American Cars VS European Cars

[Matra et Alpine]

I agree within the realms of competition and competative driving there is no contest on tracks like these but I am really talking about day to day driving.

ahem, so was I.

The A110/A610 was on open public roads.

The local Scobby club goes up the west coast roads OFTEN.

I've gone with the sportsbike on a few occasions. OK as long as you're all going in the same direction. Gets a brown adrenline pump if running opposite !!

You don't drive up those roads UNLESS you want to enjoy them or you've a special date with a sheep. There's not a lot going on up there

[Matra et Alpine]

I am more disputing the genrealisation that a small car meaning any small car will handle tight and twisting roads appreciably better than a large/er one at daily driving speeds.

Richard Burns and Tim Harvey did a top handling cars segment with them driving the cars on twisties and concluded the Peugeot 106 was oen of the best ( in the top 2 !!! )
You dont' get more "general" than that cheap POS

[crisis]

ahem, so was I.

The A110/A610 was on open public roads.

The local Scobby club goes up the west coast roads OFTEN.

I've gone with the sportsbike on a few occasions. OK as long as you're all going in the same direction. Gets a brown adrenline pump if running opposite !!

You don't drive up those roads UNLESS you want to enjoy them or you've a special date with a sheep. There's not a lot going on up there

I dont picture Matra driving anything anywhere purley for the sake of getting from A to B.

[crisis]

Richard Burns and Tim Harvey did a top handling cars segment with them driving the cars on twisties and concluded the Peugeot 106 was oen of the best ( in the top 2 !!! )
You dont' get more "general" than that cheap POS

Your talking to the wrong person if you are going to site automotive journalists for back up. In my experience (admittedly mostly with Australian mags) they tend to be more interested in cultivating a following and giving the reader the impression they are expert drivers. That done it is on to how clever/funny (read smart arse) they can be with the English language. They change their opinions from what is a great car at the time of release to one that has its plethora of debilitating faults mercifully rectified on the series two model. They are also able to make a two way test find a outright winner (every time) and a subsequent loser that is not just outgunned in some minor areas, but totally unbuyable.
I would suggest that these two gentlemen were not testing these cars at the prescribed speed limits (if they were they wouldnt get a job for an Aussie mag ). Being that they were testing the "top handling cars" suggests they were also not interested in "normal" driving.
This brings me back to the question of how small cars suit small European roads and large cars suit American ones. A car with poor dynamics will handle poorly despite its size. A large car with good dynamics would be driveable on the majority of public roads anywhere and only found wanting in comparison to a smaller car when pushed to extremes.

[greg.harvey]

Crisis never implied any such thing.

I must've misinterpretted you then. Sorry.

I'm not going to start a "quotes" war ...

[henk4]

Even more curious about .. what Dodge Dart? .. as the US definition of a 'stock car' applies not to stock-standard production cars, but for highly modified racecars with mega-hp motors, eg Nascar etc


In other words, I could imagine that any 130hp 4cyl sports car might struggle up the continual steep climb of Pikes Peak, as compared to a totally non-stock 500hp V8 Group C-style machine ..

After I posted my question about what Lotus I saw the fallacy of the whole issue. Fleet is again mixing up handling with horse power. It would have been interesting if also times had been quoted for going DOWN from Pike's Peak. That is where handling comes into play, which also inckude an important element called braking. I would bet that the Lotus would leave the heavy Charger behind right from the first corner, and arrive far ahead. If we then add the times uphill and downhill and divide by two, we may get a better insight in the actual handling capabilities.

Edit: And of course Americans only think in terms of uphill battles

[Matra et Alpine]

Your talking to the wrong person if you are going to site automotive journalists for back up. In my experience (admittedly mostly with Australian mags) they tend to be more interested in cultivating a following and giving the reader the impression they are expert drivers.

The two people cited are
1) Richard Burns, WRC rally champion
2) Tim Harvey, BTCC Saloon car champion
They were "professional drivers" asked to give THEIR opinion to the journalists

Being that they were testing the "top handling cars" suggests they were also not interested in "normal" driving.

Beyond the wrinklies and the soccer moms, most drivers DO care about handling in the UK. It's why msot of the cars spend the money getting it "right". Aus is different, different roads, different problems, different "wants".

This brings me back to the question of how small cars suit small European roads and large cars suit American ones. A car with poor dynamics will handle poorly despite its size.

For sure, no matter how small and light they could make the Daewoos and Kias they all handled like sh!te !!!

A large car with good dynamics would be driveable on the majority of public roads anywhere and only found wanting in comparison to a smaller car when pushed to extremes.

Your roads for sure. BUT there are many of the roads I've tried to explain already where a big car is a PROBLEM to drive with. But I've covered it already. So recognise it's different roads, different needs, different wants. Your experiences expose to cars that take rought terrain and last longer. Over here experience is cars that manage twisty small well-tarmaced roads.

[Matra et Alpine]

I found a surprising piece of information in the 1979 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records...
The Pikes Peak Auto Hill Climb.
Bobby Unser holds the course records for stock cars (13 minutes 13.6 seconds in a Dodge Dart) and sports cars (13 minutes, 19.1 seconds in a Lotus). The course involves 157 curves.

A "poor-handling" Dart running the course faster than a "precise-handling" sports car? ? ?

oh dear, Pikes Peak has HUGE wide track. THere are half a dozen lines possible thorugh any of the roads AND it needs power, LOTS of power for the straight sections and a great engine to cope with the lack of oxygen around.

Check out any of the WRC footage of the Spanish, French or Monte rounds to see what roads with corners means.

Is a baseball the same as a basketball ? BIG size difference. BIG capability differente. The same is true for corners

EDIT: henk4, put it better !!

[Fleet 500]

Regarding Pikes Peak, I was just showing the comparison of the times of a Dart and Lotus. You guys can theorize all you want about what model Lotus it was, if the Dart was stock, or if modified, how much, what the times would be going downhill, etc. but the times are what they are.

And, yes, the times for going uphill would depend, in part, on horsepower. That is not a "bad" thing. We Americans love horsepower!

[Matra et Alpine]

Regarding Pikes Peak, I was just showing the comparison of the times of a Dart and Lotus. You guys can theorize all you want about what model Lotus it was, if the Dart was stock, or if modified, how much, what the times would be going downhill, etc. but the times are what they are.

eh ? Not knowing WHAT the times are based on you're comparing an apple and an orange

From that you can make NO rationale statement or assumption or anything.

You'd have been as well citing the Dart time and the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.

BUt we know why you do these things

[crisis]

The two people cited are
1) Richard Burns, WRC rally champion
2) Tim Harvey, BTCC Saloon car champion
They were "professional drivers" asked to give THEIR opinion to the journalists

I beg your pardon then, not my particular area of interest.
However I would assume these guys were not interested in driving mearly from a to b. If I ask my mate (who races) about the desirablitly of a certain car I can usually guess what attributes he will find important.

Beyond the wrinklies and the soccer moms, most drivers DO care about handling in the UK. It's why msot of the cars spend the money getting it "right". Aus is different, different roads, different problems, different "wants".

I still contend that most people on this site (car enthusiasts in one shape or another) would undoubtably confirm the ideal that a small car is superior to a large one on small tight winding roads. However I know people who view a car as no more than transport (No friends of mine obviously) and would not drive a car in a manner where they would discern a appreciable difference. I would have thought they were a majority.

[Fleet 500]

eh ? Not knowing WHAT the times are based on you're comparing an apple and an orange

From that you can make NO rationale statement or assumption or anything.

You'd have been as well citing the Dart time and the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.

BUt we know why you do these things

Since there are 167 curves in that course, one would think the Lotus would have the faster time, but it doesn't. Here is the actual text...

Why can't you just say, "Wow, I'm surprised the Dart has a faster time" and leave it at that? It's not comparing apples and oranges because both cars were running the exact same course (Pikes Peak)... a course with many curves in it.

[henk4]

Since there are 167 curves in that course, one would think the Lotus would have the faster time, but it doesn't. Here is the actual text...

Why can't you just say, "Wow, I'm surprised the Dart has a faster time" and leave it at that? It's not comparing apples and oranges because both cars were running the exact same course (Pikes Peak)... a course with many curves in it.

conveniently ignoring the downhill argument once more because that obviously does not suit you. Most likely the Dart would also have been faster than a VW Beetle, although they were still running the same course.

I bet the Dart would also have been faster than the Lotus on the Indy oval, in spite of the fact that there are four turns.

[Fleet 500]

conveniently ignoring the downhill argument once more because that obviously does not suit you. Most likely the Dart would also have been faster than a VW Beetle, although they were still running the same course.

I bet the Dart would also have been faster than the Lotus on the Indy oval, in spite of the fact that there are four turns.

What about when the Darts (and Valiants) are faster on level ground when racing against certain imports?

Why do you want to turn an uphill race into a downhill one? It's more challenging to race uphill than downhill.

[Fleet 500]

And it's a sure bet that Darts can corner with all four wheels on the ground, unlike some little cars...