latest Viper looks very similar to the old Viper GTS of the 90’s. What is the next Viper supposed to look like? High class watches and clothes don’t change for market specific reasons. The 911 doesn’t really change as that is the 911 “shape.” But for cars born when their manufactures made yearly styling updates, American performance cars are expected to change.
