U.S. Decent Cars, Why Not?

Off Topic
41

[quote]miniross wrote:
However, to say smaller capacity engines run out faster, honda nd the V tec engine has never had a failiure of its technology, in cars at least.[/quote]

Well, I was specifically talking about auto(matic) transmissions, not engines. But yes, Japanese manufacturers have been able to build auto transmissions that deal well with high-revving engines. Having said that, I do not like VTEC engines – I don’t find them flexible enough to put up with both daily driving and spirited driving.

[quote]miniross wrote:
Ironically, Jaguar (not as you say jagwar!) Makes cars aimed at the US market, but has the poise and refinment that europeans expect.
[/quote]

Unfortunately it’s not going to well for them. Basically they’re not powerful enough for American drivers and not sophisticated enough for European ones. Volvo has done a much better job at it (since they were bought also by Ford), actually – Volvos are pretty fast cars and have the refinement and the on-board electronics to keep everybody happy.

[quote]miniross wrote:
Also, FWD, depends on the car. There are many FWD cars that drive like RWD in handling, no torque steer and neutral cassis dynamics, as the need to make them better has been demanded.[/quote]

That may be true for cars under a certain weight and torque (typical of 4-cilinder-engine cars) but for modern V6 engines and above, I have yet to drive a FWD that does not have torque steering problems.

The best sports cars have RWD for a reason.

42

At 2900 pounds that “lightweight” corvette is still a pig.

A Dax Rush with a turbocharged Hayabusa motor putting out 350 horse power and weighing 1000 pounds will eat it for lunch check out this video of it at the nurburgring

http://www505.catsanddogs.com/Dax/mov/nurburgring.wmv

Then these’s the Radical SR8 which shattered the nurburgring record in street trim, the first time it went there. This car uses a 2.6 liter V8 version of the Suzuki Hayabusa motor.

The Brits are proof that it takes more than great engineers to have a successful auto industry. It takes management with vision and above all else passion.

American cars have a certain cheapness about them and a lack of attention to detail. Look at the door hinges on an American car and you’ll see cheap stampings. Look at the door hinges on a mercedes and you’ll see a work of art that was machined out of a solid block of steel.

BMW’s certainly have a bad relationship with electronics. Of all the cars I have driven Bimmers have the most frustrating electronics. They do things I don’t want them to do, when I need them to do something else and there is no way to override them.

The number one worst idea ever is automatic mirrors that immediately rotate so that all you can see is the ground when you put the car in reverse. Try manuvering in a parking structure in a BMW, it is nerve wracking thanks to those god damn mirrors. An $80,000 car and they can’t put in a $10 button to tell the car “I want to see what is behind me when I am backing up”.

The number one greatest invention ever for cars will be a universal override that allows the driver to turn off the automation he doesn’t like.

43

[quote]miniross wrote:

The m5 has 390 ftlb of torque, so no slouch, and you are right, it would be at the extreme end of its performance, but is wayyy lighter, and would handle better. and seats 5 people, and will do over 200 mph if de restricted.

[/quote]

some how i really doubt your factory bmw will come close to 200 mph. without the programming. there are very few cars that will pull those numbers. althought the viper IS one of them.

44

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Building cars to drive well in gridlock is the tail wagging the dog.

Time to start taking the bus. Unfortunately no one wants to do this.[/quote]

We’ve had that discussion before…

It’s a catch-22. Personally, I would love to be able to catch a bus or a train to Stanford every day. But every time a measure comes up to invest some serious tax money in a public transit system over here in the Peninsula, it is flunked come Election Day. The result? If I took public transit, it would take me 2 hours minimum to get to Stanford (it’s 20 miles from where I live). That’s because I’d have to take one bus, one light rail, one train and then another bus. Driving, even in rush hour, takes me about 45 minutes. That’s 2.5 hours I save every day for driving vs public transit.

Honestly, the only way, over here in the Bay Area, that public transit could become feasible would be with a massive investment on both subway systems and urban planning – the latter including tearing down many business and residential areas and replacing them taking into account public transit.

Eventually, we might have no other choice. But as long as there’s a choice, people will choose the short-term solution…

45

Ahhhh, subjects near and dear to my heart.

I read a really interesting article in the WSJ recently about how much of the problem with the American car companies (they were singling out GM in particular, though) is that they have antiquated, slow-moving, change-resistant management structures. The unions definately do play a significant role in worsening things further still, but together these make it veeeeery hard for them to change and improve and streamline their manufacturing process so as to equal the effective procedures being implemented by, say, Honda and Toyota in their plants in the U.S.

Beyond just that, though, what seems to be a HUGE factor that everyone wants to overlook, is DESIGN. A large proportion of American cars just SUCK as far as inspiring any kind of interest or passion in a potential buyer, AND are not as comfortable, well-appointed or well-thought-out ergonomically. Until Detroit really – REALLY – tries to better the Camry and the Accord, they’re going to stay on their one-way road to nowhere. They don’t even try. I don’t get it! For HOW many years now have the Camry and Accord been trading places as the best-selling car in the U.S.? Somewhere on the order of 15 years, I believe. For that same period of time, one of those two has won every single comparison test in that (mid-priced sedan) category in every U.S. car magazine, period. The competing U.S. options – Taurus/Ford 500, Chevy Malibu, Pontiac whatever – do not offer (a.) as much visual appeal (I know, that’s subjective), (b.) nearly the ride quality, (c.) NEARLY the feeling of interior quality/comfort/well-engineered interior or (d.) the absolutely bulletproof quality of Toyotas and Hondas.

Nevermind the long-term quality issues for a sec, why do you think rental car fleets are filled with these boring Big 3 sedans? Because not many consumers want to buy them. And if you’re a Camry owner, say, and you’re traveling and have to rent a car for a weekend and end up with a Maliub or a Taurus, you get in it and say to yourself, “This sucks!” Why is that?! It’s supposed to be a comparable level of car! Oh, and as I mentioned, Toyotas and Hondas are practically bulletproof on every level. My parents had a '93 Camry that they got rid of about a year ago. The one and only problem it ever had, over it’s life of 218,000 miles (!) was that the antenna once stopped going up and down when the radio was turned on, so that had to be fixed. That’s IT!

I have a feeling the reason that Detroit doesn’t put out any modern, super-refined, high-revving engines is that it’s just much cheaper to keep tweaking the decades-old Corvette/Cadillac pushrod V8, for example, than to start from scratch and create a BMW 5-series-type engine. It’s a damn shame, though.

If Detroit doesn’t start competing in this segment, the bread-and-butter of the car-buying industry, it can kiss its ass goodbye.

46

Here’s a thought for those of you referencing the BMW V10:

500 HP SAE @ 7,750 rpm
384 ft lb @ 6,100 rpm

Redline: 8000 rpm

EPA fuel estimates: 12/18 mpg
Weight: 240 kg (529 lbs)

Now here’s the Corvette Z06 engine:

505 HP SAE @ 6300 rpm
470 ft lb @ 4800 rpm

Redline: 7000 rpm

EPA fuel estimates: 16/26 mpg
Weight: 208 kg (458 lbs)

And one more thing… the 'Vette engine is physically smaller than the BMW.

So, let’s sum. More power. More torque. Better fuel economy. Sustantially less weight. Smaller dimensions. All this, from GM.

Somehow that BMW engineering doesn’t look quite so impressive anymore, does it?

DI

47

[quote]alkamite wrote:
miniross wrote:
Yes, that is true. I guess its the cost. Teams of people design and build these things, and that takes time. Take the audi gmbh division, the equivilent of M for BMW. They have only just now got what is a trult excellent car, the S4. It has taken time for them to understand and work out what they need to. BMW has had M for years, and as such, a greater depth of knowledge is there.

Audi has been making S# cars for years. The first S4 was introduced in 1991. BMW introduced the first M5 in 1984. So they aren’t that far off. Unless i misunderstood and you’re saying the newest S4 is a truly excellent car. Also, it’s nurburgring not nuremberg ring.

But anyway, I’m of the opinion that education doesn’t make great engineers (just like guitar lessons don’t make you a great guitar player), it only gives you a base on which to build your own expertise. You either have it or you don’t, and no amount of degrees will give you that one world changing idea. There’s no way you can learn everything there is to know about something in 4 years of college so it is up to the engineer to keep learning and doing. Experience is what truly matters.[/quote]

Yes, sorry about the SP.

The new s is meant to be excellent, but does cost more than an M3, and has “keep fit” windows in the back. Why not electric ones, i have no idea.

But it has taken that long to get it right, where M cars have been consistently excellent.

48

[quote]mazilla wrote:
miniross wrote:

The m5 has 390 ftlb of torque, so no slouch, and you are right, it would be at the extreme end of its performance, but is wayyy lighter, and would handle better. and seats 5 people, and will do over 200 mph if de restricted.

some how i really doubt your factory bmw will come close to 200 mph. without the programming. there are very few cars that will pull those numbers. althought the viper IS one of them.[/quote]

No, it really will. Take the de restrictor off and away it goes.

Also, driving the viper at those speeds would be scary. That chassis surely cant be that stable at those high speeds.

49

[quote]mazilla wrote:
miniross wrote:

The m5 has 390 ftlb of torque, so no slouch, and you are right, it would be at the extreme end of its performance, but is wayyy lighter, and would handle better. and seats 5 people, and will do over 200 mph if de restricted.

some how i really doubt your factory bmw will come close to 200 mph. without the programming. there are very few cars that will pull those numbers. althought the viper IS one of them.[/quote]

Also, a 0 60 time of 4.7 for suc a big car. Awesome. And you can get 5 people in it. 5!

And your golf clubs.

Al that for ?60k.

50

Actually, depending on where you read it, it will say anything from 180 to 202 mph, derestricted.

51

[quote]KnightRT wrote:
Here’s a thought for those of you referencing the BMW V10:

500 HP SAE @ 7,750 rpm
384 ft lb @ 6,100 rpm

Redline: 8000 rpm

EPA fuel estimates: 12/18 mpg
Weight: 240 kg (529 lbs)

Now here’s the Corvette Z06 engine:

505 HP SAE @ 6300 rpm
470 ft lb @ 4800 rpm

Redline: 7000 rpm

EPA fuel estimates: 16/26 mpg
Weight: 208 kg (458 lbs)

And one more thing… the 'Vette engine is physically smaller than the BMW.

So, let’s sum. More power. More torque. Better fuel economy. Sustantially less weight. Smaller dimensions. All this, from GM.

Somehow that BMW engineering doesn’t look quite so impressive anymore, does it?

DI[/quote]

interesting

52

[quote]hspder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Building cars to drive well in gridlock is the tail wagging the dog.

Time to start taking the bus. Unfortunately no one wants to do this.

We’ve had that discussion before…

It’s a catch-22. Personally, I would love to be able to catch a bus or a train to Stanford every day. But every time a measure comes up to invest some serious tax money in a public transit system over here in the Peninsula, it is flunked come Election Day. The result? If I took public transit, it would take me 2 hours minimum to get to Stanford (it’s 20 miles from where I live). That’s because I’d have to take one bus, one light rail, one train and then another bus. Driving, even in rush hour, takes me about 45 minutes. That’s 2.5 hours I save every day for driving vs public transit.

Honestly, the only way, over here in the Bay Area, that public transit could become feasible would be with a massive investment on both subway systems and urban planning – the latter including tearing down many business and residential areas and replacing them taking into account public transit.

Eventually, we might have no other choice. But as long as there’s a choice, people will choose the short-term solution…
[/quote]

We are hurting ourselves with our refusal to spend wisely on infrastructure.

I am not sure what the solution is. I know the bridge in Alaska is not the way to do it and I think the Big Dig in Boston was a huge mistake too.

You should live on campus anyway.

53

Vtec engines have greater flexibility than non Vtec. Vtec is a variable lift cam. Vtec allows an engine to have the equivalent of a high lift race cam that would be unusable for everyday use. iVtec takes it even one step further with computer controlled variable cam timing.

The Arial Atom that ran 0-100-0 in 10.88 uses a Vtec.
Ariel Atom review | Autocar

http://www.openwheelers.com.au/videos/Top_Gear_Ariel_Atom_2_Full_segment.mpg

Claims of 200 mph top end are very rarely proven in real life. There is an exponential formula that states: For every ten miles per hour in top speed increase it takes twice as much horse power as the last ten miles per hour increase.

So if you have a 400 hp car that does 170 and boost it to 500 hp and you can do 180 it’ll take 700 hp to do 190 and 1100 to do 200.

The M5 might do 180 but not 200. Very few cars will do over 180 and to get from there to 190 takes considerable investment.

54

[quote]miniross wrote:
GhostOfYourMind wrote:
miniross wrote:
Getting away from the efficiency issues, what happens when an american car firm gets hold of a 8 litre v10…450 sluggush horsepower and poor refinement.

German engineers get 5 litres and a V10, and they get 500 HP and it screams up to 8000.

There seems to be a discrepancy with not only the amount of hoarses/litre, but the way in which it delivers those horses, and thats noy going over to ride refimnet and handling.

I know the needs of road users (different roads etc) in the US are different, but is that an excuse? Could an american car firm ever produce an M3 or M5 type car?

I think the roads DO make a difference in what kind of engine is in a car, and how it handles, etc. If your only concern is drag racing, you need torque! Drag racing is about being the quickest, not the fastest. In Europe, there’s probably more popularity with road racing/circuits, which is totally different from drag racing.

BTW, were you referring to the Viper’s 8.0 liter V10 (510 horsepower for the most recent vipers I think, not 450) and the BMW’s 5.0 liter V10? I think the Bimmer’s V10 gets 18MPG on highway…which isn’t exactly “fuel efficient”. The viper is probably worse, but not by a whole lot when you consider 510 horsepower.

Lastly, as a “rebuttal” about technology in each respective engine; the BMW engine probably costs much more than the Viper engine, and the Viper engine most likely has PLENTY of room left for development (more potential for refinement). The BMW engine probably doesn’t have as much room left for improvement. Eventually, they’ll have to up the displacement, or pour more technology into the engine, which means MORE money.

Just my two cents though.

The m5 has 390 ftlb of torque, so no slouch, and you are right, it would be at the extreme end of its performance, but is wayyy lighter, and would handle better. and seats 5 people, and will do over 200 mph if de restricted.

Also, have you heard of a turbo!

And thats my point. there is no need for a big heavy engine with massive displacment for power. It smacks of laziness and lack of creativity. Now the viper is great, but you could probably pull near to those figures reliably with a small block and smaller displanmect. Christ, do what AMG do and bolt a supercharger on.[/quote]

By that same token, using a turbo on a Viper can up the HP to over a 1000 (Like the Hennessys). Viper V10s have 525lb/ft of torque as well. In a 3300 lb. car, that’s pretty fast (compared to the M5, weighing about 4000 lbs. with much less torque). I’m sure a viper could hit 200 as well, especially if it’s a GTS ACR hard top.

This is becoming apples to oranges though. European cars are designed for a completely different driving style and environment than american cars are.

55

[quote]miniross wrote:
GhostOfYourMind wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
GhostOfYourMind wrote:

Also, ever heard of a “Blue Devil”? C6 Corvette putting out 600+hp and weighing 2900 lbs. It can hang with the best of them on a road track (they even tested it on a German road course, I can dig it up if you would like:)), and is no slouch at all.

I’m pretty sure road and track or car and driver or autoweek or one of those magazines and they said it was the fastest street car they’ve ever driven.

One of those, yeah. Thanks. 2900 lbs. with 600+ horsies frollicking under the hood is bound to be pretty bitchin’…:smiley: Wonder what insurance is on it? Ouch! Haha!

that is a heavy car really. Better very light and smaller engine for drivability (lotus etc), the new one is less than 1000 kilos, and has 240 hp through a supercharded 2 litre engine, so plenty of torque.[/quote]

By your standards it’s heavy, but by U.S. standards, that’s light!:smiley:

Plus the Lotus Elise that gets released to the states is different from the one released in Europe I think (The Elise here is 2200lbs. and has 187 horsepower N/A).

I dunno if I said it before, but, drivability is less of an issue here IMO than in Europe. I’d rather have a car that can do 10 seconds in the quarter mile than turn fast lap times. Why? Because it’s easier to race light to light than to go around twisties (especially where I live. It’s flat, and straight [South Florida])

56

[quote]KnightRT wrote:
Here’s a thought for those of you referencing the BMW V10:

500 HP SAE @ 7,750 rpm
384 ft lb @ 6,100 rpm

Redline: 8000 rpm

EPA fuel estimates: 12/18 mpg
Weight: 240 kg (529 lbs)

Now here’s the Corvette Z06 engine:

505 HP SAE @ 6300 rpm
470 ft lb @ 4800 rpm

Redline: 7000 rpm

EPA fuel estimates: 16/26 mpg
Weight: 208 kg (458 lbs)

And one more thing… the 'Vette engine is physically smaller than the BMW.

So, let’s sum. More power. More torque. Better fuel economy. Sustantially less weight. Smaller dimensions. All this, from GM.

Somehow that BMW engineering doesn’t look quite so impressive anymore, does it?

DI[/quote]

Good point! I’d also like to point out where each motor makes its peak HP and peak torque.

57

[quote]hspder wrote:
5. I swear I will shoot in the face the next guy that comes up with the “union vs non-union” argument; the factory workers have nothing to do with the way the product is Engineered. They just put it together. The problem with Ford and GM is bad design, not bad factory workers.
[/quote]

Are you even allowed to own guns in your part of Kalifornia?

Let’s see, education in the south is constantly ranked (albeit by usual crap statistics) far below you “cultured” folk, so knowing 7th grade math obviously isn’t the differentiator.

I never realized that American car companies only hire third tier university engineering grads, and the Japanese have a lock on the top 10% of engineering grads.

Yeah, you’re right, the non-unionized employers can afford to hire great engineers because they’re not spending $80k on floor sweepers with seniority.

58

[quote]KnightRT wrote:
Here’s a thought for those of you referencing the BMW V10:

500 HP SAE @ 7,750 rpm
384 ft lb @ 6,100 rpm

Redline: 8000 rpm

EPA fuel estimates: 12/18 mpg
Weight: 240 kg (529 lbs)

Now here’s the Corvette Z06 engine:

505 HP SAE @ 6300 rpm
470 ft lb @ 4800 rpm

Redline: 7000 rpm

EPA fuel estimates: 16/26 mpg
Weight: 208 kg (458 lbs)

And one more thing… the 'Vette engine is physically smaller than the BMW.

So, let’s sum. More power. More torque. Better fuel economy. Sustantially less weight. Smaller dimensions. All this, from GM.

Somehow that BMW engineering doesn’t look quite so impressive anymore, does it?

DI[/quote]

Take a look at the cars, a BMW M5 is some high class luxury with a very powerfull motor under it. also take into account the weight of a BMW M5 before you compare MPG, its a fully loaded car compared to purpose built sports car. The C6 ZO6 is a HAND BUILT motor in a car made for the track.

The M5 is going to be a smoother engine and most likely more reliable but your not going to get the same performance out of those two cars. Its like comparing a honda civic to a Neon SRT-4.

59

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
KnightRT wrote:
Here’s a thought for those of you referencing the BMW V10:

500 HP SAE @ 7,750 rpm
384 ft lb @ 6,100 rpm

Redline: 8000 rpm

EPA fuel estimates: 12/18 mpg
Weight: 240 kg (529 lbs)

Now here’s the Corvette Z06 engine:

505 HP SAE @ 6300 rpm
470 ft lb @ 4800 rpm

Redline: 7000 rpm

EPA fuel estimates: 16/26 mpg
Weight: 208 kg (458 lbs)

And one more thing… the 'Vette engine is physically smaller than the BMW.

So, let’s sum. More power. More torque. Better fuel economy. Sustantially less weight. Smaller dimensions. All this, from GM.

Somehow that BMW engineering doesn’t look quite so impressive anymore, does it?

DI

interesting[/quote]

Wha is the displacement of it?

And the other thing is, i guess, drivabilit. Does the vette have the sprwead of power. Th BM would be a pussy cat at town driving (big issue here), and also switches from 400 to 500 at the tuch of a button.

The vette enine is very impressive with those figures, but that really is only part of a package.

Maybe thats the prblem, building cars around power plants rather that wholistically engineering them. This is a problem that many UK firms had. This is why they are now defunct.

60

I understand this thread is about arguing whether european cars or american cars are better (or at least thats what it turned out to be.)

But what cars would you guys choose if you could have any choice with no price limit, 40K, or 100K price limit?

My choices are The aston martin vanquish, fast enough for me, as well as enough luxury. IMO a gorgeous looking car. The new porsche 911 coming in at a close second.

40K a honda S2000. IMO I dont like convertables, except this I love. I’d take it in black with the black interior with the red leather highlights.

100K: C6 Corvette Z06. I love the new body styling, as well as the numbers.