PDA

View Full Version : German cars VS American cars



Pages : [1] 2

Swissbeatz
12-25-2003, 03:51 PM
This thread has been made for confronting German car against American cars.
The rules:

1-You must compare cars from the same categories (ex: Mercedes E-Class can't be confronted to a Chevy Cavalier, but a Cadillac Seville)

2- When you confront cars you must create a post with pictures of the both cars and you must create a poll ex: (which one do you like BMW 3-series or Cadillac CTS)

3- A SUV must be confronted to another SUV (ex: BMW X5 VS Cadillac Escalade)

4- American cars = all the brand mark that an American group holds (Ex: Ford owns Jaguar so Jaguar is considered as an American car (it's just for the game))
Idem for German cars

So now let's have fun.... :)

Swissbeatz
12-25-2003, 04:12 PM
...Just thought I'd note that despite being owned by Ford, Jaguar is still a British Company :)

EDIT: Just moved this thread to car comparison...

lfb666
12-25-2003, 05:39 PM
Cadillac CTS-V - 2004:

Engine
Cylinders: V8
Displacement: 5667 cc
Horsepower: 400 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 395 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm

Performance
0-60 mph: 4.6 sec
Top Speed: 155 mph
Price: $49,995

Audi S4 - 2003

Engine:
Cylinders: 8
Displacement: 4163 cc
Horsepower: 344 bhp @ 7000 rpm
Torque: 302 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm

Perfomance
0-60 mph: 5.0 sec
Top Speed: 155 mph
Price: $45,000

lfb666
12-25-2003, 05:57 PM
I wanted to compare Cadillac Allante with Audi 80 Cabriolet, but I didn't find the specifications of Cadillac Allante.

lfb666
12-25-2003, 06:15 PM
Cadillac XLR - 2004

Engine
Type: V8
Displacement: 4565 cc
Horsepower: 320 bhp @ 6400 rpm
Torque: 310 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Redline: 6700 rpm

Performance
0-60 mph: 5.6 sec
0-100 mph: 13.3 sec
Top Speed: 155 mph (limited)
Price: $75,435

Mercedes-Benz SL 500 - 2003

Engine
Type: V8
Displacement: 4996 cc
Horsepower: 306 bhp @ ---- rpm
Torque: 295 lb-ft @ 2700 rpm
0-60 mph: 6.2 sec
Top Speed: 155 mph

Egg Nog
12-25-2003, 08:23 PM
Moved to car comparison...let's try to keep these in the right forum, here... :)

I think I should point out that despite being owned by Ford, Jaguar still operates as a British Company...

Batmobile_Turbo
12-26-2003, 05:49 PM
Mercedes-Benz still should be a german company even though it is owned by Daimler-Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz is as german as sauerkraut.

i think a fair comparison would be the VW new Beetle V.S. the Cavalier
okay then, both are 4-cylinder fornt wheel drive, both are in the mid 10-20k range but the VW is better looking and more popular, and has more quality and performance. does everyone agree if i say the VW is better?

Batmobile_Turbo
12-26-2003, 05:53 PM
...Just thought I'd note that despite being owned by Ford, Jaguar is still a British Company :)

EDIT: Just moved this thread to car comparison...
even though i like jaguar more than BMW, i'll have to go with the BMW becaus i heard that the Jag S-type is kind of crappy.

SL500
12-27-2003, 02:22 AM
Mercedes-Benz still should be a german company even though it is owned by Daimler-Chrysler
what do you mean?
daimler-chrysler didnt own the benz,daimler benz and chrysler(include dodge and chrysler)are just working toghether

Swissbeatz
12-27-2003, 01:09 PM
first daimler-benz was a german company. This is the Deutsche-Bank who owns this compagny, second Daimler-Benz has not consolidates with Chrysler, it was simply a takeover bid. An now shareholders from Chrysler are not very happy cause it was simply a racket.
So we can conclude that Daimler-Chrysler is a german company.

And in second, I know that Jaguar is still an english company but Americans don't have luxury cars like BMW or Benz. Sorry but a Cadillac is not considered like a luxury car in Europa. It's why I have put Jaguar as an American car. IT JUST FOR THIS GAME.

Batmobile_Turbo
12-27-2003, 03:37 PM
first daimler-benz was a german company. This is the Deutsche-Bank who owns this compagny, second Daimler-Benz has not consolidates with Chrysler, it was simply a takeover bid. An now shareholders from Chrysler are not very happy cause it was simply a racket.
So we can conclude that Daimler-Chrysler is a german company.

And in second, I know that Jaguar is still an english company but Americans don't have luxury cars like BMW or Benz. Sorry but a Cadillac is not considered like a luxury car in Europa. It's why I have put Jaguar as an American car. IT JUST FOR THIS GAME.
why don't you consider a Cadillac to be a Luxury car in Europe?

DiabloGTR
12-27-2003, 09:59 PM
And in second, I know that Jaguar is still an english company but Americans don't have luxury cars like BMW or Benz. Sorry but a Cadillac is not considered like a luxury car in Europa. It's why I have put Jaguar as an American car. IT JUST FOR THIS GAME.

I consider you a jackass.

Anyways, I think comparing entire car companies of different nations is stupid. It's not going to solve anything, and your saying bullshit like, "Cadillac is not considered like a luxury car in Europa."
You damn well know that your beloved German car companies wouldn't be anywhere without the US market, because a major part of their sales are in America, thats why this topic is retarded.
If your trying to bash the United States, please find another way.

Egg Nog
12-27-2003, 11:55 PM
If your trying to bash the United States, please find another way.

You saying this is just about as paranoid as the United States' national security policy :rolleyes:

Try not to jump to any conclusions, here... he never said anything directly against the US, he just said that Cadillac's aren't really considered to be luxury cars in Europe? Gee, he might be right, and he might not be, but don't you think its a little bit harsh to react like that?

Batmobile_Turbo
12-28-2003, 05:24 PM
You saying this is just about as paranoid as the United States' national security policy :rolleyes:

Try not to jump to any conclusions, here... he never said anything directly against the US, he just said that Cadillac's aren't really considered to be luxury cars in Europe? Gee, he might be right, and he might not be, but don't you think its a little bit harsh to react like that?
it's still insulting to say "cadillacs aren't considered to be luxury cars in Europe" because they are luxury cars anywhere, that's all they make.

Matra et Alpine
12-28-2003, 06:11 PM
even though i like jaguar more than BMW, i'll have to go with the BMW becaus i heard that the Jag S-type is kind of crappy.

You heard wrong.
It is everything an exec saloon needs to be and some more.
Not enough to drag me away from my Alpine, but the day will come when I'll have to wear a bunnet - just before I get a Volvo :-)

Except the kiss of death is that Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson reckons it's better than the BMW.
That'll destroy sales for Jaguar :-)

Matra et Alpine
12-28-2003, 06:17 PM
it's still insulting to say "cadillacs aren't considered to be luxury cars in Europe" because they are luxury cars anywhere, that's all they make.

Sinclair for a while only made Spectrum computers - it didn't make them good. They were rubbish.

Expectations of luxury cars DO mean the Cadillac has failed every time they try to market themselves in Europe.

It may be old prejudice for some of the tanks built in the 60-70-80s which wouldn't fit in European towns !

OR, it may be we have a higher expectation of handling in luxury cars. Having driven in lots of different cars in the States ( and Canada ) I have to say they were WAY below what I considered safe and acceptable handling. Soft and bouncy and floaty and "comfortabel" yes, but FEELING comfortable driving it - definately NO. ( My worst experience was in the 80s driving a Z28. I couldn't belive how vague the steering got above 60mph and the rep was unimpressed when I took it back and told him so. I try to get Taurus coz it's OK, but often end up with 'upgrades for valued customer' and in a pimp-mobile :-( )

Whatever reason they just AREN'T considered luxury.

Would you buy a Hotpoint washing machine over a Maytag ? Same reasons probably apply.

Batmobile_Turbo
12-28-2003, 09:28 PM
well, Cadillacs have improved a lot recently, and the new XLR is a very good handler.

Matra et Alpine
12-29-2003, 04:55 AM
well, Cadillacs have improved a lot recently, and the new XLR is a very good handler.

I'm asking this coz I can't test the car.

How OBjectively have you tested the handling ?
It may be improved and 'better' than <put marque here>, but is that US or European spec ?

Most Europen manufacturers tweak suspension for US market.

We like to steer cars, most of the US market wants to be able to drink coffe, eat doughnuts, be on a call and taking notes wile driving. They aren't alwats compatible. NOTE :-) :-) :-)

Batmobile_Turbo
12-29-2003, 01:37 PM
I'm asking this coz I can't test the car.

How OBjectively have you tested the handling ?
It may be improved and 'better' than <put marque here>, but is that US or European spec ?

Most Europen manufacturers tweak suspension for US market.

We like to steer cars, most of the US market wants to be able to drink coffe, eat doughnuts, be on a call and taking notes wile driving. They aren't alwats compatible. NOTE :-) :-) :-)
the XLR has the chassis of the C6 corvette, wich can handle as good as or better than the SL500. the XLR is a 2 seat sports car, ok? and just because there are some idiots who drink coffe and talk on their cell while driving that doesn't mean that all north american people don't like to steer their cars.

Matra et Alpine
12-29-2003, 02:34 PM
the XLR has the chassis of the C6 corvette, wich can handle as good as or better than the SL500. the XLR is a 2 seat sports car, ok? and just because there are some idiots who drink coffe and talk on their cell while driving that doesn't mean that all north american people don't like to steer their cars.

and that's why I added the smileys to the closing joke.

See, I don't get the Corvette either. it handles like a PIG on steroids.
No turn-in, no feedback, easy to get sideways !!
I've always wondered what it might drive like with some soft European tyres - you do know that tyre compunds are different for all the different markets.

Comparing it to the SL500 is like saying the USS Enterprise can turn as good as the USS George Washington. They're all huge barges that use BIG engines and lots of power to get over the weight.

Sorry, I wasn't comparing like with like when I make a comparative statement on handling. Yes, it's probably as good as the rest in its class.

Batmobile_Turbo
12-29-2003, 06:13 PM
and that's why I added the smileys to the closing joke.

See, I don't get the Corvette either. it handles like a PIG on steroids.
No turn-in, no feedback, easy to get sideways !!
I've always wondered what it might drive like with some soft European tyres - you do know that tyre compunds are different for all the different markets.

Comparing it to the SL500 is like saying the USS Enterprise can turn as good as the USS George Washington. They're all huge barges that use BIG engines and lots of power to get over the weight.

Sorry, I wasn't comparing like with like when I make a comparative statement on handling. Yes, it's probably as good as the rest in its class.
the C5 Corvette is a very good handler not like the past generations of Corvettes that had only average and poor handling. and just because Corvettes and XLRs don't handle like a Matra doesn't mean they handle poorly or that they are bad cars.
and also what closing joke? if that was meant to be funny, your not very clever

dupscadi
12-29-2003, 07:17 PM
I don't know what Cadillac you where drivin, but I must say that my CTS handles fairly well for a car that as some one once said, "Soft and bouncy and floaty and "comfortabel" yes". I like it. Peace!

Matra et Alpine
12-30-2003, 04:43 AM
I don't know what Cadillac you where drivin, but I must say that my CTS handles fairly well for a car that as some one once said, "Soft and bouncy and floaty and "comfortabel" yes". I like it. Peace!

That was the point I thought I was trying to get over.
We each have our own idea, mainly driven by what's available for us to drive.

It's backed up with the bike you list. The Buell is NOT a successful bike in Europe becuase we expect high-revving, fast and nimble bikes. The X-1 is marketed as that but doesn't ride like an R1 a Gixxer or 'Blade.

Often the fuel, tyres and engine management differences can make a big difference on a bike - not so much on cars.

We all like different things - thankfully - but we should be able to express our differences and try to explore the reasons. And in Europe Cadillac aren't seen as successful luxury cars. That's the way it is and I've tried to explain why that may be so from my perspective.

Matra et Alpine
12-30-2003, 04:48 AM
the C5 Corvette is a very good handler not like the past generations of Corvettes that had only average and poor handling. and just because Corvettes and XLRs don't handle like a Matra doesn't mean they handle poorly or that they are bad cars.
and also what closing joke? if that was meant to be funny, your not very clever

Wow Christmass spirit didn't last long. The point of the smileys was to show the statement was NOT meant in full honesty., that it should be seen as a comical statement.

BTW, the Matra Bagheera's are NOT well-handling cars.
They lack the power and engine responsiveness to steer a rear-engined car in a drift. Torsion-bar suspension doesn't make for the easiest to tune !!
I got another Bagheera because it was the first car I owned and I love the looks. It was NOT for performance and handling.

The Murena's only mildly better.

And I don't have a problem saying that.
Not every car we own, or wish for, can be the best in every area.

No smileys.

Batmobile_Turbo
12-30-2003, 12:27 PM
Wow Christmass spirit didn't last long. The point of the smileys was to show the statement was NOT meant in full honesty., that it should be seen as a comical statement.

BTW, the Matra Bagheera's are NOT well-handling cars.
They lack the power and engine responsiveness to steer a rear-engined car in a drift. Torsion-bar suspension doesn't make for the easiest to tune !!
I got another Bagheera because it was the first car I owned and I love the looks. It was NOT for performance and handling.

The Murena's only mildly better.

And I don't have a problem saying that.
Not every car we own, or wish for, can be the best in every area.

No smileys.
ok i'm sorry if i'm coming off a bit harsh, i didn't notice the smileys in your other comment, but if you want smileys then there are a bunch of them in the tool box beside where you make your comments like these :) :eek: :cool:
i suppose we got off on the wrong foot so let's be friends, instead of quarreling idiots. :)

Swissbeatz
12-30-2003, 12:34 PM
And in second, I know that Jaguar is still an english company but Americans don't have luxury cars like BMW or Benz. Sorry but a Cadillac is not considered like a luxury car in Europa. It's why I have put Jaguar as an American car. IT JUST FOR THIS GAME.

I consider you a jackass.

Anyways, I think comparing entire car companies of different nations is stupid. It's not going to solve anything, and your saying bullshit like, "Cadillac is not considered like a luxury car in Europa."
You damn well know that your beloved German car companies wouldn't be anywhere without the US market, because a major part of their sales are in America, thats why this topic is retarded.
If your trying to bash the United States, please find another way.

Ok You think I'm a jackass? ok it's nice. I can just notice that your language is like you, very very cheap.
I don't know where you live but you don't know many things about Europa. In european roads american cars are not greats. And you know why? it's just because they can't respond to many european norms. Tell me which American Brand can beat a BMW 7 series or a Mercedes S-Class?? none. Sorry I love Amrica, my wife is american but you must admit that their cars are not famous exept their SUVs.
And you told me that
You damn well know that your beloved German car companies wouldn't be anywhere without the US market, because a major part of their sales are in America
It's exact, the american market is one of the biggest in the world and that's why Europan firms are in USA. But I'm not talking about american market, I'm talking about american brands. And if you look after rich americans, what do they got in their garage? An European car like BMW ,Benz or Audi or Porsche and an American sport car like Chey Corvette or Dodge Viper. That's a fact. A Cadillac CTS has been created for overbalance the trend. That's a fact son.


And please I didn't attack you so don't insult me next time. That's a car forum not a fight forum.

Swissbeatz
12-30-2003, 12:45 PM
You saying this is just about as paranoid as the United States' national security policy :rolleyes:

Try not to jump to any conclusions, here... he never said anything directly against the US, he just said that Cadillac's aren't really considered to be luxury cars in Europe? Gee, he might be right, and he might not be, but don't you think its a little bit harsh to react like that?


He he I agree with you, I didn't say anything wrong about USA. USA is a great contry I don't agree with their politics like many countries but the fact is it will stay a great country. But they must do something about their cars except their SUVs. The Lincoln Navigator and the Cadillac Escalade are GREAT. The Chevy Corvette is awesome, the Dodge Viper is awesome, the Cadillac CTS is the best american car. But the rest is a real shame (Chevy Cavalier, Chevy Malibu and more).
Cadillac is a great Brand but they don't got a car who can confront a BMW 7-series or A Benz S-Class. Or we all know that the S and the 7 are considered like the top of the luxury class except the Rolls and the Bentley.

DiabloGTR
12-30-2003, 02:40 PM
Ok You think I'm a jackass? ok it's nice. I can just notice that your language is like you, very very cheap.
I don't know where you live but you don't know many things about Europa. In european roads american cars are not greats. And you know why? it's just because they can't respond to many european norms. Tell me which American Brand can beat a BMW 7 series or a Mercedes S-Class?? none. Sorry I love Amrica, my wife is american but you must admit that their cars are not famous exept their SUVs.
And you told me that
It's exact, the american market is one of the biggest in the world and that's why Europan firms are in USA. But I'm not talking about american market, I'm talking about american brands. And if you look after rich americans, what do they got in their garage? An European car like BMW ,Benz or Audi or Porsche and an American sport car like Chey Corvette or Dodge Viper. That's a fact. A Cadillac CTS has been created for overbalance the trend. That's a fact son.


And please I didn't attack you so don't insult me next time. That's a car forum not a fight forum.

I'm sorry, I was far to harsh. It's just that I don't see the point of this thread. I perosnally like European cars better than Japanese and American cars myself. So, if you know German cars will get the vote over most American cars, then what is the point of making this thread?
There aren't any American flagship sedans that can compete with the 7-series and S class. Everyone knows that...

Batmobile_Turbo
12-30-2003, 09:34 PM
He he I agree with you, I didn't say anything wrong about USA. USA is a great contry I don't agree with their politics like many countries but the fact is it will stay a great country. But they must do something about their cars except their SUVs. The Lincoln Navigator and the Cadillac Escalade are GREAT. The Chevy Corvette is awesome, the Dodge Viper is awesome, the Cadillac CTS is the best american car. But the rest is a real shame (Chevy Cavalier, Chevy Malibu and more).
Cadillac is a great Brand but they don't got a car who can confront a BMW 7-series or A Benz S-Class. Or we all know that the S and the 7 are considered like the top of the luxury class except the Rolls and the Bentley.
well cadillac is thinking of making a V12 luxury sedan based on the sixteen.

dupscadi
12-31-2003, 02:15 AM
That was the point I thought I was trying to get over.
We each have our own idea, mainly driven by what's available for us to drive.

It's backed up with the bike you list. The Buell is NOT a successful bike in Europe becuase we expect high-revving, fast and nimble bikes. The X-1 is marketed as that but doesn't ride like an R1 a Gixxer or 'Blade.

Often the fuel, tyres and engine management differences can make a big difference on a bike - not so much on cars.

We all like different things - thankfully - but we should be able to express our differences and try to explore the reasons. And in Europe Cadillac aren't seen as successful luxury cars. That's the way it is and I've tried to explain why that may be so from my perspective.


Little know fact about the Buell. They sell more in Europe than the do in North America. And as for rideing like a R1 or Gixxer, thank god it doesn't. I like the hooligan part of the bike. Always havin one wheel, be it the front or the back in the air is the fun of it. Plus it's loud. loud is good, to me anyway. It's all about the fun you have while riden or drivin. That's why we all like the things with wheels. Peace!

gtface
01-10-2004, 03:09 AM
Just so you know, the magnetic ride stabilty suspension on the caddilac xlr is the most advanced suspension ever- on any car. So dont tell me that cadillacs dont handle well.

Bammer
01-17-2004, 12:50 PM
...Just thought I'd note that despite being owned by Ford, Jaguar is still a British Company :)

EDIT: Just moved this thread to car comparison...




I think the 5 is better and also the best in its class

NAZCA C2
01-19-2004, 01:42 PM
Land Rover and Aston Martin are under the Ford brand and i'd take an Aston Martin Vanquish over any German car except the Carrera GT.

white devil
01-19-2004, 03:07 PM
Land Rover and Aston Martin are under the Ford brand and i'd take an Aston Martin Vanquish over any German car except the Carrera GT.
and then why is you r name Nazca ....that shows that you like german cars....
anyway i wouldnt say that i think german cars are way better

NAZCA C2
01-19-2004, 09:09 PM
and then why is you r name Nazca ....that shows that you like german cars....
anyway i wouldnt say that i think german cars are way better

Dont get me wrong i love german cars but of the german cars manufactured today i would take a Vanquish over all but the Carrera GT(thats if you consider Aston Martin to be American). Other than an Aston Martin i would take a german car over anything american.

DiabloGTR
01-20-2004, 12:26 AM
But the rest is a real shame (Chevy Cavalier, Chevy Malibu and more).

Cars like the Cavalier and Malibu are cheap and inexpensive cars, you can't be serious when comparing them to better more expensive german cars.
German cars are better, but American cars aren't bad because they are making strides to improve.

SL500
01-20-2004, 02:29 AM
Dont get me wrong i love german cars but of the german cars manufactured today i would take a Vanquish over all but the Carrera GT(thats if you consider Aston Martin to be American). Other than an Aston Martin i would take a german car over anything american.
i think your comparison is aweful-sorry
who can says aston and jaguar are american?so,then,bentley,rolls-royce,lamborghini,bugatti and many companies..........are german
aston,bentley,rolls-royce and jaguar are still british

fpv_gtho
01-20-2004, 03:43 AM
the whole idea of this thread makes no sense. saying that jaguar and aston martin are american because of their ownership is one of the dumbest things ive heard, be it for a game or not. i almost wouldnt call an F250 an american car, well not north american at least, theyre built in Brazil. thats how i see things.

irarref
03-12-2004, 02:58 PM
OOOOPPPSSSSSSS.......!
Americans lose again.

http://www.autosite.com/images/edphotos/previews/fullsize/2005-mercedes-benz-cl65-amg-front.jpg
612hp biturbo v12 CL65 AMG, all you need to do is buy it in Europe and take off the limiter

So so sad, all that money for so little. O wait! It's a classic remake. (Ford GT only 500hp, and you need to be on the list to buy one. :rolleyes: )
http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/i/aic/b/05/forgt1.jpg

thinker
03-15-2004, 07:20 PM
ok ok question...can a bmw m3 be compared with a corvette??? which one is believed to be better quality?

kiwitt
03-15-2004, 07:35 PM
...Sinclair for a while only made Spectrum computers - it didn't make them good. They were rubbish.....

With the SPECTRUM, I wrote a Database Program with data for all performance cars specifications at the time (circa 1985-86). I then incorporated this data, where the cars raced on a track based on these specifications. (i.e. if it had good handling it would take corners a bit faster, if it had good mid-range (torque/power) acceleration, it's out of corner speed would be faster, if it had a high top speed, it back straightline speed would be faster.)

For some reason the "Porsche 959" won most of the time. :D

Niko_Fx
03-15-2004, 07:40 PM
OOOOPPPSSSSSSS.......!
Americans lose again.

http://www.autosite.com/images/edphotos/previews/fullsize/2005-mercedes-benz-cl65-amg-front.jpg
612hp biturbo v12 CL65 AMG, all you need to do is buy it in Europe and take off the limiter

So so sad, all that money for so little. O wait! It's a classic remake. (Ford GT only 500hp, and you need to be on the list to buy one. :rolleyes: )
http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/i/aic/b/05/forgt1.jpg

That Mercedes looks awesome........... But I rather be on a list and wait for my Ford GT. If I had the money for that car I'd probably had some other cars too so I could wait with no problem.

I get your point... price, waiting list, HP.. etc... But I preffer the Ford GT

crisis
03-15-2004, 11:09 PM
OOOOPPPSSSSSSS.......!
Americans lose again.

http://www.autosite.com/images/edphotos/previews/fullsize/2005-mercedes-benz-cl65-amg-front.jpg
612hp biturbo v12 CL65 AMG, all you need to do is buy it in Europe and take off the limiter

So so sad, all that money for so little. O wait! It's a classic remake. (Ford GT only 500hp, and you need to be on the list to buy one. :rolleyes: )
http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/i/aic/b/05/forgt1.jpg
Ooops. Rediculous comparison. One is a uber luxo sports sedan and the other is ostensibly a stripped down sports car designed 40 years ago with some technical mods.

cuntukimushroom
06-29-2004, 10:45 AM
GERMAN cars win they have carrera GT BMW M5 concept Mercedes SLR mclaren SL class :eek: go germany but i like the cadillac CIEN and the dodge RAM rt-10 call it a draw

andy.muc
07-02-2004, 05:46 AM
yeah, what can really match the Audi RS6, the BMW M5 or the CL 65 hrhrhr

SL500
07-02-2004, 06:02 AM
OOOOPPPSSSSSSS.......!
Americans lose again.

http://www.autosite.com/images/edphotos/previews/fullsize/2005-mercedes-benz-cl65-amg-front.jpg
612hp biturbo v12 CL65 AMG, all you need to do is buy it in Europe and take off the limiter


hahaha
cl65 rules!

Swissbeatz
07-08-2004, 05:35 PM
I love this car... OH my GOD but insurrance is too expensive... too bad

gtface
07-08-2004, 08:10 PM
OOOOPPPSSSSSSS.......!
Americans lose again.

http://www.autosite.com/images/edphotos/previews/fullsize/2005-mercedes-benz-cl65-amg-front.jpg
612hp biturbo v12 CL65 AMG, all you need to do is buy it in Europe and take off the limiter

So so sad, all that money for so little. O wait! It's a classic remake. (Ford GT only 500hp, and you need to be on the list to buy one. :rolleyes: )
http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/i/aic/b/05/forgt1.jpg

Despite the fact that the CL65 has 112 more horsepower, it still can't keep up with the GT. 0-60 in 3.3? Thats very difficult to match or beat. In fact there is only one ferrari out there that can top it (enzo, obviously), and there are no mercedes that can beat it to my knowledge.

Swissbeatz
07-09-2004, 04:15 AM
Despite the fact that the CL65 has 112 more horsepower, it still can't keep up with the GT. 0-60 in 3.3? Thats very difficult to match or beat. In fact there is only one ferrari out there that can top it (enzo, obviously), and there are no mercedes that can beat it to my knowledge.

The Bugattie Veyron can beat it 0-100 in 3.2s and 0-300 in 15s who can beat it?? 1001hp out in 2005 summer

whiteballz
07-09-2004, 04:20 AM
last i knew swissbeatz the bugatti was a big ugly mess! over priced over weight, insuficent areo package to keep that heavy bitch stable. i dont think they will sell it. and certianly not so fast.

Swissbeatz
07-09-2004, 05:47 AM
last i knew swissbeatz the bugatti was a big ugly mess! over priced over weight, insuficent areo package to keep that heavy bitch stable. i dont think they will sell it. and certianly not so fast.

The car will be out in 2005 summer for sure ;)

fpv_gtho
07-09-2004, 05:53 AM
i think since the first detials were released, much of the appeal for the Veyron has diminished

SPN:DOC
07-09-2004, 06:53 AM
Despite the fact that the CL65 has 112 more horsepower, it still can't keep up with the GT. 0-60 in 3.3? Thats very difficult to match or beat. In fact there is only one ferrari out there that can top it (enzo, obviously), and there are no mercedes that can beat it to my knowledge.


Are you sure about that, have we forgotten Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR, or some other German car manufactures like Dauer 962 powered by Porsche..... hmmm and lets not forget what McLaren F1 is powered by BMW.. and the GT40 i don’t think its even out yet.. its a CONCEPT!!
And please the CL65 AMG is a Sports Luxury car… is there and American sports luxury car with that type of performance??? :rolleyes:

Slicks
07-09-2004, 09:28 AM
Are you sure about that, have we forgotten Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR, or some other German car manufactures like Dauer 962 powered by Porsche..... hmmm and lets not forget what McLaren F1 is powered by BMW.. and the GT40 i don’t think its even out yet.. its a CONCEPT!!
And please the CL65 AMG is a Sports Luxury car… is there and American sports luxury car with that type of performance??? :rolleyes:
The GT40 was a concept but Ford is making the GT, it puts increadble times down on the track (beat a GT3 porche and 360 Challange) and only costs 140K USD. The 0-60 time the GT puts down beats the McLaren, CLK GTR, and the Dauer was practically a race car, having over 700hp, and weighing 2300lbs, but you can get about 7 Ford GTs for the price of one Dauer..
And dont forget about the S7 and Mosler...
As for the CL65 AMG, no American sports luxury cars are even close to its price tag. For about 50K USD you can get a CTS-V with close acceleration times, and thats wil 200 less HP and under half the price of the CL65 AMG.

KnifeEdge_2K1
07-09-2004, 07:23 PM
i think it's safe to say german anything will beat the americans ...

but with cars specifically there is one underlying fault which all of them share .. well actually there are many but i have to admit none ... well none to my knowledge have made there way onto the ford gt, that is one nice car ... asside from the 2 inch tall rear window

gtface
07-09-2004, 07:36 PM
Are you sure about that, have we forgotten Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR, or some other German car manufactures like Dauer 962 powered by Porsche..... hmmm and lets not forget what McLaren F1 is powered by BMW.. and the GT40 i don’t think its even out yet.. its a CONCEPT!!
And please the CL65 AMG is a Sports Luxury car… is there and American sports luxury car with that type of performance??? :rolleyes:

I know the Mercedes is a sports luxury car. I think this was a stupid comparison in the first place. The CLK GTR is not faster according to this sites specs forthe Merc. Obviously the Dauer is faster but was it a production car? I didnt say that there were not any german cars that were faster I siad that there were no Mercedes that were faster. Come to think of it though, I can't think of a German car that is faster (0-60), unless of course the Dauer was a production car. The McLaren F1 may have been powered by BMW but it is still British car. I believe the Ford GT is coming out around September so it won't be long.

KnifeEdge_2K1
07-09-2004, 10:21 PM
i believe this thread is about american and german cars in general, we shouldnt talk about any specific car, we should use some as examples but using the same car over and over again is just a bit exhausting.

Sant0
07-09-2004, 11:24 PM
LOL.
Didnt think there was any comparison to be honest.Yank tanks suck.
:D

BMW-FW26
07-10-2004, 04:52 AM
You cant just rely on numbers for this test. As we have seen in Top Gear, the Audi S4 is almost a second quicker (supposivly) than the M3 on a track, even though the M3 0-60 is faster. You know how much work it must have taken to engineer a car that would do that? And thats not even Audi's best car.

fpv_gtho
07-10-2004, 05:22 AM
surely the times would change track to track though, i mean motor magazine here done a test between the M3 CSL and the GT3 RS, and around Eastern Creek Raceway, the CSL was faster by about 1.5 seconds i believe.

Fleet 500
07-10-2004, 09:50 PM
Instead of comparing exotics which 99.9% of the general population could never afford, how about realistic cars.

Like the '67 Nickey Thomas Camaro (427, 4.88 gears)... 11.40 sec @ 120 1/4 mile (on '60s tires).

Or the '62-'63 Mopar Max Wedge (413 and 426)... 0-60 in 4.2 seconds, 12.5 1/4 mile (again, on primitive '60s tires).

Or the '64 Ford Thunderbolt (427, 2x4 bbl)... low 12-second 1/4 mile.

Or the L-88 427/550 hp. 'Vette (11-sec. 1/4 mile).

Last, but not least, '68 Hemi-Dart and Barracuda, 426 race Hemi engine, approx. 3,000-lb curb weight and 4.86 or 4.88 gears (depending on transmission)... mid-10 second 1/4 mile. This car was actually available to the general public.

None of the above cars sold for over $6,000 when new.

megotmea7
07-10-2004, 11:52 PM
i think it's safe to say german anything will beat the americans ...


Didnt think there was any comparison to be honest.Yank tanks suck.

you ppl crack me up with your anti-american BS... just because its american it must suck huh? dont be so ignorant

Matra et Alpine
07-11-2004, 04:30 AM
Instead of comparing exotics which 99.9% of the general population could never afford, how about realistic cars. ....
None of the above cars sold for over $6,000 when new.
All of them are typical "muscle cars" concentrating on power to overcome weight for acceleartion.

Mini would beat them all on real roads in Europe - not big straight freeways.

Lotus Elan and a myriad of similar small light sportscars would likewise - and some would be close on the drag due to their low weight.

But comparing them becomes a little pointless as European car taxes after WW2 were put in place to penalise fuel hungry cars. So over here car development went for 'smart' performance. US never suffered post-war ( rationing in the UK contiued until 1954 ! ) so 'excess' wasn't taxed in the same ways. So ONLY the luxury end of the market continued building big powerful cars.

Fleet 500
07-11-2004, 01:41 PM
All of them are typical "muscle cars" concentrating on power to overcome weight for acceleartion.

Mini would beat them all on real roads in Europe - not big straight freeways.

Lotus Elan and a myriad of similar small light sportscars would likewise - and some would be close on the drag due to their low weight.

But comparing them becomes a little pointless as European car taxes after WW2 were put in place to penalise fuel hungry cars. So over here car development went for 'smart' performance. US never suffered post-war ( rationing in the UK contiued until 1954 ! ) so 'excess' wasn't taxed in the same ways. So ONLY the luxury end of the market continued building big powerful cars.
Yes, typical muscle cars (thank God for muscle cars). BTW, the ones I listed are not that heavy; some are in the 3,200-3,500-lb weight. Overall, I would much rather drive a car that has some weight to it instead of some lightweight which would crumple at the slightest impact.

Don't forget *affordability*. Any person in the 1960s who could afford a Cadillac or Lincoln could afford any of the muscle cars I listed... not necessarily so with the cars you listed. Besides, I've not heard of a 10- or 11-second stock, production, under let's say $80,000 modern car.

And if a Mini is next to me on the street, I'm not going to Europe to see how it does on "real roads." I would just leave him in my tire smoke with my 500 lbs/ft torque muscle car! :D

From what I've seen from modern specs, there are quite a few cars today that are just as fuel hungry as the '60s muscle cars.

Matra et Alpine
07-11-2004, 03:02 PM
Yes, typical muscle cars (thank God for muscle cars). BTW, the ones I listed are not that heavy; some are in the 3,200-3,500-lb weight. Overall, I would much rather drive a car that has some weight to it instead of some lightweight which would crumple at the slightest impact.
We've covered this MANY times on UCP, a wee search would enlighten you.

To summarise .... weight has NOTHING to do with safety of the car you are IN.
European and Japanese "lght" cars are faring best in NCAP tests :) Currently the severest in the world

Don't forget *affordability*. Any person in the 1960s who could afford a Cadillac or Lincoln could afford any of the muscle cars I listed... not necessarily so with the cars you listed. Besides, I've not heard of a 10- or 11-second stock, production, under let's say $80,000 modern car.
That's because in the US you don't get to hear about 95% of the cars in Europe and Japan.
There were LOTS of reasonably priced sportscars in Europe.
When I think what you could buy an Alpine A110 for it makes me cry now :(

And if a Mini is next to me on the street, I'm not going to Europe to see how it does on "real roads." I would just leave him in my tire smoke with my 500 lbs/ft torque muscle car! :D
and then end up in the ditch on the first corner.
There is more to cars than accelleration :)

From what I've seen from modern specs, there are quite a few cars today that are just as fuel hungry as the '60s muscle cars.
erm, as I remember it the real muscle cars did 8-12mpg.

Mind you an Escort M1 Twin Cam in rally/road race trim did about the same :(

Fleet 500
07-11-2004, 04:12 PM
We've covered this MANY times on UCP, a wee search would enlighten you.

To summarise .... weight has NOTHING to do with safety of the car you are IN.
European and Japanese "lght" cars are faring best in NCAP tests :) Currently the severest in the world

That's because in the US you don't get to hear about 95% of the cars in Europe and Japan.
There were LOTS of reasonably priced sportscars in Europe.
When I think what you could buy an Alpine A110 for it makes me cry now :(

and then end up in the ditch on the first corner.
There is more to cars than accelleration :)

erm, as I remember it the real muscle cars did 8-12mpg.
(

C'mon... my 5,000 lb '71 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham or my 6,000 lb '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Limo would go right through one of those European or Japanese "light" cars.

As a rule, the reasonably priced sports cars in Europe were very short on low-end torque.

There are many '60s and '70s street racers who would disagree with "more to cars than acceleration." And, let's face it, sooner or later, with any kind of car, the question will eventually be asked, "how does it accelerate?"

Correct, 8-12 mpg. Just about what a lot of the large SUVs and some high-performance cars of today are getting. Some of today's large trucks get only 10 mpg (even my limo does better than that; it averages 11 mpg).
A recent Popular Mechanics test of big trucks showed a test average of 10.2 mpg for a GMC Sierra Denali with a 364 cu. in. (6.0 L) engine. And a Nissan Titan SE, with a 338.6 (5.6 L) engine averaged 10.3 mpg.

Fleet 500
07-11-2004, 04:21 PM
and then end up in the ditch on the first corner.
(

Why would you assume there would be corner coming up? Where I live, it's mostly straight streets. Besides, after blowing away the Mini, I would be so far ahead of it, I could slow down for the corners and still be ahead of it!
Anyway, a lot of those old muscle cars could handle better than many people would suspect... especially with today's tires.

Matra et Alpine
07-11-2004, 04:34 PM
C'mon... my 5,000 lb '71 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham or my 6,000 lb '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Limo would go right through one of those European or Japanese "light" cars.
Sorry I coulnd't have explained it clearly enough......YOU are likely to be less safe IN a heavier car when it crashes.
Let's not go into all the reasons and physics, search the other threads for that.
Just check out the euro ncap tests and you'll see that modern small cars are achieving 5 start ratings. Somthing they thought no car could achieve :)

As a rule, the reasonably priced sports cars in Europe were very short on low-end torque.
and used gears and weight to reduce the need for torque.

There are many '60s and '70s street racers who would disagree with "more to cars than acceleration." And, let's face it, sooner or later, with any kind of car, the question will eventually be asked, "how does it accelerate?"
That is an almost solely US view on racing ( with a few Aussies in the mix :) )
So are you saying ONLY acceleration matters ?
What about handling, braking, comfort, economy(!) ?
The ONLY 'race' where only acceleration matters is drag.
One formula amongst the hundreds :)

Matra et Alpine
07-11-2004, 04:41 PM
Why would you assume there would be corner coming up? Where I live, it's mostly straight streets.Well that's a bit parochial.
But understandable, you should have said you only wanted to consider straight roads.

However, what about the roads up in the San Gabriel mountains ? There are some great twisties up there :)


Besides, after blowing away the Mini, I would be so far ahead of it, I could slow down for the corners and still be ahead of it!
You want to go back and watch the 60s racing in Europe where the big Fords came over thinking that. Some of the greatest racing I've seen was Galaxies growling past Minis on the straights and Minis shooting up the inside on the corners :) Course on any track with a long straight then it couldnt' be made up, but equally any wet track and the Mini's, Imps, Cortinas swarmed past !!


Anyway, a lot of those old muscle cars could handle better than many people would suspect... especially with today's tires.
I suspect you're comparing the handling of other cars availabel in the US.
Again, I've covered this in UCP before. The US gets modified suspension from ALL the manufacturers to match the 'needs' of the US market. Comparing local and US spec cars, you get softer and less precise handling. So a 'fair' comparison should remove those artificial alterations.

AKlingel
07-11-2004, 05:34 PM
I have a feeling that when the rumored Corvette C6 Z06 is realeased that should solidify the fact that American manufacutures can make a high performance sports car, with a very acceptable level of luxury, that is dollar for dollar better than just about any european car.

On a separate note
In most of these arguments many people like to compare the C5 Z06 to Benzs and Beamers that have not only a higer sticker price, but have often been taken to a tuner of some sort with additional costs involved. Of course these cars that cost twice as much would out perform the Z06. If one were to invest that sort of cash into say a Lingenfelter package for a Z06, then we could really see who has the superior sports car.

Well optioned 2004 Z06 aprox. 54,000 USD
+
Twin Turbo LS1 Z06 Lingenfelter Package
427 CID 725 Bhp/ 650 ft/lbs of torque
0-60 3.2 sec (street tires)
1/4 mile 9.5 @ 145 mph (street tires)
est. top speed 230 mph + aprox. 49,000 USD
=103,000 USD

Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren
617 Bhp/ 575 ft/lbs of torque
0-60 3.7 sec
top speed 207 mph
base price est. 400,000 USD :eek:

Now, I don't know if the guy in the vette could take the guy in the Benz, because well.... his wallet would be almost $300,000 heavier :cool:

Coventrysucks
07-11-2004, 05:35 PM
you ppl crack me up with your anti-american BS... just because its american it must suck huh? dont be so ignorant

Not all American cars are crap, however...

A significant number of cars designed for the American market are built to a budget, and this shows in their general build quality.

Nearly all German cars are very well built, even the cheaper stuff from VW is tightly screwed together, with good quality materials.

I would say that the interior of a new VW Polo is significantly better in terms of quality and materials than a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which costs 3x as much.

We don't get many American cars over here, but the few that do are an embarresment to your country.

The Cheverolet Blazer, huge, thirsty - no one wanted one
The Chrysler Neon was widely regarded as the worst car in its segment
The Chrysler Voyager does surprisingly well, because it is big, and cheap.
The PT Cruiser got off to a good start, but it has fallen behind the similar cars from the European manufacturers which are light years better.
I think they sold about 5 Chrysler Sebrings.
The Cadillac STS was laughable.
Jeep are quite popular, but take a small %age of the market share.

Most US cars are defeated in road tests by three main points
1) Handling - European cars can easily cope with the narrow, undulating, winding roads that cross the UK
American cars tend to sort of flop and bounce everywhere, fine for the long, straight, flat highways, but here they just tend to induce sea sickness.

2) Engines - Large displacement engines, with fuel consumption usually less than similar cars from Europe, that offer less power and driveability than equivilant. A word that frequently crops up is "refinement", usually accompanied by "lack of".

3) General build quality - as mentioned above.
:)

aNOBLEman
07-11-2004, 07:02 PM
Just wait till you get the new Corvettes. Those have good engines, handling, and build quality.

Fleet 500
07-11-2004, 07:08 PM
As a rule, the reasonably priced sports cars in Europe were very short on low-end torque.

Here is a comparison: We'll keep the price at $4,500 and under.

Car/engine/horsepower/torque/0-60 mph/top speed/price

1966

Morgan.../131/105/148/8.7/110/4,030
Triumph TR-4A.../131/105/128/10.9/109/2,840
Triumph Spitfire MK2... 70/67/67/14/95/2,155
BMW 1800 TI Sport... 100/124/109/11/110/3,598
VW Karmann-Ghia Convertible... 94.5/50/69/-/80/2,495
Alfa-Romeo Giulia Spider... 46/106/81/11.6/105/3,995
Fiat 1500 Spider... 91/80/87/13/105/2,639

1970

Austin Healey Sprite MK IV... 77.9/62/72/14.7/93/2,081
Lotus Europa... 89.7/89/55/8.7/120/4,195
Sunbeam Alpine GT... 105/94/105/12.3/94/2,475
Triumph GT6+... 122/95/116.6/10/107/2,995
Triumph TR6... 152/104/142.5/10.7/119/3,275
Opel GT... 115.8/102/115/10.2/105/3,495
Alfa-Romeo 1750 GT Veloce... 108.5/132/137/9.9/118/4,446
Fiat Spider... 49.9/52/48/20/84/2,186
Lancia Fulvia Coupe Rallye... 79.2/101/88/12/105/3,385
Saab Sonett... 91.4/73/87/12.5/100/3,725

Now, compare with U.S. muscle cars, also under $4,500...

1966

Dodge Dart GT Convertible... 273/235/280/9/120/2,690
Ford Fairlane GT Convertible... 390/335/427/7/135/2,900
Olds 4-4-2 Cutlass Convertible... 400/350/440/7.5/120/3,070
Plymouth Sport Fury Convertible.... 440/365/480/7/130/3,650
Pontiac Grand Prix... 421/376/461/8.5/125/3,530
Pontiac GTO Convertible... 389/360/424/6/115/3,070

1968

Chevy Chevelle SS396... 396/350/415/7.3/128/4,034
Dodge Charger R/T... 426/425/490/6.3/155/4,084
Dodge Dart GTS... 383/300/400/6.7/120/3,248
Ford Mustang GT Fastback... 427/390/460/6.7/128/3,862
Mercury Cougar GT-E... 427/390/460/6.9/135/4,221
Olds 4-4-2... 400/350/440/7.1/130/3,063
Plymouth GTX... 426/425/490/5.8/125/4,043
Pontiac Firebird 400... 400/335/430/6.7/135/3,032
Shelby Cobra GT 500 Fastback... 427/400/460/6.2/140/4,485

1970

Chevy Camaro Z-28... 302/290/290/7.4/133/3,545
Dodge Challenger R/T... 383/335/425/5.9/140/3,400
Dodge Charger Daytona... 440/375/480/6.9/170/3,993
Dodge Coronet Super Bee... 383/335/425/5.6/129/3,059
Ford Torino Cobra... 429/375/450/7.5/130/3,206
AMC Javelin SST... 360/290/395/6.9/123/3,100
Mercury Cyclone Spoiler... 429/375/490/6/130/3,200
Plymouth Hemicuda... 426/425/490/5.5/135/4,000
Pontiac GTO Judge... 400/366/445/5.9/128/3,271

There's no doubt about it... for power and practicality (all of the U.S. cars, except the Javelin, were at least four-seaters) the U.S. muscle cars were the best buy. Add to the fact the because most of the U.S. engines were relatively mildly tuned, these cars ran and ran for many years.

Fleet 500
07-11-2004, 07:15 PM
Sorry I coulnd't have explained it clearly enough......YOU are likely to be less safe IN a heavier car when it crashes.
Let's not go into all the reasons and physics, search the other threads for that.
Just check out the euro ncap tests and you'll see that modern small cars are achieving 5 start ratings. Somthing they thought no car could achieve :)

and used gears and weight to reduce the need for torque.


If an unfortunate incident happens in which a lightweight foreign car plows into one of my cars, or I plow into it, and the other person comes out second-best (which is most likely to happen), I'll remind him that he is in the "safer" car!

And it's the need of those gears (and the high-rev valvetrain) that will send those little engines to an early grave.

Fleet 500
07-11-2004, 07:23 PM
However, what about the roads up in the San Gabriel mountains ? There are some great twisties up there :)

I suspect you're comparing the handling of other cars availabel in the US.
Again, I've covered this in UCP before. The US gets modified suspension from ALL the manufacturers to match the 'needs' of the US market. Comparing local and US spec cars, you get softer and less precise handling. So a 'fair' comparison should remove those artificial alterations.

As I said, a typical '60s/early '70s U.S. muscle car is quite capable of going around corners/twisties. Except for some nose-heavy big-blocks, like a '69 440 'Cuda or Dart, they will not run off the road, even when going 10 or 20 mph. over the speed limit. Even my Cadillacs can go 50 mph. in a 35 mph. posted curve!

No, I'm comparing handling on an absolute basis. Have you seen the Car & Driver test (March, 1965, I believe). They took a '65 Ferarri 2+2 and a Pontiac Catalina 2+2 on a track with a lot of curves. They discovered that the much lighter (3,500 lb) Ferarri was less than one-half second faster than the much heavier (4,400 lb) Pontiac when timed through the whole track. Again, handling of '60s U.S. cars is very underrated.

fpv_gtho
07-11-2004, 09:21 PM
Car/engine/horsepower/torque/0-60 mph/top speed/price

what about weight?





There's no doubt about it... for power and practicality (all of the U.S. cars, except the Javelin, were at least four-seaters) the U.S. muscle cars were the best buy. Add to the fact the because most of the U.S. engines were relatively mildly tuned, these cars ran and ran for many years.


theres also no doubt about it, at least half of the muscle cars ever on offer were either family sedans or based off family sedans, simply with a larger engine as a means for more power and quite often the suspensioin and brakes left standard



And it's the need of those gears (and the high-rev valvetrain) that will send those little engines to an early grave.

dont u think that the European manufacturers wouldve built the cars to last, despite their revvy nature? not only that, but im sure the types of buyers interested in these types of cars, aren't ones to simply leave them in the garage and only do the oil change whenever necessary.

fpv_gtho
07-11-2004, 09:24 PM
You want to go back and watch the 60s racing in Europe where the big Fords came over thinking that. Some of the greatest racing I've seen was Galaxies growling past Minis on the straights and Minis shooting up the inside on the corners :) Course on any track with a long straight then it couldnt' be made up, but equally any wet track and the Mini's, Imps, Cortinas swarmed past !!


I think we got lucky here in that for Bathurst, the smaller Cortina's and Mini's stood more of a chance than the large V8's. Possibly cause of the loose surface of the road at Bathurst and the need for handling prowess going through the mountain. Either way, with the length of Mountain Straight and Conrod Straight, its not as if they didnt have a chance to make up what they lost

Fleet 500
07-11-2004, 10:27 PM
what about weight?

theres also no doubt about it, at least half of the muscle cars ever on offer were either family sedans or based off family sedans, simply with a larger engine as a means for more power and quite often the suspensioin and brakes left standard

dont u think that the European manufacturers wouldve built the cars to last, despite their revvy nature? not only that, but im sure the types of buyers interested in these types of cars, aren't ones to simply leave them in the garage and only do the oil change whenever necessary.

Unfortunately, from the list I was drawing info from, weight was not listed.

That's why muscle cars were so successful... a basic or slightly modified engine in a mid-sized instead of full-sized car. The result... true performance with reliability. Take Plymouth's Road Runner for instance... they expected to sell 10-15,000 in its first year (1968) and the actual number was 44,599. With practically every muscle car, a firmer suspension was either standard or optional. Later in the '60s, bigger brakes also were an option.

Obviously, a slower-revving V-8 is going to last longer than a high-revving 4 cyl. A typical U.S. V-8 car with 3.00 or 3.23 gears will turn only about 3,000 rpm at 80 or 85 mph. Small engines tend to run hotter, too.

crisis
07-12-2004, 12:05 AM
We've covered this MANY times on UCP, a wee search would enlighten you.

To summarise .... weight has NOTHING to do with safety of the car you are IN.
European and Japanese "lght" cars are faring best in NCAP tests :) Currently the severest in the world
:(
But those tests are based on smashing a car into a solid object. When two cars collide different things happen. A small car with an airbag/s, crumple zones and all the associated passive safety goodies may perform well in accidents when tested in the laboratory. Until they ram two dissimilar cars together you wont know for sure. The key factor is how the occupants are restrained and how much of the car intrudes into the passenger area. Thats fine in the test place but when a heavier car hits a lighter car, the lighter one is going to be recoiled further and the chance of a secondary impact , once the airbags have deployed and are useless, may be increased. You dont see many truck drivers coming off second best when the nail a car.
One of the problems with current testing is that for a manufacturer to rate highly they must deliberatley design their cars to perform well in "unnatural" collisions and not design them for the real world, if you can ever. In the end I'll sit in a well designed large car rather than a well designed small one for crash testing any day.

fpv_gtho
07-12-2004, 03:16 AM
That's why muscle cars were so successful... a basic or slightly modified engine in a mid-sized instead of full-sized car. The result... true performance with reliability. Take Plymouth's Road Runner for instance... they expected to sell 10-15,000 in its first year (1968) and the actual number was 44,599. With practically every muscle car, a firmer suspension was either standard or optional. Later in the '60s, bigger brakes also were an option.


Its also why its not fair to compare them to European sports cars. Whilst the American muscle cars were family sedans with large V8's, the European sports cars were engineered to be as light as possible, be as nimble as possible and be a thrill to drive. Because of that, the price reflected the extra effort in developing and engineering the cars.

Matra et Alpine
07-12-2004, 03:46 AM
But those tests are based on smashing a car into a solid object.
You should read the ncap site on the basis of the tests.
ABotu 10 years ago they started to change the head-on impact based on REAL data from accidents.
So now the ncap test involves an OFFSET front crash, so the engine now only plays a small part in the absoroption of energy.
If a car passes a hit to a solid object then it will be a close enough approximation to a BETTER 'score' if hitting somehting that also crumpls and absorbs impact.
So I'm not sure what you're concern is ?

The key factor is how the occupants are restrained and how much of the car intrudes into the passenger area.
The first part is only partly true. If an object goes from speed to rest in short disstance it AND ALL IT"S CONTENTS are subject to high Gs. If the car doesn't absorb some of the impact then the 20+g is transferred to the driver/passenger and internal organs and brain damage WILL occur BECAUSE the body is restrained !


Thats fine in the test place but when a heavier car hits a lighter car, the lighter one is going to be recoiled further and the chance of a secondary impact , once the airbags have deployed and are useless, may be increased. You dont see many truck drivers coming off second best when the nail a car.
You're frogetting to treat theem as differnet components of a closed system.
What matters to a driver/passenger is the G THEY are subjected to and what parts of the vehicle make contact with them.
It doesn't matter if the lighter car goes backwards if it's G at and during impact is kept lower.
THAT is what makes the car safer for the occupants.
AND the obvious passenger cell stability.
making it strong is the easy part, the difficulty is making it 'safe' :)
NCAP thought they had set a target VERY few cars could reach. But most manufacturers have re-thought the problema nad come up with substantially safer cars in the tests and in reality.

One of the problems with current testing is that for a manufacturer to rate highly they must deliberatley design their cars to perform well in "unnatural" collisions and not design them for the real world, if you can ever.
See ncap as asked before. There tests ARE based on real world events and are accepted as realistic.

In the end I'll sit in a well designed large car rather than a well designed small one for crash testing any day.
For sure, but raises a point Clarkson made on last nights Top Gear. DO we care about other road users or not ?
Scots are brought up to believe that if we ALL do well that is better than a few being fatnastic and the rest miserable ! ( a bit extreme :) )
So I would RATHER be in a safe car that protected ME *AND* others over a car that in 1 accident in 10,000 was safer for me and in 1 in 10 worse for others.
Otheres don't.
I just wish those who don't would all drive Volvo's coz bikers already know to keep clear of them :)

BUT, would you rather be in a big car with 4 stars or a small car with 5 ??????????

Fleet 500
07-12-2004, 09:16 PM
Its also why its not fair to compare them to European sports cars. Whilst the American muscle cars were family sedans with large V8's, the European sports cars were engineered to be as light as possible, be as nimble as possible and be a thrill to drive. Because of that, the price reflected the extra effort in developing and engineering the cars.

It's also not fair to downgrade American muscle cars because they don't equal the "standard" of handling that many drivers can take advantage of maybe once a month. Engineering a car to be as light as possible is not always a good idea. For one thing, they can be dangerous to drive in windy conditions. Like on a highway with the wind pushing against the side of the car... with light cars you have to fight to keep the car in your lane. With a heavy car it hardly affects you.

As for being a thrill to drive, take a drive in any U.S. big block muscle car (especially a Hemi-powered car or a LS6 (450 horsepower) 454 '70 Chevelle or '70 455 Buick GSX. They may not outhandle a Ferarri, but a Ferarri can't leave 120-foot long twin black stripes on the road, either.

As for "extra effort in developing and engineering the cars," witness the fact that many U.S. muscle cars are still driving around with the original (unrebuilt) engines and transmissions. I'm sure many people know that the quality for European cars is in some cases overrated.

Here are a few interesting letters printed in Motor Trend:

(Jan., 1974)

"How could you predict 150,000 miles for the Mercedes 220 sedan with no major repairs? The solid feel, yes, I'll buy that but at their prices it should be solid. I've had two Mercedes-Benz, the first one a '64 220-SE which needed a complete overhaul of the injection pump at 42,000 because it was running lean and burned the valves. The valve job and injection pump cost about $550 and then there is the German-made mufflers that last about 1 and one-half years plus a solenoid for the transmission. I spent $2,000 on the car in the first four years.
The second Mercedes was a '68 250-SE. It burned a quart of oil every 500 miles. At 40,000 miles it had a rear end howel and used a quart of oil very 200 miles. The injection pump went to the rich side and I was getting 12.5 mpg. Here's what it cost me: $400, new differential; $1,300, overhaul engine; $300 overhaul injection pump. I traded the M-B in on a Dodge Polara and it will do the 150,000 mile bit you're talking about."
- Arthur Soltwedel, Northridge, Calif.

(Aug., 1977)

"Why don't you guys come off it? I think the foreigners have bought you. I just read your test on the Mercedes 280E and it doesn't show me anything for $16,785. I am speaking as an auto mechanic with 20 years experience on behalf of American cars. We have more problems with foreign cars that their owners take care of than American cars that are severely neglected. The best you guys could do with that overrated German rollar-skate with a 167.6 cu. in. engine with 7,350 miles on the odometer was 19 mpg? My '68 Pontiac Catalina with 86,425 miles on the odometer, 400 engine, 2-bbl carb, auto transmission and 2.29 final drive ratio will do 18.7-19.4 mpg highway, with three passengers aboard and 200 lb. in the trunk. Another thing my Pontiac will do is blow away that Mercedes, 0-60 mph. and in the quarter-mile."
- Ralph A. Lukas, Staten Island, N.Y.

(Sept., 1984)

"I purchased a ['84?] Toyota GT-S last September with the feeling of having a reliable, well-built car. After only four months, the paint was cracking on the hood and the headlights collect moisture and must be wiped periodically. After only 3,000 miles, the cruise control stopped working; and after 600 miles, the left rear axle bearing was shot. It seems that Toyota didn't put enough lubrication in the rear end. I think for my next car I'll get something just as reliable at a much cheaper price: a 1959 Edsel Corsair."
- Steve Xikouloutakis (Yes, that's how his name was printed.)

(April, 1974)

"Take your Mercedes, pack them up, and send them back to Deutchland. I have a '60 Buick Electra (bought new for $3,779) with only 240,000 miles, original rings, bearings and most other parts. Yeah, I did a valve job at 180,000 miles. When I had 224,000 miles I towed a 4,000 boat from New York to Florida with no trouble at all. I'd love to try that with a well-worn Mercedes or any other car, foreign or domestic. I could go on extolling the virtues of this great car, but who'd believe it?"
- Peter Di Bella, Cape Coral, Florida

Matra et Alpine
07-13-2004, 02:59 AM
It's also not fair to downgrade American muscle cars because they don't equal the "standard" of handling that many drivers can take advantage of maybe once a month.
The problem when comparing is that they are different beasts.
I don't think it's fair to 'downgrade' either type of car for power r handling. But it's difficult to then compare when they do different jobs for different markets. I'll try to raise some of those differences as we go :)

Engineering a car to be as light as possible is not always a good idea. For one thing, they can be dangerous to drive in windy conditions. Like on a highway with the wind pushing against the side of the car... with light cars you have to fight to keep the car in your lane. With a heavy car it hardly affects you.
In designing light cars most ( note I say most ) are also desinged to be stable in sidewinds.
There are also a few other factors. Steering in US cars is quite vague compared to European.
Particulraly from the 'muscle car' era.
However, European cars need 'driving' when on motorways. They're not just cruise-and-forget.
Which brings first difference. We don't have many miles of open straight highways. Our motrorways are first MUCH smaller in mileage as our cities are closer together ! Secondly they follow terrain, so drivers are alwayys putting input to steeering and wind shear isn't the only input - that's typically when sidewinds 'hurt'.

As for being a thrill to drive, take a drive in any U.S. big block muscle car (especially a Hemi-powered car or a LS6 (450 horsepower) 454 '70 Chevelle or '70 455 Buick GSX. They may not outhandle a Ferarri, but a Ferarri can't leave 120-foot long twin black stripes on the road, either.
And therein lies the difficulty of comparison.
I wouldn't even go to the lofty heights ( or cost ) of a Ferrari for comparison.
We tend to run softer compound street tyres.
Most folks with 'performance' cars will be lucky to get 10,000 miles out of a set. I get about 6 :( It doesn't bother us, we are 'happy' to pay extra running for the better grip because of the advantages in handling.
Farrari's CAN leave 120ft long strips if the driver wants it too :)
So can Saab's - I know this one from bitter experience with the first 99 Turbo ( a beast I wouldn't wish on anyone :) )
Returnign to the 'thrill'. Acceleration is a thrill we can all agree on. But eually so is taking a series of tight corners in perfect rythm with the car and the road. Big cars ( *any* big car ) isn't the same feel. ( and sportsbikes are another level :) )

As for "extra effort in developing and engineering the cars," witness the fact that many U.S. muscle cars are still driving around with the original (unrebuilt) engines and transmissions. I'm sure many people know that the quality for European cars is in some cases overrated.
Again differnet weather conditions, different markets, differnet expectation.
The V8 was born in AMerica to provide for thousands of miles of straight highway crusing in comfort. We don't have roads like that and we didn't need them and we didn't expect to keep cars for very long in mileage or years.
So the cars were engineered for that market.
So cars NEED regular servicing and oil changes and top-ups.
MOST cars will be sold by their first owner within 2-5 years.
most drivers only put on 8-10,000 miles per year and in sportscars it's usually about HALF that.
So no NEED to build for longer life.
The problem I think is that the manufacturers should have benehonest in the 60-80s and TOLD the US buyer these facts.
So much of the bad reputation for European cars is from insufficient servicing and maintenance, poor preparation for weather ( we don't get UV like in Denver :) ) and expecting them to do 200,000 miles.

Here are a few interesting letters printed in Motor Trend:
Reading some of the words and tone, I think some of that is bias :)
But some of it is also possibly true, based on my viewpoint aboive !!
Oh, and most folks used to be happy paying LOTS of money to garages for services and repairs.

A recent insight into some of this possible difference comes from the recent Honda CRV issue. About 27 IIRC CRVs have 'burst into flames' after an oil change.
From the TV reports (US) I saw it looks like either the filter is not prepared and fitted properly ( it's bad to over-tighten theses as much as not pre-lube them ) OR oil is being spilled onto parts and then onto exhanust. A US safety spokesperson basically demanded that Honda re-design the car to prevent this occurring. Well over here, if that happened, the mechanic who did the job would likely be fired for either not fitting it properly or not cleaning up any oil spill properly. Better mechanics didn't seem to come into any US solution. I 'suspect' because that would mean more expensive mechanics and the gneeral populace wouldn't stand for that. Over here, we complain about servicing costs sure, but in the end we pay them. I dont' complain so much as I prefer to have a well trained, knowledgeable mechanic rather than a monkey-wrench-boy in some hwik-fit, kwik-lube shop.

So returning to car comparison......... I think we've rehashed this time and again and there are 3 camps ...
1 - Acceleration is god, weight is irrelevant as long as there's enough power.
2 - acceleration is as important as handling and happy for each to be compromised for an all round great car
3 - handling is god, power out of corners is less important than speed through them.

I'm a 2 1/2, but occasionally like a blast in a single seater racer to enjoy 1 without too much compromise :)

Coventrysucks
07-13-2004, 03:34 AM
It's also not fair to downgrade American muscle cars because they don't equal the "standard" of handling that many drivers can take advantage of maybe once a month. Engineering a car to be as light as possible is not always a good idea. For one thing, they can be dangerous to drive in windy conditions. Like on a highway with the wind pushing against the side of the car... with light cars you have to fight to keep the car in your lane. With a heavy car it hardly affects you.

Unlike America, the UK has many great driving roads all over the country, and you can get some good driving in every day if you wish.

As for the arguement that heavy vehicles are less suceptable to cross winds, is that why during heavy gusts my mum's "light" Citroen ZX (~1100kg) barely twitches whilst 38,000kg artics are swerving all over the road?

Most "lightweight" sports cars have a small side profile, and therefore aren't as affected by side winds as bigger cars.
:)

crisis
07-13-2004, 05:28 PM
So returning to car comparison......... I think we've rehashed this time and again and there are 3 camps ...
1 - Acceleration is god, weight is irrelevant as long as there's enough power.
2 - acceleration is as important as handling and happy for each to be compromised for an all round great car
3 - handling is god, power out of corners is less important than speed through them.

I'm a 2 1/2, but occasionally like a blast in a single seater racer to enjoy 1 without too much compromise :)
Im 1 and a half. And I almost met god yesterday, I was in the left hand lane on a two lane road at a stop light. ( We orstralians drive on the left ) . About a hundred metres past the intersection some f/wad was parked. Next to me was a boy in a company VT Commodore station wagon. I thought I would put the boot in and get around the parked car and back in the left lane. The road was wet, the stage was set. Got off the line pretty well and all looked fine. Then I notice racer x thought we were getting all fast and furious. At this stage I was somewhat committed to getting around the parked car or going through it. Numb nuts (the other one) was not backing off so I pushed the on button to the floor. Fangio was behind me but I did not want to cut him off so I grabbed 2nd. Well I had controlled the wheel spin in first pretty well but when I dumped the clutch big red decided it would be more fun sideways (we hates traction control dont we precious!). Luckily, (my driving skill had now run out) it decided to send the tail out right, got a bite of bitumen and we pulled ahead enough so that my arse did not cop my would be assailant in the nose. Somewhat embarrased by my lack of maturity it took me a while to realise this prick wanted to bury me in the arse of the parked car and had no intention of letting me in. He must have realised he lost perspective also as he made sure he positioned himslef well behind or in front of me from then until he turned off. Im not sure what the lesson is. Was the fact that I had the grunt to "own" him a good thing or was it that very same grunt that got me into trouble in the first place. Mods feel free to shift this to the "automotive idiot stories" if you so desire.

Fleet 500
07-13-2004, 08:43 PM
Unlike America, the UK has many great driving roads all over the country, and you can get some good driving in every day if you wish.

As for the arguement that heavy vehicles are less suceptable to cross winds, is that why during heavy gusts my mum's "light" Citroen ZX (~1100kg) barely twitches whilst 38,000kg artics are swerving all over the road?

Most "lightweight" sports cars have a small side profile, and therefore aren't as affected by side winds as bigger cars.
:)

Yes, that is a good point. However, some foreign cars are well known as prone to crosswinds. For instance, the VW Beetle... with a strong gust of wind, there were known to move over one or two lanes whether the driver wanted it to or not! I also remember a neighbor who had a VW Bus. He had to pile bricks on the floor in the interior so it wouldn't tip over during high winds while on the highway.

As you said, though, sports car don't have this problem. Or, the wind affects them to a much lesser degree.

Fleet 500
07-13-2004, 09:19 PM
Farrari's CAN leave 120ft long strips if the driver wants it too :)
So can Saab's - I know this one from bitter experience with the first 99 Turbo ( a beast I wouldn't wish on anyone :) )

Again differnet weather conditions, different markets, differnet expectation.
The V8 was born in AMerica to provide for thousands of miles of straight highway crusing in comfort. We don't have roads like that and we didn't need them and we didn't expect to keep cars for very long in mileage or years.
So the cars were engineered for that market.
So cars NEED regular servicing and oil changes and top-ups.
MOST cars will be sold by their first owner within 2-5 years.
most drivers only put on 8-10,000 miles per year and in sportscars it's usually about HALF that.
So no NEED to build for longer life.

Reading some of the words and tone, I think some of that is bias :)
But some of it is also possibly true, based on my viewpoint aboive !!
Oh, and most folks used to be happy paying LOTS of money to garages for services and repairs.

Better mechanics didn't seem to come into any US solution.

So returning to car comparison......... I think we've rehashed this time and again and there are 3 camps ...
1 - Acceleration is god, weight is irrelevant as long as there's enough power.
2 - acceleration is as important as handling and happy for each to be compromised for an all round great car
3 - handling is god, power out of corners is less important than speed through them.


I think it would be very hard for a Ferarri to do a 120-foot burnout. They lack low-end torque. (BTW, I'm talking about burnouts done without "powerbraking," just revving it and flooring it).

For those who enjoy collecting '60s U.S. cars, we are grateful that they were built to last. Some of us out here take it for granted that when we buy a '60s U.S. car (in my case, Cadillacs), the engine will give not give us problems. Which has usually been the case- my family's '70 Cadillac Coupe de Ville had passed the 200,000 mile point with the original engine and transmission (not rebuilt). There are probably not many '60s European sports cars around with the original drivetrain. They wore out long ago (or the cars are in storage somewhere).

Not necessarily bias, more like past experience! Those who wrote their letters about the cars they owned have no reason to distort the truth. As for the mechanic who sees foreign cars come into his shop needing so much work, it's not his fault. He didn't work on the cars until they came into his shop.

On the above scale, I am about a 1 and 1/4.

Fleet 500
07-13-2004, 10:02 PM
There are also a few other factors. Steering in US cars is quite vague compared to European.
Particulraly from the 'muscle car' era.
However, European cars need 'driving' when on motorways. They're not just cruise-and-forget.


I wonder if that Pontiac Catalina, which was only one-half second slower through the track than that Ferrari, had "vague" steering? :)

Two more items of interest I found while going through my files of car mags...

From Science & Mechanics, April, 1969
Test of a '69 Ford Mustang 428 (definitely a "nose-heavy" muscle car).

To quote from the author- "... [Driving in New York]... Anyway, we were suddenly startled by some meatball in a gold metalflake Ferrari that sounded like it was revving 8,000 rpm in second gear. This guy gave us an evil look as if to say, 'Get that junk Falcon out of my way!' Coming from a long line of lunatics, my fat photog [photographer] laid the Mustang's pedal to the floor. We sucked the doors off that Ferrari. From 50 to 120 mph we nailed him so hard that he roared up to us at an intersection and taunted us to try to follow him on some back roads heading into Westchester County. So we did, and almost ran over the poor slob. Our Ford could eat him up in acceleration and stay right with him on the turns. Shock and disbelief got to the Ferrari driver. Me, too. We stopped and were talking about the two cars. We really put this poor guy down when he found out we had power steering and stereo. We then followed him and I drove up his bumper for a while. He finally blew his mind and jumped a center divider to reverse his direction and throw us off his shadow. Usually we drive 25 mph. and obey all the laws. But just this once..." :D

Motor Trend, Jan., 1959

A comparsion between a '59 Lago America (sports car, 165 " overall length) and '59 Plymouth Sport Fury (high-performance coupe, 217" overall length).

Quotes by the author:

"Though the Plymouth Sport Fury is not specifically designed for high-speed touring, as the Lago America seems to be, the fact that is has good performance (0-60 mph. in 8.5 seconds, 16.2 @ 87 mph 1/4 mile, handles exceedingly well, and gives a smooth ride makes it as much a Gran Turismo car as the Lago. What I'd like to see is a Sport Fury in the hands of a good rally driver entered in some European rallies that are dominated by European entries."

Driving through mountains and desert...
On the road (the Lago)..." The faster it goes, the better it seems to like it. No trouble keeping it in a straight line, have to use gears a lot, brakes not too much, notice Plymouth not having trouble staying with me."

"Driving the Plymouth, I why it wasn't having any trouble staying up. First of all, it has twice the power [305 hp VS 140]. Then, once you get used to the lack of actual 'feel' of the road because of the effortless power steering, you find it will take the corners unusually fast.. To top it off, by using the pushbutton transmission properly, you can get the benefit of deceleration and acceleration from any of the three gears."

The magazine asked a driver who likes only imports to drive the Sport Fury. His comments... "As you know, I'm not enthusiastic about Detroit's utility cars. But this '59 Fury has changed my mind. It not only howls, but handles! Naturally, it's too big and heavy to be flung around tight corners like a competition machine, but on open, high-speed bends it is nothing short of great. Its firm road feel is comparable to a good sports car, an unheard-of achievement with power steering. And right up to the ragged edge I couldn't force either tire squeal or any appreciable roll. If it were my choice to run down speeders on the highway, or if there were a class for production sedans in a revived Mexican Road Race, my unhesitating first choice would be a '59 Fury."

fpv_gtho
07-13-2004, 10:39 PM
Im 1 and a half. And I almost met god yesterday, I was in the left hand lane on a two lane road at a stop light. ( We orstralians drive on the left ) . About a hundred metres past the intersection some f/wad was parked. Next to me was a boy in a company VT Commodore station wagon. I thought I would put the boot in and get around the parked car and back in the left lane. The road was wet, the stage was set. Got off the line pretty well and all looked fine. Then I notice racer x thought we were getting all fast and furious. At this stage I was somewhat committed to getting around the parked car or going through it. Numb nuts (the other one) was not backing off so I pushed the on button to the floor. Fangio was behind me but I did not want to cut him off so I grabbed 2nd. Well I had controlled the wheel spin in first pretty well but when I dumped the clutch big red decided it would be more fun sideways (we hates traction control dont we precious!). Luckily, (my driving skill had now run out) it decided to send the tail out right, got a bite of bitumen and we pulled ahead enough so that my arse did not cop my would be assailant in the nose. Somewhat embarrased by my lack of maturity it took me a while to realise this prick wanted to bury me in the arse of the parked car and had no intention of letting me in. He must have realised he lost perspective also as he made sure he positioned himslef well behind or in front of me from then until he turned off. Im not sure what the lesson is. Was the fact that I had the grunt to "own" him a good thing or was it that very same grunt that got me into trouble in the first place. Mods feel free to shift this to the "automotive idiot stories" if you so desire.


I'm probably about a 2, i can shift between a 1.5 and a 2.5

great story though :p

Matra et Alpine
07-14-2004, 03:28 AM
HI Fleet, I'd like to engage on a long discourse to further explain the differences between roads, tracks and driver expectations which explains why US and European cars were different.

But I wasted too much time with Guibo and this thread won't get much of my attention.

But I'll add a little explanatino of what I was saying.....

I wonder if that Pontiac Catalina, which was only one-half second slower through the track than that Ferrari, had "vague" steering? :)
Well that comment was based on MY experinces over the decades driving in the US and various articles and books. A track with sweeping corners won't make a big difference on handling 'feel. So it may not be a fair comparison. Also, Ferrari's were NOT the pinnacle of handling. Sorry guys, but they just weren't !!! and still aren't :)


Two more items of interest I found while going through my files of car mags...

From Science & Mechanics, April, 1969
Test of a '69 Ford Mustang 428 (definitely a "nose-heavy" muscle car).

To quote from the author- "... [Driving in New York]... Anyway, we were suddenly startled by some meatball in a gold metalflake Ferrari that sounded like it was revving 8,000 rpm in second gear.
Well that's how you drive a Ferrari. This only highlights the lack of knowledger the author had of sportscars in the 'eureopean' mold :) Revs for performance not torque.

We sucked the doors off that Ferrari. .........We then followed him and I drove up his bumper for a while. He finally blew his mind and jumped a center divider to reverse his direction and throw us off his shadow. Usually we drive 25 mph. and obey all the laws. But just this once..."
Doesn't sound like a professional journalist.
But what are we comparing ?
Like other conversations in trying to make comparison, the driver can make a huge difference. Q: How many Ferrari's have "blown away" Fords ? and centre divider implies freeway. Again, we probably have a BIG diffrence in what you and I consider twisty. Go look at the Knockhill series of photos and videos I've posted here on UCP to see a 'medium' track. Tighter tracks abound in Europe :) We don't have many "Road America" or "Laguna" size tracks :( and our roads are CERTAINLY not like them :)

...not specifically designed for high-speed touring, as the Lago America seems to be
Well chosing a car only built in a handful isn't really on. I don't know much about the Lago, but perhaps they only sold 12 because it WAS a dog.
But they were never recognised as a great post-war car manufacturer :(

What I'd like to see is a Sport Fury in the hands of a good rally driver entered in some European rallies that are dominated by European entries."
Excellent point from the journo aiming to see a reasonable comparison. Did this ever happen ? ( I spent 10 mins doing a web search of major European rallies and couldn't find any Fury's listed - shame ! If you know of one please send it. I love picturse of unusual historic/post-historic rally cars )

Then, once you get used to the lack of actual 'feel' of the road because of the effortless power steering
So I'd suggest the roads he was using didnt' need him to 'feel' the road very much.
So unlikley it was a twisty.
Again I point this out because our conditions WERE and still are different.
Our cars were designed for tighter twisty roads.

It not only howls, but handles! Naturally, it's too big and heavy to be flung around tight corners like a competition machine, but on open, high-speed bends it is nothing short of great. Its firm road feel is comparable to a good sports car, an unheard-of achievement with power steering. And right up to the ragged edge I couldn't force either tire squeal or any appreciable roll. If it were my choice to run down speeders on the highway, or if there were a class for production sedans in a revived Mexican Road Race, my unhesitating first choice would be a '59 Fury."
Sounds a nice rounded report. Recognising the limitations. Again the roads described are 'highway' and the Mexican Road Race I presume is the pan-america which has mainly sweepers and not many twisties. ( I'm not THAT old to have competed before anyone suggests it, but I've viewed many videos as I tihnk it was one of the great road races with the European Milles : )
Thanks for finding and quoting articles.
They were interesting and thought provoking.
But at the end of the day it is IMPOSSIBLE for a car weighing twice as much to handle as well - given other areas equal. So *maybe* the Lago still used 1930s suspension. Hell the 'great' MGs of the 60s used suspension designed 10 years earlier :) Shuold comparisons try to pitch best against best ? I think so.
It would have been nice to have seen more US cars competing in rallies and road races over here for sure. The early Galaxies were a real treat in racing and were winners on the open tracks in the driy. The only response was to create a formula for bigger cars and that's what happened - it was VERY dangerous in wet tracks to have the Mnis and Galaxies together. Ended with lots of work for panel-beaters :)
I know Mustangs competed in the European rally series at the same time that Mercedes and Citroen competed the big SLs and DSs. However, they didn't win much beyond the endurance events. Don't know how the Mustangs did - will do a wider research through my catalog at the weekend. The comment about the Sports Fury has me intrigued.

fpv_gtho
07-14-2004, 03:57 AM
But at the end of the day it is IMPOSSIBLE for a car weighing twice as much to handle as well - given other areas equal.


it was only the other day one of my friends was getting my opinion on this. He currently owns a I6 Falcon and wanted to know whether i thought a V8 Fairlane would be better for him (cause i know you wont understand this straight away, the fairlanes a good 100kg heavier and the V8's only got about 20kw and 40nm more). cause this guys always going on about how he blew away some turbo skyline in some street race 3am in the morning, i figued a larger, heavier car wouldnt fit his "lifestyle". i tell him a larger and heavier car's going to be harder to control and throw around the place, but he insists after a while it wont matter because he'll learn to drive differently. i never got around to telling him that the driver cant override the performance difference

SPN:DOC
07-14-2004, 04:11 AM
It's also not fair to downgrade American muscle cars because they don't equal the "standard" of handling that many drivers can take advantage of maybe once a month. Engineering a car to be as light as possible is not always a good idea. For one thing, they can be dangerous to drive in windy conditions. Like on a highway with the wind pushing against the side of the car... with light cars you have to fight to keep the car in your lane. With a heavy car it hardly affects you.

As for being a thrill to drive, take a drive in any U.S. big block muscle car (especially a Hemi-powered car or a LS6 (450 horsepower) 454 '70 Chevelle or '70 455 Buick GSX. They may not outhandle a Ferarri, but a Ferarri can't leave 120-foot long twin black stripes on the road, either.

As for "extra effort in developing and engineering the cars," witness the fact that many U.S. muscle cars are still driving around with the original (unrebuilt) engines and transmissions. I'm sure many people know that the quality for European cars is in some cases overrated.

Here are a few interesting letters printed in Motor Trend:

(Jan., 1974)

"How could you predict 150,000 miles for the Mercedes 220 sedan with no major repairs? The solid feel, yes, I'll buy that but at their prices it should be solid. I've had two Mercedes-Benz, the first one a '64 220-SE which needed a complete overhaul of the injection pump at 42,000 because it was running lean and burned the valves. The valve job and injection pump cost about $550 and then there is the German-made mufflers that last about 1 and one-half years plus a solenoid for the transmission. I spent $2,000 on the car in the first four years.
The second Mercedes was a '68 250-SE. It burned a quart of oil every 500 miles. At 40,000 miles it had a rear end howel and used a quart of oil very 200 miles. The injection pump went to the rich side and I was getting 12.5 mpg. Here's what it cost me: $400, new differential; $1,300, overhaul engine; $300 overhaul injection pump. I traded the M-B in on a Dodge Polara and it will do the 150,000 mile bit you're talking about."
- Arthur Soltwedel, Northridge, Calif.

(Aug., 1977)

"Why don't you guys come off it? I think the foreigners have bought you. I just read your test on the Mercedes 280E and it doesn't show me anything for $16,785. I am speaking as an auto mechanic with 20 years experience on behalf of American cars. We have more problems with foreign cars that their owners take care of than American cars that are severely neglected. The best you guys could do with that overrated German rollar-skate with a 167.6 cu. in. engine with 7,350 miles on the odometer was 19 mpg? My '68 Pontiac Catalina with 86,425 miles on the odometer, 400 engine, 2-bbl carb, auto transmission and 2.29 final drive ratio will do 18.7-19.4 mpg highway, with three passengers aboard and 200 lb. in the trunk. Another thing my Pontiac will do is blow away that Mercedes, 0-60 mph. and in the quarter-mile."
- Ralph A. Lukas, Staten Island, N.Y.

(Sept., 1984)

"I purchased a ['84?] Toyota GT-S last September with the feeling of having a reliable, well-built car. After only four months, the paint was cracking on the hood and the headlights collect moisture and must be wiped periodically. After only 3,000 miles, the cruise control stopped working; and after 600 miles, the left rear axle bearing was shot. It seems that Toyota didn't put enough lubrication in the rear end. I think for my next car I'll get something just as reliable at a much cheaper price: a 1959 Edsel Corsair."
- Steve Xikouloutakis (Yes, that's how his name was printed.)

(April, 1974)

"Take your Mercedes, pack them up, and send them back to Deutchland. I have a '60 Buick Electra (bought new for $3,779) with only 240,000 miles, original rings, bearings and most other parts. Yeah, I did a valve job at 180,000 miles. When I had 224,000 miles I towed a 4,000 boat from New York to Florida with no trouble at all. I'd love to try that with a well-worn Mercedes or any other car, foreign or domestic. I could go on extolling the virtues of this great car, but who'd believe it?"
- Peter Di Bella, Cape Coral, Florida


Just thought I should put this in, in Europe most for the cars moving around are diesels ( NOT LIKE AMERICAN DISELS THESE ARE MUSH MORE SUFISTICATED ) anyways my uncle owns a Mercedes-Benz Mini Bus i think he said a 2.7CDI, and guess what recently he clocked one million Km’s in it, still its original engine and without a fault, just regularly serviced.. :eek: :eek:

Matra et Alpine
07-14-2004, 05:42 AM
Just thought I should put this in, in Europe most for the cars moving around are diesels ( NOT LIKE AMERICAN DISELS THESE ARE MUSH MORE SUFISTICATED ) anyways my uncle owns a Mercedes-Benz Mini Bus i think he said a 2.7CDI, and guess what recently he clocked one million Km’s in it, still its original engine and without a fault, just regularly serviced.. :eek: :eek:
Watch out fo distorted statistics.
Diesels are about on a par with petrol for new car sales.
but with the millions of cars on the road around Europe it only amounted to 10% of the total vehicles in the UK in 1997. I've looked and can't find any more up-to-date numbers. But I can be certain that we won't have scrapped half our cars in the UK by now :)
The Scottish ratio is 30% of cars are diesel ( 2003 figures )
Can't think why that should be any different for the rest of the UK so would suggest 70% of cars are petrol and probably same in Europe.

Karrmann
07-14-2004, 06:23 AM
easy, german cars.

Coventrysucks
07-14-2004, 07:49 AM
Watch out fo distorted statistics.
Diesels are about on a par with petrol for new car sales.
but with the millions of cars on the road around Europe it only amounted to 10% of the total vehicles in the UK in 1997. I've looked and can't find any more up-to-date numbers. But I can be certain that we won't have scrapped half our cars in the UK by now :)
The Scottish ratio is 30% of cars are diesel ( 2003 figures )
Can't think why that should be any different for the rest of the UK so would suggest 70% of cars are petrol and probably same in Europe.


I was under the impression that diesel sales had overtaken petrol in some market segments.
:)

Karrmann
07-14-2004, 08:39 AM
yeah it seems strange that cars are using diesel fuel.

Matra et Alpine
07-14-2004, 09:36 AM
I was under the impression that diesel sales had overtaken petrol in some market segments.
:)
Do you mean sales of cars or fuel ?

With the projected growth, it's likely they are now ahead.
But as that is NEW sales it will take a while to exceed the cars on the road.

The most recent foigure I could get for on-the-road cars was the Scottish Office statistics. That was the 70/30 split.

Karrmann
07-14-2004, 09:39 AM
I heard that MB will have 2 new Diesel cars in their line sometime.

Matra et Alpine
07-14-2004, 09:39 AM
yeah it seems strange that cars are using diesel fuel.
I was suprised the Prius was petrol.

With a diesel they could have been even more efficient.

Karrmann
07-14-2004, 09:41 AM
yeah, but diesel gives off a lot of smog., the Prius is known not to giveout as much smog as a normal car.

Matra et Alpine
07-14-2004, 09:53 AM
yeah, but diesel gives off a lot of smog., the Prius is known not to giveout as much smog as a normal car.
There are a few alternatives available ( but still costly ) to remove the soot particles.
Diesels are MUCH lower than petrol for other emissions.
( assuming decent diesel, high sulphate content diesel is NASTY and should be banned !! )

Karrmann
07-14-2004, 09:55 AM
I agree about that Diesel being banned.

Coventrysucks
07-14-2004, 10:37 AM
Bio Diesel costs the same as normal diesel and is sulphar free.

Get some today (if you can find somewhere that sells it...)

VtecMini
07-14-2004, 11:13 AM
There are a few alternatives available ( but still costly ) to remove the soot particles.
Diesels are MUCH lower than petrol for other emissions.
( assuming decent diesel, high sulphate content diesel is NASTY and should be banned !! )


I agree about that Diesel being banned.

Erm... Karrmann, how much of Matra's post did you actually read?

Did you read it all? Or just read a random selection of about 6 words?

This weeks Auto Express is a diesel special. According to their statistics 27 percent of all new cars sold in the UK in 2003 were diesels, as appose to 2001, when only 17.8% were diesel powered. A total of 704,673 diesel cars were sold last year, an increase of 15% over 2002. </boring stats>

Coventrysucks
07-14-2004, 02:27 PM
Do you mean sales of cars or fuel ?

With the projected growth, it's likely they are now ahead.
But as that is NEW sales it will take a while to exceed the cars on the road.

The most recent foigure I could get for on-the-road cars was the Scottish Office statistics. That was the 70/30 split.

I think I read somewhere that in some sectors, like family cars, MPV's and small executive cars are selling more diesel than petrol models.

However, it is equally likely that I imagined that it said that, it was about 6 months ago or something. What Car? did a "Diesel" edition
:)

Fleet 500
07-14-2004, 10:56 PM
Just thought I should put this in, in Europe most for the cars moving around are diesels ( NOT LIKE AMERICAN DISELS THESE ARE MUSH MORE SUFISTICATED ) anyways my uncle owns a Mercedes-Benz Mini Bus i think he said a 2.7CDI, and guess what recently he clocked one million Km’s in it, still its original engine and without a fault, just regularly serviced.. :eek: :eek:

Yeah, but look what it is... my Diamondback mountain bike can probably out-accelerate it. :)

What I find more impressive are the muscle cars, in which the owners (in some cases original owners) used to drive very hard, and the engine never gave him any trouble. For instance, one of my friend's '66 Ford Fairlane 500 XL (390 engine)... he took it out once in the rain for some fun (spinning the tires on the wet ground) and accidentally had it in first instead of second. The speedo shot up to 80 mph. (definitely overrevving). Not a hint of a wimper from the engine.

Another example is a story I heard of a '50s Chrysler Hemi. The owner was driving one when a freeze plug came out. He was several miles from a service station so he kept driving. When he pulled in, the engine was glowing from the heat and the spark plug wires were smoking. He put in another freeze plug, put new s.p. wires, and kept driving the car. Recently, a co-workers '89 or '90 Mercedes 190 overheated on the freeway. It needed a completely new engine.

SPN:DOC
07-15-2004, 01:50 AM
Yeah, but look what it is... my Diamondback mountain bike can probably out-accelerate it. :)

What I find more impressive are the muscle cars, in which the owners (in some cases original owners) used to drive very hard, and the engine never gave him any trouble. For instance, one of my friend's '66 Ford Fairlane 500 XL (390 engine)... he took it out once in the rain for some fun (spinning the tires on the wet ground) and accidentally had it in first instead of second. The speedo shot up to 80 mph. (definitely overrevving). Not a hint of a wimper from the engine.

Another example is a story I heard of a '50s Chrysler Hemi. The owner was driving one when a freeze plug came out. He was several miles from a service station so he kept driving. When he pulled in, the engine was glowing from the heat and the spark plug wires were smoking. He put in another freeze plug, put new s.p. wires, and kept driving the car. Recently, a co-workers '89 or '90 Mercedes 190 overheated on the freeway. It needed a completely new engine.

Yeah i get what your talking about, the Merc is slow a 2.7 Diesel, but that car had been on the road 24/7, since new and just keeps going, Europeans don’t make big engine car's the reason fuel price, in US u would expect to pay 60 cents a liter, and in Europe i think it would be around $1.50 a liter in some areas, correct me if I m wrong. The Europeans can just as easily make big engines and travel even further distances. But that’s not there intention, the German cars are made and designed to be exported all over the world. For a 2.7L is impressive you have to admit, look at the VW beetle still running around from the 50's or 40's 1.3L water cooled and lets not forget the Kombi wahhaa....i also found a 1998 VW passat 1.8L 20v which traveled 800,000km's lol till the wheel came off.. oh ye and that 1.9L Merc... again engine size matters so does fuel… and it all in servicing if u service your little German engine it will go a long way… :D :D

Matra et Alpine
07-15-2004, 02:46 AM
Yeah, but look what it is... my Diamondback mountain bike can probably out-accelerate it. :)
You haven't driven a decent turbo diesel then :)
I had to drive my sisters Skoda (yuk!), 1.6 Turbo Diesel and frankly from 50-80 it was pretty nippy. Now we're not talking drag here, but as a car for motorway cruising it was impressive.

What I find more impressive are the muscle cars, in which the owners (in some cases original owners) used to drive very hard, and the engine never gave him any trouble. For instance, one of my friend's '66 Ford Fairlane 500 XL (390 engine)... he took it out once in the rain for some fun (spinning the tires on the wet ground) and accidentally had it in first instead of second. The speedo shot up to 80 mph. (definitely overrevving). Not a hint of a wimper from the engine.
and so ? That's to do with gearing :)
See later....

Another example is a story I heard of a '50s Chrysler Hemi. The owner was driving one when a freeze plug came out. He was several miles from a service station so he kept driving. When he pulled in, the engine was glowing from the heat and the spark plug wires were smoking. He put in another freeze plug, put new s.p. wires, and kept driving the car. Recently, a co-workers '89 or '90 Mercedes 190 overheated on the freeway. It needed a completely new engine.
That is a pointless quote.
So a big lazy under-stressed V8 survived and a modern tuned ( what engine ) didn't.
Irrelevant.
Also, US cars since the first V8 have enjoyed that lazy V8 design. You have different needs and over the years expectations. In Europe we have MANY more towns and small roads in all our journeys. So a car that can sit at 55 for 6 hours is irrelevant and a waste. We need cars which can accelerate, brake and turn with more precision ( speak from 1st hand trying to come down and Alpine pass at speed :) ), with good fuel economy and safety.
It's pointless to bring up individual cases. There are numerous big cars in ditches coz they can't make corners. Does that mean that a modern US car will ahndle as badly as a 1955 ? Clearly not !!

Fleet 500
07-15-2004, 07:53 PM
and so ? That's to do with gearing :)
See later....

That is a pointless quote.
So a big lazy under-stressed V8 survived and a modern tuned ( what engine ) didn't.
Irrelevant.
Also, US cars since the first V8 have enjoyed that lazy V8 design. You have different needs and over the years expectations. In Europe we have MANY more towns and small roads in all our journeys. So a car that can sit at 55 for 6 hours is irrelevant and a waste. We need cars which can accelerate, brake and turn with more precision ( speak from 1st hand trying to come down and Alpine pass at speed :) ), with good fuel economy and safety.
It's pointless to bring up individual cases. There are numerous big cars in ditches coz they can't make corners. Does that mean that a modern US car will ahndle as badly as a 1955 ? Clearly not !!

I know it's gearing. The point is the engine was able to take an overrevving condition with no harm. And, from what I've heard the old V-8s are much more able to survive an overheating condition than most of today's engines.

There are numerous big cars in ditches because the owner was a bad driver!

Fleet 500
07-15-2004, 08:00 PM
The Europeans can just as easily make big engines and travel even further distances. But that’s not there intention, the German cars are made and designed to be exported all over the world. For a 2.7L is impressive you have to admit, look at the VW beetle still running around from the 50's or 40's 1.3L water cooled.

Oh, yeah... the traffic-impeding VWs from the '40s and '50s, of which they had a top speed of about 55 mph. (with a tailwind). :D

Yes, the Europeans can just as easily make big engines, but they don't (or didn't- I think they have gotten bigger in the last 10 years or so)... that's why I drive U.S. cars with big V-8s.

fpv_gtho
07-15-2004, 08:21 PM
Yes, the Europeans can just as easily make big engines, but they don't (or didn't- I think they have gotten bigger in the last 10 years or so)... that's why I drive U.S. cars with big V-8s.




The Europeans dont tend to make engines bigger than what they need probably because theyre the continent with the most expensive fuel.

Fleet 500
07-15-2004, 08:52 PM
Well that's how you drive a Ferrari. This only highlights the lack of knowledger the author had of sportscars in the 'eureopean' mold :) Revs for performance not torque.

Doesn't sound like a professional journalist.
But what are we comparing ?
Like other conversations in trying to make comparison, the driver can make a huge difference. Q: How many Ferrari's have "blown away" Fords ? and centre divider implies freeway. Again, we probably have a BIG diffrence in what you and I consider twisty. Go look at the Knockhill series of photos and videos I've posted here on UCP to see a 'medium' track. Tighter tracks abound in Europe

Well chosing a car only built in a handful isn't really on. I don't know much about the Lago, but perhaps they only sold 12 because it WAS a dog.
But they were never recognised as a great post-war car manufacturer :(

Excellent point from the journo aiming to see a reasonable comparison. Did this ever happen ? ( I spent 10 mins doing a web search of major European rallies and couldn't find any Fury's listed - shame ! If you know of one please send it. I love picturse of unusual historic/post-historic rally cars )


But at the end of the day it is IMPOSSIBLE for a car weighing twice as much to handle as well - given other areas equal. So *maybe* the Lago still used 1930s suspension.
The comment about the Sports Fury has me intrigued.

Yeah, revs for performance... but in this case, the Mustang still kept up with the Ferrari!

There's no doubt... for the best compromise, something like a Mustang or Charger is the best bet. Room for at least four with good handling. With these cars, you could take the whole family out (if it's a small family) for a ride and demonstrate the performance. With a two-seater sports car, it would be impossible.

Yeah, maybe the Lago had 1930s suspension, but maybe not.

The '55-'63 Chrysler 300 letter series also had excellent handling.

Fleet 500
07-15-2004, 08:56 PM
The Europeans dont tend to make engines bigger than what they need probably because theyre the continent with the most expensive fuel.

Yes, I realize that. And I am grateful that the U.S. was able to build large engines without a concern for fuel economy.

SPN:DOC
07-16-2004, 12:33 AM
look at the VW beetle still running around from the 50's or 40's 1.3L water cooled

woopsss i meant to say AIR cooled.. may bad... :)

SPN:DOC
07-16-2004, 12:39 AM
Yes, I realize that. And I am grateful that the U.S. was able to build large engines without a concern for fuel economy.

that why the cars can really not be compared, the are built for different purposes, why do you think the US cars are not exported to Europe, because they would not succeeded, they DRINK 2 much FUEL and they pollute.. more engineering needs to be put in those cars, see small engines can be power full as shown by the Germans in M3 and in the M5.... :))

Fleet 500
07-16-2004, 09:14 PM
that why the cars can really not be compared, the are built for different purposes, why do you think the US cars are not exported to Europe, because they would not succeeded, they DRINK 2 much FUEL and they pollute.. more engineering needs to be put in those cars, see small engines can be power full as shown by the Germans in M3 and in the M5.... :))

Oh, you mean European cars don't pollute? :D

Yes, small engines can be powerful, but at what price? If they could build those kind of cars *economically*, more people could actually afford to buy them.

Fleet 500
07-16-2004, 09:17 PM
woopsss i meant to say AIR cooled.. may bad... :)

Would these be the same air-cooled engines which had the "famous" heater (?) which would draw warm air in from the engine compartment (and any fumes if there was an exhaust leak)? I don't think a cabin full of carbon monoxide would make my day. ;)

SPN:DOC
07-17-2004, 12:32 AM
Would these be the same air-cooled engines which had the "famous" heater (?) which would draw warm air in from the engine compartment (and any fumes if there was an exhaust leak)? I don't think a cabin full of carbon monoxide would make my day. ;)

oh please don’t make me start with American car... The crown Victoria ahahahah... the cops took Ford to court because the car was unsafe, too many police officers lost there life’s in it... the car would ignite like a troche after it sustained a blow from the rear.. and the beetle 1930's designee.. so u cant really blame it.. after all what car that year for that price had heating????? :)

RS6
07-17-2004, 05:29 PM
The Ford GT hitting 62 mph in 3.3 seconds. I think that is BS. The Konigsegg CCR has 806 bhp, weighs less than a McLaren F1 yet only manages 0-62 mph in 3.2 seconds. I don't think the GT with 500 bhp is going to hit 62 mph in 3.3 seconds. The new TVR Typhon has 580 bhp and weighs much less but TVR are claiming a 3.5 second 0-62 mph time. Plus, in all the Mags I have read, 0-62 times for the GT are around 3.8 seconds.

Matra et Alpine
07-17-2004, 06:11 PM
Oh, you mean European cars don't pollute? :D

Yes, small engines can be powerful, but at what price? If they could build those kind of cars *economically*, more people could actually afford to buy them.
oh about 450 milllion of us do :)

Fleet 500
07-17-2004, 07:50 PM
oh about 450 milllion of us do :)

Oh, I didn't realize that 450 million Europeans can afford a $100,000 Mercedes or $200,000 Ferrari. :D

Fleet 500
07-17-2004, 08:02 PM
oh please don’t make me start with American car... The crown Victoria ahahahah... the cops took Ford to court because the car was unsafe, too many police officers lost there life’s in it... the car would ignite like a troche after it sustained a blow from the rear.. and the beetle 1930's designee.. so u cant really blame it.. after all what car that year for that price had heating????? :)

Yeah, I heard about that. Wasn't it something like a total of 6 killed? How many have been killed driving a kiddie-car like a Beetle. How many would have still been alive if they were driving a big (or mid-sized) American car? ;)

I would rather have no heat than breathe fumes along with warm air.

fpv_gtho
07-18-2004, 02:21 AM
so now big+american=safe?

Coventrysucks
07-18-2004, 06:42 AM
The Ford GT hitting 62 mph in 3.3 seconds. I think that is BS. The Konigsegg CCR has 806 bhp, weighs less than a McLaren F1 yet only manages 0-62 mph in 3.2 seconds. I don't think the GT with 500 bhp is going to hit 62 mph in 3.3 seconds. The new TVR Typhon has 580 bhp and weighs much less but TVR are claiming a 3.5 second 0-62 mph time. Plus, in all the Mags I have read, 0-62 times for the GT are around 3.8 seconds.

Things that govern acceleration:
Gearing
How short is first gear? Is there a need to change gear before you get to 60?

Traction
How much grip do the tyres provide? Can the car launch quickly without wheelspin?

If you saw the CL65 on Top Gear last week you'll understand Power is nothing without control.

Coventrysucks
07-18-2004, 06:45 AM
Yeah, I heard about that. Wasn't it something like a total of 6 killed? How many have been killed driving a kiddie-car like a Beetle. How many would have still been alive if they were driving a big (or mid-sized) American car? ;)

I would rather have no heat than breathe fumes along with warm air.

Wow, you're sharp.

Lets compare the safety of a car built to an extreme budget by Nazis in the late 1930's with a modern Ford sedan built to 1990's safety standards.
:rolleyes:

Fleet 500
07-18-2004, 09:14 AM
Lets compare the safety of a car built to an extreme budget by Nazis in the late 1930's with a modern Ford sedan built to 1990's safety standards.
:rolleyes:

Well, there's no reason to compare. Those in the U.S. back in the '40s and '50s with common sense avoided buying VWs and instead stayed with big American cars!
Besides, the VWs (and other selected imports) were so slow they had another danger factor. Did you know that the top speed of a '70 VW Bus is 65 mph? And that it took an agonizingly long 44 seconds to 60 mph from a dead stop? Or a late '60s Karmann Ghia had a top speed of 80 mph (wow!) and a 30-second 0-60 mph. time? Or check these specs of a '61 VW Bus (from Car Life, Sept., 1961):
Engine........... 72.7 cu in
Horsepower.... 40
Torque.......... 64
Axle ratio....... 5.13:1
Weight.......... 2,310 lbs
0-30 mph....... 8.3 secs.
0-40 mph....... 14.1
0-50 mph....... 26.8
1/4 mile......... 25.6 sec @ 49 mph
Top speed..... 60 mph, est (best timed run- 59 mph)

Luckily, I don't see many of these vehicles on the roads anymore, but when there were more around years ago, everytime I saw one in front of me, I always changed lanes right away because I did not feel like taking 20 minutes to go up a grade! :)

Fleet 500
07-18-2004, 09:28 AM
so now big+american=safe?

You got it! :D

Fleet 500
07-18-2004, 09:59 AM
Not all American cars are crap, however...

A significant number of cars designed for the American market are built to a budget, and this shows in their general build quality.

Nearly all German cars are very well built, even the cheaper stuff from VW is tightly screwed together, with good quality materials.

I would say that the interior of a new VW Polo is significantly better in terms of quality and materials than a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which costs 3x as much.

We don't get many American cars over here, but the few that do are an embarresment to your country.

The Cheverolet Blazer, huge, thirsty - no one wanted one
The Chrysler Neon was widely regarded as the worst car in its segment
The Chrysler Voyager does surprisingly well, because it is big, and cheap.
The PT Cruiser got off to a good start, but it has fallen behind the similar cars from the European manufacturers which are light years better.
I think they sold about 5 Chrysler Sebrings.
The Cadillac STS was laughable.
Jeep are quite popular, but take a small %age of the market share.

Most US cars are defeated in road tests by three main points
1) Handling - European cars can easily cope with the narrow, undulating, winding roads that cross the UK
American cars tend to sort of flop and bounce everywhere, fine for the long, straight, flat highways, but here they just tend to induce sea sickness.

2) Engines - Large displacement engines, with fuel consumption usually less than similar cars from Europe, that offer less power and driveability than equivilant. A word that frequently crops up is "refinement", usually accompanied by "lack of".

3) General build quality - as mentioned above.
:)

Well, it looks like us American car enthusiasts have the last laugh. (Note- I am referring to '50s-'70s cars.) What used to be considered in 1980 a "gas-guzzling, *low build-quality*, impractical" U.S. muscle cars are now selling for prices only exotic European cars were getting. Here are a few samples from the Jan., 2004 Hemmings...

'69 Dodge Dart Swinger, 340, 3.23 gears, sure-grip, blue w/white stripe, $22,995 (Can anyone imagine a Dart selling for that much in 1980? Probably because they were well-built, powerful and fun to drive.)

'69 Dodge Super Bee, 383, 4-speed, white on white, $25,000

'70 Plymouth AAR 'Cuda, 340-6 bbl, red, $39,000

'70 Plymouth 'Cuda, 440-6 bbl engine/trans rebuilt, black, no rust, $59,900

'71 Buick GS 455, 2-door htp, 52,000 miles, $29,900

'67 Chevy Chevelle, 396/325, 4-speed, console, $26,500

'69 Shelby Cobra GT Fastback, 95,787 miles, original, unrestored, red, gold stripes, black interior, factory 4-speed, $55,000

'69 Pontiac GTO Judge Convertible, one of 108 made, 400 Ram Air III engine, 4-speed, red with black interior, $120,000

I think people now realize that cars of this era were actually solidly built and usually lasted a long time. Which is impressive considering that hundreds of thousands of, for instance, Mustangs and Camaros were built, and the fact that many of these were street-raced.

As I said, this is different than comparing to late-model cars. However, most people by now have heard of Consumer Reports now ranking overall reliability of U.S. cars as slightly better than European cars.

Matra et Alpine
07-18-2004, 11:02 AM
Oh, I didn't realize that 450 million Europeans can afford a $100,000 Mercedes or $200,000 Ferrari. :D
I had taken the mention of the BMW as one example.

The USA only gets to see about 10% of the cars produced for and by the European market. It's unreasonable in car comparisons across the regions to only ocunt the ones you can get in one region. For example the Japanese made fatastic little sports cars for the Japanese market only that few people new about until some Brits dtarted bringing them in. Hona Beat and Suzuki Capucino ( esp the turbo'ed ) are great fun cars with excellent handling for the same price as a mundae family car.

In comparing cars it's important to look beyond the national restrictions - unless of course the comparison is specifically limited eg supercars in N.A.

Matra et Alpine
07-18-2004, 11:04 AM
Well, there's no reason to compare. Those in the U.S. back in the '40s and '50s with common sense avoided buying VWs and instead stayed with big American cars!
Besides, the VWs (and other selected imports) were so slow they had another danger factor. Did you know that the top speed of a '70 VW Bus is 65 mph?.. lots of other speed-related stuff deleted ...
With a national speed limit of 55 on the best highways how was this important ?

Matra et Alpine
07-18-2004, 11:13 AM
Well, it looks like us American car enthusiasts have the last laugh. (Note- I am referring to '50s-'70s cars.) ....As I said, this is different than comparing to late-model cars. However, most people by now have heard of Consumer Reports now ranking overall reliability of U.S. cars as slightly better than European cars.
In Europe you can barely GIVE away an americ V8 car from that era.

You should open up to recongise that if you take nationalist views you have nationalistic answers.

You didn't get many of the great cars from that era that we enjoy.

We have quite a few American cars from that era - especially up my way.
Holy Loch employed about 5000 US personnel at it's peak and they all imported big LHD V8s to drive :) You can get them for a fraction of a similar aged Fiat, Alfa, Alpine, Jaguar, MG etc etc.

But that isn't a comparison that makes much sense. Old cars are worth less because they are SO expensive to maintain. We've lots of parts for 50-70s European cars. YOU have lots of parts for 50-70s US cars. And it's not too hard to undeerstand why.

So if it was at all to be reasonable you'd need to take the mean of US cars sold in Europe and US and the mean of European cars sold in Europe and US. But that just gets silly and needs Misho to come up with a Misho2 rating.
Not worth the effort.

There were good and bad cars produced by everyone in the timeframe.

BUT the *general* trend was for the US to be heavy, big engines, power, gas users. Europe *general* tredn was for lightweight, balanced-engineering and frugal. In terms of accidents each in their own environment was safe.

Taking each OUT of it's own environment wasn't as safe. US cars ended up in ditches and lochs all round the west coast :)

But toi belief one had some mighty betterment than another is false comparison. I rally and MGB GT, it is NOT the car to drive for more than 2-3 hours without a break. US cars were buitol from the late 20s onwards to drive 5-6 hours on straight flat roads.

Comparing them without taking this into account just ends up with lots of caveats and explanations. Which is unlikely to change anyoneees point of view if they've not experienced the alternative !!!

Coventrysucks
07-18-2004, 01:47 PM
Well, it looks like us American car enthusiasts have the last laugh. (Note- I am referring to '50s-'70s cars.) What used to be considered in 1980 a "gas-guzzling, *low build-quality*, impractical" U.S. muscle cars are now selling for prices only exotic European cars were getting. Here are a few samples from the Jan., 2004 Hemmings...

'69 Dodge Dart Swinger, 340, 3.23 gears, sure-grip, blue w/white stripe, $22,995 (Can anyone imagine a Dart selling for that much in 1980? Probably because they were well-built, powerful and fun to drive.)

'69 Dodge Super Bee, 383, 4-speed, white on white, $25,000

'70 Plymouth AAR 'Cuda, 340-6 bbl, red, $39,000

'70 Plymouth 'Cuda, 440-6 bbl engine/trans rebuilt, black, no rust, $59,900

'71 Buick GS 455, 2-door htp, 52,000 miles, $29,900

'67 Chevy Chevelle, 396/325, 4-speed, console, $26,500

'69 Shelby Cobra GT Fastback, 95,787 miles, original, unrestored, red, gold stripes, black interior, factory 4-speed, $55,000

'69 Pontiac GTO Judge Convertible, one of 108 made, 400 Ram Air III engine, 4-speed, red with black interior, $120,000

I think people now realize that cars of this era were actually solidly built and usually lasted a long time. Which is impressive considering that hundreds of thousands of, for instance, Mustangs and Camaros were built, and the fact that many of these were street-raced.

As I said, this is different than comparing to late-model cars. However, most people by now have heard of Consumer Reports now ranking overall reliability of U.S. cars as slightly better than European cars.

Why are you posting that as if it is some sort of reply to what I said?

Me: Modern American cars suffer for being built to a budget, and therefore usually lack in terms of quality compared to European cars

You: American cars from '50s- '70s are quite expensive

I really don't see any connection.

Fleet 500
07-18-2004, 01:51 PM
With a national speed limit of 55 on the best highways how was this important ?

The 55 mph. speed limit did not occur until 1974. The cars I listed were made (and on the road) before then. Up until that year, the national speed limit was 65 mph, some states allowed 70 and 75 in outlying areas, and the state of Nevada had no speed limit in the rural areas.

Also, the "55 mph" limit was widely ignored. The average speed on the highway was about 65 mph. during the "55" era; before then, it was about 70-75 mph.

And, when some of those cars (like the VWs) hit an uphill incline, you can bet they slowed down considerably.

Coventrysucks
07-18-2004, 01:55 PM
Or check these specs of a '61 VW Bus (from Car Life, Sept., 1961):
Engine........... 72.7 cu in
Horsepower.... 40
Torque.......... 64
Axle ratio....... 5.13:1
Weight.......... 2,310 lbs
0-30 mph....... 8.3 secs.
0-40 mph....... 14.1
0-50 mph....... 26.8
1/4 mile......... 25.6 sec @ 49 mph
Top speed..... 60 mph, est (best timed run- 59 mph)

So now your telling me that a van with 40bhp might be SLOW!

Gee wiz, I couldn't have worked that one out by myself...
:rolleyes:

Your arguments are rubbish.

Fleet 500
07-18-2004, 01:56 PM
Me: Modern American cars suffer for being built to a budget, and therefore usually lack in terms of quality compared to European cars

You: American cars from '50s- '70s are quite expensive

I really don't see any connection.

Me: American cars (both modern and classic) are underrated.

Me: European and Japanese cars are overrated.

:)

Fleet 500
07-18-2004, 01:59 PM
So now your telling me that a van with 40bhp might be SLOW!

Gee wiz, I couldn't have worked that one out by myself...
:rolleyes:


I was pointing out that some vehicles were so slow, they were a danger on U.S. highways.

SPN:DOC
07-18-2004, 08:34 PM
I was pointing out that some vehicles were so slow, they were a danger on U.S. highways.

ahahah come one, the is ridicules, lol how old are you.. your STILL have to realize that the BEETLE was BUILT by Nazis in the late 1930's with a budget... and the name suggest it VOLKSWAGEN, peoples car dahhhh the car is not meant to be special, it was a car that everyone can afford, even people in poverty, like Germany the country was paying reparations and as facing depression…. I would like to see an American car that is that economical, and refined for that year that are sill running with there 1.3L..... ;)

LOL I would rater drive a beetle and live, than Drive a Crown Victoria and die will standing on the traffic light while someone rams be behind... :p

Fleet 500
07-18-2004, 09:38 PM
ahahah come one, the is ridicules, lol how old are you.. your STILL have to realize that the BEETLE was BUILT by Nazis in the late 1930's with a budget... and the name suggest it VOLKSWAGEN, peoples car dahhhh the car is not meant to be special, it was a car that everyone can afford, even people in poverty, like Germany the country was paying reparations and as facing depression…. I would like to see an American car that is that economical, and refined for that year that are sill running with there 1.3L..... ;)

LOL I would rater drive a beetle and live, than Drive a Crown Victoria and die will standing on the traffic light while someone rams be behind... :p

Back then, Americans put power, comfort, safety and styling over being economical.

Maybe they should have kept the Beetles in Germany so they wouldn't clog the U.S. highways with their anemic performance. I wouldn't be caught dead in a Beetle! :)

BTW, my age is listed in my profile.

SPN:DOC
07-19-2004, 12:05 AM
comfort, safety and styling

thats a Good one... :D

BTW Germany has the Autobahn, much quicker then some of the US highways... :p

Coventrysucks
07-19-2004, 09:03 AM
so now big+american=safe?


You got it! :D

No...

Going back to 1970 (which is all I have managed to find so far)

USA Fatalities: 57,627
Germany Fatalities: 21,000

2003
USA Fatalities: 42,116 (27% reduction, 34% increase in population size)
Germany Fatalities: 6,949 (67% reduction, 6.4% increase in population size)

Americans drive a lot of American cars, Germans drive a lot of German cars.

UK CARS
07-19-2004, 09:06 AM
thats a Good one... :D

BTW Germany has the Autobahn, much quicker then some of the US highways... :p

Oh, they are thinkng of putting a 80mph speed limit, on the autobahn!!! :(

Fleet 500
07-19-2004, 04:25 PM
thats a Good one... :D

BTW Germany has the Autobahn, much quicker then some of the US highways... :p

Yes, it is a good one. :) I love the sleek styling of '50s American cars, especially late '50s. Much better than the 10-years-behind-the-times styling of most '50s European cars. The '50s Mercedes looked like a '40s car; the '60s Mercedes looked like a '50s car, etc.

I drive a '76 Cadillac Limousine; why would I want to rush to where I'm going? I want to take my time and enjoy the comfort, luxury and spaciousness. I guess the Autobahn exists so drivers can get out of their cramped, rough-riding sports cars as quick as possible! ;)

Fleet 500
07-19-2004, 04:28 PM
No...

Going back to 1970 (which is all I have managed to find so far)

USA Fatalities: 57,627
Germany Fatalities: 21,000

2003
USA Fatalities: 42,116 (27% reduction, 34% increase in population size)
Germany Fatalities: 6,949 (67% reduction, 6.4% increase in population size)

Americans drive a lot of American cars, Germans drive a lot of German cars.

I would guess that the majority of these accidents are the fault of the driver, not the car.

Coventrysucks
07-19-2004, 04:37 PM
I would guess that the majority of these accidents are the fault of the driver, not the car.

So... what does that mean exactly?

American drivers are crap?

Or German cars are safer, resulting in a huge reduction in fatalities?

Fleet 500
07-19-2004, 06:14 PM
So... what does that mean exactly?

American drivers are crap?

Or German cars are safer, resulting in a huge reduction in fatalities?

Of course there are more accidents in the U.S. There are over 280 million people living here. What is the population of Germany? About 85 million? There are also many, many more cars in the U.S.

Don't forget that many "American" drivers came here from another country. There are many "American" drivers, involved in accidents out here, who used to live in Germany, England, Italy, France, etc. But, the statistics call them "American drivers."

Matra et Alpine
07-20-2004, 03:05 AM
Yes, it is a good one. :) I love the sleek styling of '50s American cars, especially late '50s. Much better than the 10-years-behind-the-times styling of most '50s European cars. The '50s Mercedes looked like a '40s car; the '60s Mercedes looked like a '50s car, etc.
I've covered this already.

European car manufacturers had almost no production capability in 1946.
All designers had spent the last 5 years doing aircraft.
A lot of the designers were no longer alive.

So they had to initially try to ressurect old designs as there was a desperate need for transport.

Those cars had to rely on a VERY limited supply of raw resources.
In Britian, all aluminium cooking utensils had been handed in to be converted to alu for planes. Steel fences and gates were also cut down and resmelted for steel. So any designer had to make it with minimal materials.

It took well into the 50s before the major manufacturers were strong enough to consider major new developments of engines and gearboxes.

That gives you the explanaition WHY they looked old.

Also, you pick one manufacturer and one psrt of their business because it supports your case. Go look at all the others. All the manufacturers were producing innovative and stylish ( for their day ) cars. Again, you guys in the USA didn't get to see them so your attempt at comparison is pointless. Most Europeans ( not all ) had media which showed world items, so most folks here new the US car trends of the day.

I drive a '76 Cadillac Limousine; why would I want to rush to where I'm going? I want to take my time and enjoy the comfort, luxury and spaciousness. I guess the Autobahn exists so drivers can get out of their cramped, rough-riding sports cars as quick as possible! ;)
No the Autobahn existed as it was used by Hitler to show how advanced German was in the 30s - a time when it's engineering excelled over all of the world.
Germany was ahead of the rest of Europe in recognising the benefits of motorways. But the main reason in the different needs of cruising are the MUCH shorter journeys Europeans took. We had a much more advanced long distance rail network. If anyone wanted to travel 600 miles to visit they took the train. In the 50s the rail network in the UK for example covered more miles than todays trunk roads !! Almost every village would have a railway station :) 200 years of civilisation - unfortunalty destroyed in the 60s in the name of the car :(

Matra et Alpine
07-20-2004, 03:10 AM
Don't forget that many "American" drivers came here from another country. There are many "American" drivers, involved in accidents out here, who used to live in Germany, England, Italy, France, etc. But, the statistics call them "American drivers."
?? huh ?? Don't get the logic in that Fleet.

you drive on the right -- so do all of those.
you drive seated on the left -- so do all of those.
you stop at junctions -- so do all of those.
no need to continue :)

Now take Australia, NZ or the UK. Where all the immigrants came from countries which drive on the wrong side of the road ? Sorry, but we've no statisitical evidence that the UK accidents are skewed by orginal nationality and our's are having to learn a WHOLE new set of rules.

Except for tourists - see lots of Hertz cars with bumps as they go the wrong way up a road in Edinburgh. Don't think the French are any worse than the Americans :)

Fleet 500
07-20-2004, 07:45 PM
?? huh ?? Don't get the logic in that Fleet.

you drive on the right -- so do all of those.
you drive seated on the left -- so do all of those.
you stop at junctions -- so do all of those.
no need to continue :)


Allow me to explain further...

It's like saying "bad California drivers" when, in fact, many drivers in California used to live in New York or Chicago or the mid-west, etc.
This applies even more to a big city like L.A... if you pull over 100 drivers, at least half would not be native Californians. But you will hear people say the phrase "crazy Los Angeles drivers."

Fleet 500
07-20-2004, 07:57 PM
I've covered this already.

European car manufacturers had almost no production capability in 1946.
All designers had spent the last 5 years doing aircraft.
A lot of the designers were no longer alive.

No the Autobahn existed as it was used by Hitler to show how advanced German was in the 30s - a time when it's engineering excelled over all of the world.
Germany was ahead of the rest of Europe in recognising the benefits of motorways.

Yes, I realize it took years for European car manufacturers to resume full auto production. That's why the '50s U.S. cars, with their big V-8s, generous amounts of chrome, and long, low styling was so popular.

Oh, I guess those Autobahn drivers enjoyed being inside their cramped, hard-riding sports cars.

To quote Maxwell Smart, "If the Germans were so smart, why did they lose two world wars?" ;)

AutoMotivated
07-20-2004, 08:31 PM
To quote Maxwell Smart, "If the Germans were so smart, why did they lose two world wars?" ;)

You're gunna die now man.


:eek:

Fleet 500
07-20-2004, 09:46 PM
You're gunna die now man.
:eek:

Don't worry, Max will protect me. :)

AutoMotivated
07-20-2004, 09:49 PM
Don't worry, Max will protect me. :)


Max-imum Back-tracking :)

Fleet 500
07-20-2004, 09:55 PM
However, what about the roads up in the San Gabriel mountains ? There are some great twisties up there :)

Reminds me of a road test I saw in Hot Rod magazine...

"... At high speed through twisting mountain passes or over undulating desert dips, the 300-F is head and shoulders above any other car on the road..."

- Ray Brock, of Hot Rod magazine, talking about the 1960 Chrysler 300-F (Hot Rod, April, 1960)

Fleet 500
07-20-2004, 09:57 PM
Max-imum Back-tracking :)

Maybe. :D

Matra et Alpine
07-21-2004, 01:58 AM
To quote Maxwell Smart, "If the Germans were so smart, why did they lose two world wars?" ;)
Coz they didn't wait till it was almost over before they joined in :)

Matra et Alpine
07-21-2004, 02:01 AM
Reminds me of a road test I saw in Hot Rod magazine...

"... At high speed through twisting mountain passes or over undulating desert dips, the 300-F is head and shoulders above any other car on the road..."

- Ray Brock, of Hot Rod magazine, talking about the 1960 Chrysler 300-F (Hot Rod, April, 1960)
Fleet, you really are EXTREMELY myopic.

So a US journo says a US car is better than other US-availabel cars.
Bet he'd never been to France in his life to drive an Alpine or a Bonnet or LAncia Giula or a hundred other cars you guys didn't get the chance to try for real.

Let me repeat, the difference was we DID get to try lots of US cars. Partly because lots of Europeans travelled to the US and partly because the cars were imported here for US forces. VERY FEW Euoprean cars ever saw the shores of the US.

I'm not repeating that again. Please listen this time and stop posting drivel as 'examples of fact'. I mean COME ON, posting a comparison in a HOT ROD mag about handling !!!!!!!

Coventrysucks
07-21-2004, 03:45 AM
To quote Maxwell Smart, "If the Germans were so smart, why did they lose two world wars?" ;)

I believe it was because they didn't have Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise and Jon Bon Jovi on their side.
:rolleyes:

Of the cars considered to be the best in class have you ever wondered why none of them are American?

Ford Focus - Designed and developed by Ford Europe in Germany - best hatch
BMW 3 and 5 series, Mercedes S-Class - Best executive cars
Range Rover, Volvo XC90 - Best SUV's (even the Americans can't get that right)

Fleet 500
07-21-2004, 10:05 PM
So a US journo says a US car is better than other US-availabel cars.
Bet he'd never been to France in his life to drive an Alpine or a Bonnet or LAncia Giula or a hundred other cars you guys didn't get the chance to try for real.


How do you know what cars the journalist had driven?
Perhaps you should drive a 1960 Chrysler 300-F. You would probably be as shocked as that foreign-car-only enthusiast who test drove a '59 Plymouth Sport Fury.

Fleet 500
07-21-2004, 10:19 PM
Of the cars considered to be the best in class have you ever wondered why none of them are American?

Ford Focus - Designed and developed by Ford Europe in Germany - best hatch
BMW 3 and 5 series, Mercedes S-Class - Best executive cars
Range Rover, Volvo XC90 - Best SUV's (even the Americans can't get that right)

Just who considers those cars to be the best in their class?

Some years back, the record for the highest mileage without an engine rebuild belonged to a '79 Cadillac Sedan de Ville (576,000).

Then there is (according to Popular Mechanics magazine, May, 1976) a '73 Pontiac Bonneville that went 230,000 miles with only major parts needed being a water pump and alternator.

Or a '70 Chevrolet Impala V-8 that went 273,000 with the original transmission fluid

Or a '67 Olds 98 with 218,000 miles in which the transmission fluid has been changed only once, and the (engine) heads and pan have never been off the engine.

Or a '62 Chrysler 300 with 195,000 miles with the only engine repair needed was a new timing chain (at 130,000 miles).

Or a '64 Buick LaSabre in which the original transmission lasted 207,000 miles (the fluid had never been changed).

Or a '62 Chevy Impala V-8 in which the original transmission lasted 190,000 miles (again, fluid never changed; this is what I mean when I said that even American cars that are neglected in many cases last a long time). The engine in the Chevy had never been apart, not even for a valve job. The owner did put on a timing chain preventively once when the radiator was off.

Etc., etc.

Fleet 500
07-21-2004, 10:28 PM
Coz they didn't wait till it was almost over before they joined in :)

What country waited "till it was almost over before they joined in?"
It certainly wasn't the U.S. WWII is considered to have started on Sept. 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. The U.S. declared war the day after the Pearl Harbor attack (Dec. 7, 1941). WWII did not end until April, 1945 in Europe, and Aug. 1945 for the Pacific/Japan. 1941 is closer to 1939 than to 1945. Also, don't forget that even before the U.S. entered WWII, she was supplying the U.K. with war material under the Lend/Lease Act.

(BTW, I could go on about how the U.S. landed on the beaches with the most fierce resistance on Normandy on D-Day [June 6, 1944]... with Omaha being the worst, but that could be for another time.)

SPN:DOC
07-21-2004, 11:09 PM
Just who considers those cars to be the best in their class?

Some years back, the record for the highest mileage without an engine rebuild belonged to a '79 Cadillac Sedan de Ville (576,000).

Then there is (according to Popular Mechanics magazine, May, 1976) a '73 Pontiac Bonneville that went 230,000 miles with only major parts needed being a water pump and alternator.

Or a '70 Chevrolet Impala V-8 that went 273,000 with the original transmission fluid

Or a '67 Olds 98 with 218,000 miles in which the transmission fluid has been changed only once, and the (engine) heads and pan have never been off the engine.

Or a '62 Chrysler 300 with 195,000 miles with the only engine repair needed was a new timing chain (at 130,000 miles).

Or a '64 Buick LaSabre in which the original transmission lasted 207,000 miles (the fluid had never been changed).

Or a '62 Chevy Impala V-8 in which the original transmission lasted 190,000 miles (again, fluid never changed; this is what I mean when I said that even American cars that are neglected in many cases last a long time). The engine in the Chevy had never been apart, not even for a valve job. The owner did put on a timing chain preventively once when the radiator was off.

Etc., etc.

this is useless... we are going around in circles.... im just gonna stop posting in this thread… lol

Egg Nog
07-22-2004, 12:25 AM
(BTW, I could go on about how the U.S. landed on the beaches with the most fierce resistance on Normandy on D-Day [June 6, 1944]... with Omaha being the worst, but that could be for another time.)

It seems to me that this is another American victory that happens to put a lot of other things in its shadow that may not want to be remembered. There's a lot that can be brought up as far as military events go, but we should probably leave all of that out of this topic.

crisis
07-22-2004, 12:34 AM
It seems to me that this is another American victory that happens to put a lot of other things in its shadow that may not want to be remembered. There's a lot that can be brought up as far as military events go, but we should probably leave all of that out of this topic.
Sorry but I saw this lat night. The Real Heroes of Telemark. 4 Danish commandoes who spent 6 months in a freezing cabin 20 miles from the German plant that was developing heavy water for Germanys shot at the big one. They survived on Reindeer moss and when things got better reindeers stomachs. They were seriously undernourished (not to mentioned grossed out by the stomachs), cold and low on morale. Apparently they were an advance party for another commando group that were to land by glider. Gliders and WW2 didnt really go that well together. Anyhow the next part is next week which tells how the next lot of commandos and these guys launched an attack on this heavily fortified installation. I know the answer. They won, we won and Hitler lost but it was a crucial part of WW2.

Matra et Alpine
07-22-2004, 03:27 AM
How do you know what cars the journalist had driven?
Perhaps you should drive a 1960 Chrysler 300-F. You would probably be as shocked as that foreign-car-only enthusiast who test drove a '59 Plymouth Sport Fury.
You misunderstand FLeet, please try to "think out the box".
How many US journalists caem over to Europe and test drove Boneets, D'Jet's, A110s ?
Almost nobody.
To be SOOO adamant' of hanlding then it is self-evident that this journo hadn't .
But that needs you to consider that there was a fundamental difference in approach to cars, guided by market needs which skewed the US to big and bigger and more power to move it and Europe to nimble, smaller and equivalnet power/weight.

Matra et Alpine
07-22-2004, 03:37 AM
What country waited "till it was almost over before they joined in?"
It certainly wasn't the U.S. WWII is considered to have started on Sept. 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. The U.S. declared war the day after the Pearl Harbor attack (Dec. 7, 1941). WWII did not end until April, 1945 in Europe, and Aug. 1945 for the Pacific/Japan. 1941 is closer to 1939 than to 1945.
Yep, millions invaded, hundreds of thousands killed.
Sorry but back then the US had little interest and wanted to stay out of it. Read congressional papers of the day to see the strong stance taken on non-involvement. Until Pearl. Eureopan nations entered the war BEFORE they're homelands were attacked to try to help their neighbours and stop the progress of fascism.

Also, don't forget that even before the U.S. entered WWII, she was supplying the U.K. with war material under the Lend/Lease Act.
US Congress didnt' want to do it, it took Churchill making DIRECT demands that only brought it in and THNE under terms that crippled the British economy. It was only in the last 5 years that the last of those debts were paid off !!!


(BTW, I could go on about how the U.S. landed on the beaches with the most fierce resistance on Normandy on D-Day [June 6, 1944]... with Omaha being the worst, but that could be for another time.)
Sorry Fleet, now I'm bored with the US-myopia.

Canadians met the fiercest resistance on D-Day.
They also led an attack to tie up HUGELY SUPERIOR forces knowing they didnt' stand a chance to give the forces on the beaches west of them a better chance of getting ashore. If they hadn't it's widely accepted that Germany could have held ground for a few days and that coudl have turned the war.

Hollywood has a lot to apologise for :(

So lets leave war history out of UCP.

Egg Nog
07-22-2004, 03:37 AM
Sorry but I saw this lat night. The Real Heroes of Telemark. 4 Danish commandoes who spent 6 months in a freezing cabin 20 miles from the German plant that was developing heavy water for Germanys shot at the big one. They survived on Reindeer moss and when things got better reindeers stomachs. They were seriously undernourished (not to mentioned grossed out by the stomachs), cold and low on morale. Apparently they were an advance party for another commando group that were to land by glider. Gliders and WW2 didnt really go that well together. Anyhow the next part is next week which tells how the next lot of commandos and these guys launched an attack on this heavily fortified installation. I know the answer. They won, we won and Hitler lost but it was a crucial part of WW2.

What?!?

Matra et Alpine
07-22-2004, 03:40 AM
Just who considers those cars to be the best in their class?
Sorry Fleet, but I struggle to see longevity as a major feature of a car.
I'm happy to replace mine regularly.
We average 10,000 miles per year.
Please try to understand the cars are built different and pointing out the DIFFERNCE as the advantage is irrelevant where that edvantage doesn't matter !! I don't want some POS that will last 20 years !!!

Coventrysucks
07-22-2004, 06:15 AM
Just who considers those cars to be the best in their class?

Err...
Try the millions of people that buy them, and the combined weight of the Automotive press who seem to heap non-stop praise upon models such as the Focus, Golf, BMW 3 and 5 series.

Obviously no one as important as yourself though, so I doubt those opinions matter to you. I don't think any '60s or '70s Hot Rod magazines gave them favorable reviews, so you'll inevitably dismiss them.

What's all this bollocks about high milage American cars?
Why does that matter?
Who cares?

A BMW 325 successfully completed 1 million miles, with no work apart from routine maintainance as per the BMW service reccomendations.

After that time the engine was still as new.

crisis
07-22-2004, 05:37 PM
What?!?
Somewhat off topic. Sorry, a weak moment. Just a bit to add to who contributed what in WW2. As you can see I was moved. I restrain myself.

Fleet 500
07-22-2004, 08:01 PM
Sorry Fleet, but I struggle to see longevity as a major feature of a car.
I'm happy to replace mine regularly.
We average 10,000 miles per year.
Please try to understand the cars are built different and pointing out the DIFFERNCE as the advantage is irrelevant where that edvantage doesn't matter !! I don't want some POS that will last 20 years !!!

Longevity is definitely a major concern for me. For two reasons:

1. I prefer not to own a car that is in the shop every one or two months.

2. Since I like '50s-'70s U.S. cars, it is important for me that they were built to last. (Which they were.)

Fleet 500
07-22-2004, 08:14 PM
Yep, millions invaded, hundreds of thousands killed.
Sorry but back then the US had little interest and wanted to stay out of it. Read congressional papers of the day to see the strong stance taken on non-involvement. Until Pearl. Eureopan nations entered the war BEFORE they're homelands were attacked to try to help their neighbours and stop the progress of fascism.

Sorry Fleet, now I'm bored with the US-myopia.

Canadians met the fiercest resistance on D-Day.
They also led an attack to tie up HUGELY SUPERIOR forces knowing they didnt' stand a chance to give the forces on the beaches west of them a better chance of getting ashore. If they hadn't it's widely accepted that Germany could have held ground for a few days and that coudl have turned the war.

So lets leave war history out of UCP.

Of course the U.S. wanted to stay out of another world war, we already had to bail out Europe in WWI. I wonder if WWII started in North American, how many European countries would have gotten involved. Anyway, let's be glad that the Allies won! The question that should be asked is... did the U.S. contribute a huge amount in WWII? With 16,353,659 Americans serving, I would say a big yes.

Nope... Omaha had the highest casualites. In the first wave, the casualties was 90%; the second wave, 80% and the third wave, 50%.

Let's leave inaccurate history out of UCP. :)

Fleet 500
07-22-2004, 08:20 PM
You misunderstand FLeet, please try to "think out the box".
How many US journalists caem over to Europe and test drove Boneets, D'Jet's, A110s ?
Almost nobody.
To be SOOO adamant' of hanlding then it is self-evident that this journo hadn't .


But you still can't say for sure how many and what type of cars that journalist (Ray Brock) had driven and/or tested. So you really can't criticize him unless you know for sure he only tested U.S. cars (which I doubt; who knows... maybe he kept a European sports car in his driveway).

Fleet 500
07-22-2004, 08:30 PM
Err...
Try the millions of people that buy them, and the combined weight of the Automotive press who seem to heap non-stop praise upon models such as the Focus, Golf, BMW 3 and 5 series.

Obviously no one as important as yourself though, so I doubt those opinions matter to you. I don't think any '60s or '70s Hot Rod magazines gave them favorable reviews, so you'll inevitably dismiss them.

What's all this bollocks about high milage American cars?
Why does that matter?
Who cares?

A BMW 325 successfully completed 1 million miles, with no work apart from routine maintainance as per the BMW service reccomendations.

After that time the engine was still as new.

I, and many other people, believe that many European (and Asian) cars are overrated.

Regarding the American longevity stories, I was just pointing out that, in the '60s and into the early '70s, there were quite a few U.S. cars that were very reliable. Countering the myth that "U.S. cars last only a few years."

I find it much more impressive when a $3,000 (price when new) full-size '60s Chevy can attain very high mileage rather than a $50,000+ import. Especially when considering that millions of Chevys were built. Considering that they were built at a high-output factory, with hundreds of cars built daily, the fact that so many lasted years and years is even more impressive.

fpv_gtho
07-22-2004, 11:58 PM
maybe you think Asian and European cars are overated because European, American and Asian cars all appeal to people with different tastes

Matra et Alpine
07-23-2004, 01:44 AM
Of course the U.S. wanted to stay out of another world war, we already had to bail out Europe in WWI. I wonder if WWII started in North American, how many European countries would have gotten involved. Anyway, let's be glad that the Allies won! The question that should be asked is... did the U.S. contribute a huge amount in WWII? With 16,353,659 Americans serving, I would say a big yes.

Nope... Omaha had the highest casualites. In the first wave, the casualties was 90%; the second wave, 80% and the third wave, 50%.

Let's leave inaccurate history out of UCP. :)
Likewise, fleet.
Those are 'wave' casualties and are messed up.
90% of the initial Sherman tank force were lost - because they sank before reaching the beach of their own volition in the choppy seas.
The heavy landing ships beached on sandbanks too far away to drop supplies.
'ducks' ferried supplies for nearly 24 hours on a continuous basis under fier.
We've had a lot of documentaries in recent months in Europe as we remembered the losses of that day.
Of 35,000 Americans landed at Omaha, 2,400 were lost.
They only managed to break out of the beach after the German defences were engaged from the rear.
DURING THIS TIME, the Canadians were tasked to hold the German Panzer division who could have reached Omaha in 12 hours and would have meant the complete end of US disembarkation. Those were the German crack division, not those newer ones with young tank drivers and all predominately the latest Tigers.

None of this takes away from the courage of the American soldiers who fought desperately to get off those beaches.

BUT, it wasn't all as portrayed in Private Ryan and Band of Brothers.
It's what wasn't told in both those features which did upset some veterans.
My father spent his last year in a UK 'veterans' hospital and I took time of work to be with him during his illness. I helped out and one of the big things they do is to get the veterans to talk of their memories. So some of the feelings I described are actually first hand to me.

This seems another example Fleet , where you've taken numbers because they give support to your view and don't look beyond them or at others.
Please try to broaden your viewpoint rather than narrowing it. I feel again, you'll just keep putting up figures in a narrow-perspective and get another poinless post like the big cars nonsense. Please give me advance notice if you will do the same as it'll save me time and I can ignore the thread now :) Ta :)

Matra et Alpine
07-23-2004, 01:49 AM
Longevity is definitely a major concern for me. For two reasons:

1. I prefer not to own a car that is in the shop every one or two months.
erm, find me a Euroepan car from the 60s and 70s that needed to be in the shop every month ?
And was it a trained shop ?
Big V8s are 'dumb' engine and tuning isn't too critical. So if the valves need adjusted it can be left for a long time. Ours dont. and in the 60s and 70s a lot of people serviced their own cars.
If you ARE going to quote horror-stories please preclude it with the maintenance on the car and the mechanics doing the work. Otherwise it's possibly monkeys ruining things :)

2. Since I like '50s-'70s U.S. cars, it is important for me that they were built to last. (Which they were.)
For sure and I'm still not sure you've grasped the poitn I'd made a LONGtime back that in Europe THAT isnt' a major concern. Cars changed often and did lower miles. But you seem to want to use that as a differntiator without choosing totake on board the equal differentiator of size, perfromacne and handling. Can't get it both ways.No matter how much you try :)

Matra et Alpine
07-23-2004, 01:55 AM
I, and many other people, believe that many European (and Asian) cars are overrated.

Regarding the American longevity stories, I was just pointing out that, in the '60s and into the early '70s, there were quite a few U.S. cars that were very reliable. Countering the myth that "U.S. cars last only a few years."
who said that ?
They're wrong, big lazy V8s will run forever without maintentance.
LOTS of steel means less rust impact and easier to repair.


I find it much more impressive when a $3,000 (price when new) full-size '60s Chevy can attain very high mileage rather than a $50,000+ import. Especially when considering that millions of Chevys were built. Considering that they were built at a high-output factory, with hundreds of cars built daily, the fact that so many lasted years and years is even more impressive.
Again you compare the cars you saw imported.
VERY few people in Euroep owned a $50,000 car.
The first car I drove in, my dad had bought new for $1000 - a Ford Anglia 105E. So please stop this stupid comparison. If you're going to compare, it should be equals.
60s Mercedes saloons ( not the high end limos the US saw ) survive equally well.
60s Morris Oxfords were built like tanks and seemingly over 50% are still running in India !!!!
Fashion also comes into it in Europe, we tended to change cars more often just because they "looked old". A part of our short-term love affair with individual cars :) So most original shape Morris Oxfords were pushed aside to be replaced with the new 'modern' box shape :)

andy.muc
07-23-2004, 07:20 AM
Why not keep it simple?
Take all categories of cars.
Then pick the best car out of each category.
You won't find too many US manufacturers in that list.
But you surely will find some German cars...

doylede
07-23-2004, 08:49 PM
Cadillac CTS-V - 2004:

Engine
Cylinders: V8
Displacement: 5667 cc
Horsepower: 400 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 395 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm

Performance
0-60 mph: 4.6 sec
Top Speed: 155 mph
Price: $49,995

Audi S4 - 2003

Engine:
Cylinders: 8
Displacement: 4163 cc
Horsepower: 344 bhp @ 7000 rpm
Torque: 302 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm

Perfomance
0-60 mph: 5.0 sec
Top Speed: 155 mph
Price: $45,000

DING!
Caddy 1
Audi 0

Is someone keeping score?

Fleet 500
07-23-2004, 09:11 PM
maybe you think Asian and European cars are overated because European, American and Asian cars all appeal to people with different tastes

I think Asian and European cars are overrated because they are.

SPN:DOC
07-23-2004, 09:52 PM
DING!
Caddy 1
Audi 0

Is someone keeping score?

why would you say that... Caddy 1 and Audi 0 i totally disagree with you.. yes the caddy has more power and is faster, but have a look at there engine sizes... who has a better engine Audi 4.2L V8 with 344 bhp @ 7000 rpm and 302 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm.. its not hard to place a big engine in a car with allot power.. but its hard to make a smaller engine with similar power.. ;) and have a look at the price.. caddy is also an American car and American built car.. they pay less taxes.. therefore the caddy should really be cheaper.... :rolleyes:

and the Cadillac CTS-V is ugly compared to Audi S4.... :D

Fleet 500
07-23-2004, 10:15 PM
Likewise, fleet.
Those are 'wave' casualties and are messed up.
90% of the initial Sherman tank force were lost - because they sank before reaching the beach of their own volition in the choppy seas.
The heavy landing ships beached on sandbanks too far away to drop supplies.
'ducks' ferried supplies for nearly 24 hours on a continuous basis under fier.
We've had a lot of documentaries in recent months in Europe as we remembered the losses of that day.
Of 35,000 Americans landed at Omaha, 2,400 were lost.
They only managed to break out of the beach after the German defences were engaged from the rear.
DURING THIS TIME, the Canadians were tasked to hold the German Panzer division who could have reached Omaha in 12 hours and would have meant the complete end of US disembarkation. Those were the German crack division, not those newer ones with young tank drivers and all predominately the latest Tigers.

None of this takes away from the courage of the American soldiers who fought desperately to get off those beaches.

BUT, it wasn't all as portrayed in Private Ryan and Band of Brothers.
It's what wasn't told in both those features which did upset some veterans.
My father spent his last year in a UK 'veterans' hospital and I took time of work to be with him during his illness. I helped out and one of the big things they do is to get the veterans to talk of their memories. So some of the feelings I described are actually first hand to me.

This seems another example Fleet , where you've taken numbers because they give support to your view and don't look beyond them or at others.
Please try to broaden your viewpoint rather than narrowing it. I feel again, you'll just keep putting up figures in a narrow-perspective and get another poinless post like the big cars nonsense. Please give me advance notice if you will do the same as it'll save me time and I can ignore the thread now :) Ta :)

The fact remains that Omaha was the site of the worst fighting. It wasn't called "Bloody Omaha" for nothing.

A book called, "D-Day, 24 Hours That Saved The World" (written by Time magainze editors, not Tom Hanks) says, under the title "Omaha Beach" 'Heros faced horror in a grim day's most deadly landing.' I haven't even seen "Saving Private Ryan..." my info is from the many WWII/D-Day books I have.

Another book, called "The Story Of D-Day" (by Bruce Bliven, Jr, 1956), says:

"For the most part- and especially on Omaha- the first of the assault waves had been stopped in its tracks. Omaha was, physically, a hard beach to cross. Gold, Juno and Sword [where the British and Canadians landed] were fairly flat, with only low sand dunes between them and the little seaside towns which the Germans had fortified. But Omaha was backed by bluffs a hundred feet high. The American troops had to go uphill to take the German strongholds. That was bad enough. But there was another reason why the offensive against Omaha was especially tough. In planning the assault the Allies had assumed that the Atlantic Wall would be manned by second-rate German troops- men who were older or poorly trained and who would not show much fight in the field. But shortly before the invasion fleet sailed, the 353nd had been ordered to move to Omaha to practice anti-landing defense maneuvers. So this well-trained, seasoned division was right on the bluffs overlooking the beach- exaclty where the Germans needed it. When the second wave of assault boats reached the beach, starting at 7:00, it found that little or nothing had been accomplished. No one had advanced beyond the beach shingle. Nearly 40% had been killed or wounded."

You can ignore this thread, but it won't change history.

Matra et Alpine
07-24-2004, 02:38 AM
The fact remains that Omaha was the site of the worst fighting. It wasn't called "Bloody Omaha" for nothing. ....
You can ignore this thread, but it won't change history.
You do realise that it was bloody everywhere.
I've not taken away that it was diffivcult. I didnt' say Omaha was easy. I just pointed out that the Canadians took on the BEST to give Omaha time to get off the beach. American hostorians have ackowledged that the willingness of Montgomery to commit and his soldiers to fight that crack advance saved the day.

Clearly you ddon't like facts opposing your POV>
The numbers I posted speak for themselves and you didn't acknowledge them, instead you brought personal comment and opioion in.

See http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/juno.aspx for a Canadian perspective on whether Juno was easy - it wasn't !! and it was what they were asked to do AFTER that which showed thier mettle. Montgomery new he ws pushing them into a position which woudl incur the heaviest fighting and losses in the subsequent day. AND they did it to give the rest of the disembarking forces a chance. AGAIN, historians have said if the Panzer divs HAD got to Omaha it would have been the end.

You're domonstrating an inability to discuss and debate and are too blinkered on cars and history.

Coventrysucks
07-24-2004, 01:06 PM
I think Asian and European cars are overrated because they are.

You really are an arrogant Berkshire aren't you?

"European cars are bad because I think so"

In the first two months of 2004, in Western Europe a total of 2,204,384 cars were sold.

Of those 14,052 were American (Cadillac, Chrysler, Cheverolet, Jeep)
Audi sold 78,524
BMW sold 74,678
Mercedes sold 101,382
VW sold 212,033

Chrysler and Jeep are sold in the same garages as Mercedes in some places, and there are extensive dealer networks, so they aren't difficult to buy.

Why can't they sell more of them that the "substandard" European cars?

Are you actually going to give us any sort of factual basis for you arguments, or is your opinion sufficient evidence?

Fleet 500
07-24-2004, 08:59 PM
You do realise that it was bloody everywhere.
I've not taken away that it was diffivcult. I didnt' say Omaha was easy. I just pointed out that the Canadians took on the BEST to give Omaha time to get off the beach. American hostorians have ackowledged that the willingness of Montgomery to commit and his soldiers to fight that crack advance saved the day.

Clearly you ddon't like facts opposing your POV>
The numbers I posted speak for themselves and you didn't acknowledge them, instead you brought personal comment and opioion in.

See http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/juno.aspx for a Canadian perspective on whether Juno was easy - it wasn't !! and it was what they were asked to do AFTER that which showed thier mettle. Montgomery new he ws pushing them into a position which woudl incur the heaviest fighting and losses in the subsequent day. AND they did it to give the rest of the disembarking forces a chance. AGAIN, historians have said if the Panzer divs HAD got to Omaha it would have been the end.

You're domonstrating an inability to discuss and debate and are too blinkered on cars and history.

The numbers you posted? The only number I see that you provided was the 2,400 casualities for Omaha (which I already knew).

Yes, I realize it was bloody everywhere. It's not hard to forget that fact after reading about one dozen books about D-Day.
I didn't say Juno was easy. Again, I will repeat... historians considered the most fierce fighting on D-Day at Omaha.

The problem with looking up websites is that they are not guaranteed to be accurate and you could probably find anything you are looking for to make your point.

What "inablilty to discuss cars?" I joined in this thread pointing out that it's kind of useless praising cars almost nobody can ever afford. Then I wanted to make people aware that some U.S. full-sized cars handled very well. Witness the '59 Sport Fury test I quoted. Before reading that, would you have ever guessed that a big old Plymouth could corner around mountain curves with no problems? Or that a $3,500 Plymouth could keep up with a $7,000 Lago (btw, if the Lago did have 1930s-style suspension, that company had a lot of nerve setting a list price that high)

Fleet 500
07-24-2004, 09:07 PM
"European cars are bad because I think so"

In the first two months of 2004, in Western Europe a total of 2,204,384 cars were sold.

Of those 14,052 were American (Cadillac, Chrysler, Cheverolet, Jeep)
Audi sold 78,524
BMW sold 74,678
Mercedes sold 101,382
VW sold 212,033

Chrysler and Jeep are sold in the same garages as Mercedes in some places, and there are extensive dealer networks, so they aren't difficult to buy.

Why can't they sell more of them that the "substandard" European cars?

Are you actually going to give us any sort of factual basis for you arguments, or is your opinion sufficient evidence?

I said, "Asian and European cars are *overrated* because they are." I didn't say "bad."

Why would you expect American cars to sell more in Europe?

BTW, IIRC, in the late '60s/early '70s, the full-size Chevy and Fords were selling at about 800,000 to 1,000,000 per year.

F1_Master
07-25-2004, 01:29 AM
Just so you know, the magnetic ride stabilty suspension on the caddilac xlr is the most advanced suspension ever- on any car. So dont tell me that cadillacs dont handle well.

Well the Mercedes McLaren SLR has a state of the art traction system. BTW, does anyone have pics or know what the SLR can do with it's wheels on angled curved roads? I saw it on TV the other day, and thought awesome.

Also, 2 me, German cars come out. The XLR price range is outrageous! Even my uncle thinks it's crazy to pay 70K for that car. It's nice, but just to expensive. No matter what the car's specs. Besides that, After test driving a 3 series, that car along with any other BMW is great on driving. It's no wonder BMWs are considered the safest cars on the road. And that Z8 is the one of the greastest cars.
No I saw in another car site forum which I'm not a part of. (I have this site :D ) where some people got carried away by "The Ultimate Driving Machine" Theysaid Ferrari's and that were, but to clear it up. BMW says that not mainly b/c of power but b/c of the handling, how smooth the ride is, safety, comfort, etc.

And one last thing to add...Has anyone seen a 760IL up close or even in real life? I really want to see this car! A 7 series with a big V12. Saw it on TV, and feel in love with it. Unfornately, I don't have 100K to spend on a car that has refridgerator in the back.
V12 Cars=Big Bucks.

Coventrysucks
07-25-2004, 05:08 AM
Why would you expect American cars to sell more in Europe?

Well according to you American cars are so great.
Why would people not want to buy great cars?
Answer - they aren't as good as European cars.

Simple isn't it.

;)

Matra et Alpine
07-25-2004, 05:40 AM
BTW, IIRC, in the late '60s/early '70s, the full-size Chevy and Fords were selling at about 800,000 to 1,000,000 per year.
Bad thinking again fleet.
You think that suggests they're good cars ??

wrong.

Think on this point .... In the same time period Zils sold more cars than anyone else in russia. Not bought because they were good. Bought because that's all that was made for them :)

Fleet 500
07-25-2004, 03:18 PM
Well according to you American cars are so great.
Why would people not want to buy great cars?
Answer - they aren't as good as European cars.
;)

As far as overall longevity is concerned, American cars are just as good.
When you say "not as good," what are you referring to? Engine, transmission, performance, reliability, build quality?

Fleet 500
07-25-2004, 03:24 PM
Bad thinking again fleet.
You think that suggests they're good cars ??

wrong.

Think on this point .... In the same time period Zils sold more cars than anyone else in russia. Not bought because they were good. Bought because that's all that was made for them :)

The typical full-sized Chevys and Fords, when properly maintained, were quite durable. Their engines and drivetrains lasted for years and years. Those components were practically trouble-free... especially the transmissions. Most owners never bothered to change the trans fluid, and in the case of Chrysler autos, according to the owner's manual, the transmission fluid never needed changing for the life of the car, except under extreme use (like towing a trailer).

Anyway, the Chevys and Fords were much better cars than Zils!

Matra et Alpine
07-25-2004, 03:27 PM
As far as overall longevity is concerned, American cars are just as good.
When you say "not as good," what are you referring to? Engine, transmission, performance, reliability, build quality?
Fleet, I think it's fair to say that the majority of members of ULTIMATECARpage.com aren't here because we want cars for 20 years and do 200,000 miles at 55mph.

And can you please confirm if you're only going to consider cars that were allowed into the US or not. If only the ones Ford et al woudl allow in then it's a pointless exercise. Karmaans recent post on 80s Taurus versus 90s Escort just highlighted again the rubbis you got give. The Ford Escort was a superb piece of engineering which became THE definitive rally car of the 70s and 80s. But there was not ONE single common piece in Ford America's "Escort" beyodn the name. So comparisons need to be carefully bounded to make any sense.

Matra et Alpine
07-25-2004, 03:29 PM
Anyway, the Chevys and Fords were much better cars than Zils!
You just didn't get the point did you !!!

:) I need to go to hospital. I hope I can get my guts in the plastic bag and they can put them back and stitch me up again :)

Coventrysucks
07-25-2004, 03:51 PM
As far as overall longevity is concerned, American cars are just as good.

Longevity is not the be all and end all of a car.
There are so few people interested in owning a car for much more than 10 years.

Most cars these days are actually designed not to last that long so that people are encouraged to buy a new car more often.


When you say "not as good," what are you referring to? Engine, transmission, performance, reliability, build quality?

Yes.

aNOBLEman
07-26-2004, 06:31 PM
[Quote originally by SPN: DOC]and the Cadillac CTS-V is ugly compared to Audi S4.... [end Quote]

The Cadillac CTS-V looks a lot better than the S4 in my opinion.

gtface
07-26-2004, 07:34 PM
why would you say that... Caddy 1 and Audi 0 i totally disagree with you.. yes the caddy has more power and is faster, but have a look at there engine sizes... who has a better engine Audi 4.2L V8 with 344 bhp @ 7000 rpm and 302 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm.. its not hard to place a big engine in a car with allot power.. but its hard to make a smaller engine with similar power.. ;) and have a look at the price.. caddy is also an American car and American built car.. they pay less taxes.. therefore the caddy should really be cheaper.... :rolleyes:

and the Cadillac CTS-V is ugly compared to Audi S4.... :D

From a consumer's standpoint, why does it matter how big the engine is?

Fleet 500
07-26-2004, 08:08 PM
Longevity is not the be all and end all of a car.
There are so few people interested in owning a car for much more than 10 years.

Most cars these days are actually designed not to last that long so that people are encouraged to buy a new car more often.

Yes.

Then I guess I am one of the few who likes a car to last a long time. I like to keep my car(s) for years. (That's why I own Cadillacs, well... and one Mopar a few years back.)

If you really consider engine, transmission, reliability and build quality the makings of a good car, then you are describing '40s, '50s, '60s and some '70s U.S. cars. :)

SPN:DOC
07-26-2004, 10:56 PM
From a consumer's standpoint, why does it matter how big the engine is?

Ahh, most likely the car will have better fuel economy and lighter engine…..

gtface
07-27-2004, 02:07 AM
Ahh, most likely the car will have better fuel economy and lighter engine…..

It is likely that the engine would be lighter but that it is not always the case. Often the difference in weight between higher displacement and lower displacement engines is minimal.

Smaller engines often get worse fuel economy than larger ones, especially if the cars you are talking about are similar in performance. The best example of this is the corvette zo6, which has a 5.7 L V8, puts out 405 hp, and gets 19/28 mpg. Compare that to the WRX sti, which has a 2.5 L I4, puts out 300 hp, and gets 18/24 mpg, or the NSX, which has a 3.2 L V6, puts out 290 hp, and gets 17/24 mpg. In the case of these two cars, the cts-v gets 16/25 mpg, and the s4 gets 15/21 mpg or 18/23 mpg depending on the transmission. So the correlation between displacement and fuel economy is not that close.

So let me ask you this: If you have two cars that way the same, have the same horsepower, handle the same, and flat out perform the same, what the hell does it matter if the engines are different sizes?

Slicks
07-27-2004, 06:06 PM
Ahh, most likely the car will have better fuel economy and lighter engine…..
Displacement does NOT = size nor weight of the engine. How is it that the "big" LS1 (5.7L) is physically smaller, more compact, and lighter than the "small" 3.2L found in the NSX?

fpv_gtho
07-27-2004, 10:02 PM
overbore, variable lift, VVT, DOHC........just a few things i can think of that would make the NSX's engine physically bigger than the OHV LS1

crisis
07-28-2004, 12:15 AM
overbore, variable lift, VVT, DOHC........just a few things i can think of that would make the NSX's engine physically bigger than the OHV LS1
Overbore happens inside, it has two less cylinders. Variable lift and VVT only count as pert of it being DOHC.

fpv_gtho
07-28-2004, 02:28 AM
i was just pointing overbore out to do with the bigger bore spacing

Engineer
09-21-2004, 12:11 PM
It is likely that the engine would be lighter but that it is not always the case. Often the difference in weight between higher displacement and lower displacement engines is minimal.

Smaller engines often get worse fuel economy than larger ones...
So the correlation between displacement and fuel economy is not that close.

So let me ask you this: If you have two cars that way the same, have the same horsepower, handle the same, and flat out perform the same, what the hell does it matter if the engines are different sizes?

The biggest difference is the efficiencies of the engines. All though some smaller engines in cars give lower MPG versus larger engines, it all really depends on the engine's efficiency. There are smaller engines that get much better mileage than any larger engine and still produce decent power. Feul injected cars on average get more mileage than naturally aspirated engines since there is a computer determining the feul/air ratio for the engines demand. This helps optimize the energy derived from the feul the engine uses. Other modifications that free up power like polished ports, light weight rockers and lifters high flow intake/exhaust, lighter drive shafts, etc or forced induction from super/turbocharging also increase the engines efficiency. With those kinds of modifications more of the power from the feul is going into driving the car instead of being tappered off somewhere else. These more efficient engines, if not driven like a racecar, will then get more miles per gallon then other non-modified engines and less efficient engines.

KnifeEdge_2K1
09-21-2004, 06:54 PM
i think ur talking about carburators not naturally aspirated engines ...

Fleet 500
10-26-2004, 08:14 PM
and then end up in the ditch on the first corner.
There is more to cars than accelleration :)
(

Here is the article I mentioned some time back (yes, it took me this long to find it).

From a Sept., 1962 issue of Car Life. A Corvette-powered (factory-built) Chevy II was in England and, to quote the article, "beat the 265-hp. Jaguar sedans on their home grounds."

I also remember that V-8 Dodge Darts and Plymouth Valiants. In another article, it said something like, "they showed a lot of high-dollar imports the fast way to the finish line!"

Some of these compact U.S. car handled much better than many people would believe (or admit).

Matra et Alpine
10-27-2004, 01:35 AM
Here is the article I mentioned some time back (yes, it took me this long to find it).

Do you have the article NOT scaled down, it's hard to read.
That Jag almost looks as if it was a Mk IX :) Just curious what mark and engine they were matching it up to.
I only remember the Galaxies when I was a kid, I wonder if I ever saw these and just assumed they were Fords :)

Some of these compact U.S. car handled much better than many people would believe (or admit).
erm, the description on the second photo clearly says "the better handling jaguar" !!!!
With the long 'straight' the drag up Hailwood Hill and the section to Dingle Dell then power is a BIG plus. In the dry, I've said it already, those monsters were damn near impossible to beat.

jcp123
10-27-2004, 04:40 PM
German cars and American cars are fundamentally different. I respect German cars a bunch, but for my money, I like American cars. Again, remember that we have 3 American cars that are 30 years old + and still serve beautifully as drivers.

Fleet 500
10-27-2004, 05:18 PM
Do you have the article NOT scaled down, it's hard to read.

erm, the description on the second photo clearly says "the better handling jaguar" !!!!


I'll try scanning the pic again, this time larger.

Yeah, the "better handling" Jag still lost though!

I like the top photo in which the superior acceleration of the Chevy leaves the Jag far behind! :D

Matra et Alpine
10-27-2004, 06:35 PM
I'll try scanning the pic again, this time larger.
Thanks.

Yeah, the "better handling" Jag still lost though!
Come on, beeee-have !!!!
YOU said "U.S. car handled much better than many people would believe".
I accepted that power woudl be a winner on long dry tracks.
YOU still won't accept that the article refuted your comments regarding handling.
It gets quite boring and retarded after a while guys :(

I like the top photo in which the superior acceleration of the Chevy leaves the Jag far behind! :D
only after blocking Salvadori in the corners and preventing him from overtaking the Chevy there.
A picture doesn't give the whole story.

Waiting to read the text to confirm the full picture.

RS6
10-28-2004, 05:22 AM
To quote Maxwell Smart, "If the Germans were so smart, why did they lose two world wars?" ;)

There is your quote. Here is mine. "If the Americans were so smart, why did they lose the Vietnam war?"

Sorry to bring history into this thread again, but Fleet 500s post really pissed me off.

PS: And if Maxwell Smart was an American, I am now laughing in his face.

Falcon500
10-28-2004, 05:57 AM
Displacement does NOT = size nor weight of the engine. How is it that the "big" LS1 (5.7L) is physically smaller, more compact, and lighter than the "small" 3.2L found in the NSX?
I really need to find thatpic ofthe windsor and the 5.4 boss sitting side by side the size diffrence is immense and they dont even have vvti or any ofthe other fruit found in most modern ohc engines...

fpv_gtho
10-28-2004, 06:01 AM
ive seen that pic, and im pretty sure it was between the 4.6 and 302 though

Slicks
10-28-2004, 07:47 AM
I really need to find thatpic ofthe windsor and the 5.4 boss sitting side by side the size diffrence is immense and they dont even have vvti or any ofthe other fruit found in most modern ohc engines...
This one?
dohc on left, ohv on right (ohv engine has more displacement)
http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg

jcp123
10-28-2004, 03:58 PM
I know that the 4.6 is about 6 or 8 inches wider than a 351W, the 351W will fit easily into my engine bay, where on a 4.6 you gotta shave the shock towers and get creative with the front suspension.

Fleet 500
10-28-2004, 06:38 PM
There is your quote. Here is mine. "If the Americans were so smart, why did they lose the Vietnam war?"

Sorry to bring history into this thread again, but Fleet 500s post really pissed me off.

PS: And if Maxwell Smart was an American, I am now laughing in his face.

This is very strange... are you upset because Germany lost two world wars? You would rather that Germany won?

The mistake with Vietnam was that is was a war run by politicians instead of the military. Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater said he could have won that war in six months by non-stop, serious bombing and driving N. Vietnam back into their country.

Why would you laugh at Max? Because Communism took over S. Vietnam? You think a country under Communist rule is "funny." Again, very strange!

crisis
10-28-2004, 10:25 PM
The Vietnam war was just another lesson. The French got a hiding their previously and the US thought military might would do the job. (perhaps not a lesson well learned) .In the end the war in Vietnam was probably less justifiable than the attack on Iraq as communism has proven to be not neccesarily the evil that it was thought to be by the US. At least the Iraq affair got rid of a murderous belligerant tyrant.

fpv_gtho
10-28-2004, 11:51 PM
I know that the 4.6 is about 6 or 8 inches wider than a 351W, the 351W will fit easily into my engine bay, where on a 4.6 you gotta shave the shock towers and get creative with the front suspension.


Have you heard of RRS (revelation race suspension)? Its an Aussie company that makes replacement front struts and steering racks for early Mustang's and Falcon's......supposedly giving them handling to equal HSV Commodore's

jcp123
10-29-2004, 12:09 AM
No, but here in the States we have companies like Total Control Products that do basically the same thing. I think they even have kits to bolt in late-model Mustang Cobra IRS as well as the usual fare of coil-overs, strut conversions, lightweight suspension pieces, rack and pinion steering, panhard bars, and the like. Horribly overpriced, but if youre into the weekend track thing, its definitely worth it.

fpv_gtho
10-29-2004, 12:12 AM
well i think these kits are on the good side of affordable, simply just 2 struts and the steering rack which replaces the existing rack, wishbones, springs, shocks, locating rod's etc etc

jcp123
10-29-2004, 12:17 AM
hmm i might look into that after i put my 351W in...it'd be nice to kick some of that understeer out, though the way i drive it already handles better than id ever need it to.

Fleet 500
10-29-2004, 01:03 PM
The Vietnam war was just another lesson. The French got a hiding their previously and the US thought military might would do the job. (perhaps not a lesson well learned) .In the end the war in Vietnam was probably less justifiable than the attack on Iraq as communism has proven to be not neccesarily the evil that it was thought to be by the US. At least the Iraq affair got rid of a murderous belligerant tyrant.

I agree.

Fleet 500
10-30-2004, 01:53 PM
Okay, the photo should be larger here...

Matra et Alpine
10-30-2004, 02:12 PM
Okay, the photo should be larger here...
Thanks, fleet, made a good read.

I liked the comment about Salvadori may have been show-boating with flashin lights and waving his hands suggesting he was being baulked at the corners. It was a different time back then. The expectation being that you woudl give track space to your competitor if they were faster. The typical blocking we see today just didnt' happen so ofetn then.

It confirms it was the GP circuit, with the big long straights, the Jag would struggle to keep up with what the Chevy was delivering on the LONG straights of the track. Woudl have been more interesting if baulking (alledgedly!) wasnt' going on. The thing I remember of watching the Galaxies and the Minis was the way the Mini COULD squeeze up the inside on the corners and win races by out-handling the massively mroe powerful Fords !!
A Jag's a bit too big to be able to do that :)

I noticed that he only managed 5th at Silverstone, which at the time was a much simpler circuit and MUCH more space at the corners for alternate lines. So maybe the baulking was real at Brands. Sadly we'll never know for sure.

I sse the text DOES say "the better handling Jag" as suspected :) and from an American publication. WOW, slicks will proably claim the jourrno was a pinko sympathiser :)

Out of interest, how DID it do the rest of the season ? That's a teaser closure in the article :) "felt sure the Chevy II could take the Jags measure at the other British courses". I don't have many saloon racing records from then, but I'll have a look. Why did it fall away and the Galaxies be the dominant US racer over here ??

Rambo2004
10-31-2004, 02:05 AM
it's still insulting to say "cadillacs aren't considered to be luxury cars in Europe" because they are luxury cars anywhere, that's all they make.

The Cad's not very well kown in britain but maybe more in Europe.

SlickHolden
11-01-2004, 05:57 AM
Im 1 and a half. And I almost met god yesterday, I was in the left hand lane on a two lane road at a stop light. ( We orstralians drive on the left ) . About a hundred metres past the intersection some f/wad was parked. Next to me was a boy in a company VT Commodore station wagon. I thought I would put the boot in and get around the parked car and back in the left lane. The road was wet, the stage was set. Got off the line pretty well and all looked fine. Then I notice racer x thought we were getting all fast and furious. At this stage I was somewhat committed to getting around the parked car or going through it. Numb nuts (the other one) was not backing off so I pushed the on button to the floor. Fangio was behind me but I did not want to cut him off so I grabbed 2nd. Well I had controlled the wheel spin in first pretty well but when I dumped the clutch big red decided it would be more fun sideways (we hates traction control dont we precious!). Luckily, (my driving skill had now run out) it decided to send the tail out right, got a bite of bitumen and we pulled ahead enough so that my arse did not cop my would be assailant in the nose. Somewhat embarrased by my lack of maturity it took me a while to realise this prick wanted to bury me in the arse of the parked car and had no intention of letting me in. He must have realised he lost perspective also as he made sure he positioned himslef well behind or in front of me from then until he turned off. Im not sure what the lesson is. Was the fact that I had the grunt to "own" him a good thing or was it that very same grunt that got me into trouble in the first place. Mods feel free to shift this to the "automotive idiot stories" if you so desire.
That was me next to you in the VT wagon lol:p:p :DJ/K:P

Fleet 500
11-01-2004, 09:54 PM
Thanks, fleet, made a good read.

Out of interest, how DID it do the rest of the season ? That's a teaser closure in the article :) "felt sure the Chevy II could take the Jags measure at the other British courses". I don't have many saloon racing records from then, but I'll have a look. Why did it fall away and the Galaxies be the dominant US racer over here ??

I have no idea how it did the rest of the season. After all, that magazine is from September, 1962 and I was only one year and one month old! And I don't have every issue of Car Life, so I might have missed a follow-up report. Maybe some of the older members can tell us what happened?

ashes2ashes
11-02-2004, 04:01 PM
I am kinda new here, but when you put any of the Cadillac brands against the European luxery brands (Benz, BMW etc) the Cadillac usually comes up short. Apart from their SUVs (of course). But having said that, do Cadillac still have any flagship luxery saloon car anymore? Something to compete with the 7 series, S400 series, A8, LS400, etc? I am not sure on this point (but I think they don't.). So is it fair to consider them luxery cars?

Slicks
11-03-2004, 12:54 PM
I am kinda new here, but when you put any of the Cadillac brands against the European luxery brands (Benz, BMW etc) the Cadillac usually comes up short. Apart from their SUVs (of course). But having said that, do Cadillac still have any flagship luxery saloon car anymore? Something to compete with the 7 series, S400 series, A8, LS400, etc? I am not sure on this point (but I think they don't.). So is it fair to consider them luxery cars?
What else would you consider them? Caddilac pretty much has always been a luxury division. Just because journalist rate the BMWs higher does that make Caddies not a luxury car? Because journalists rate the Camaro higher than the mustang, does that make the stang not a muscle car?

jcp123
11-05-2004, 01:03 AM
Cads are luxury cars, they just are more traditionally positioned than BMW's, Mercedes, etc. Cadillac has almost always been structured the way they are, the euros brought the way luxo cars are classified to the US in the 80's. So yes, Cadillac (not Caddillac, guys) is a luxury division.

As to Camaros and Mustangs...I'd have to call them Pony cars rather than true muscle cars. Guess I'm just a traditionalist.

Radoman
11-05-2004, 10:53 PM
^^^why are politics even being mentioned in a Car-comparo? well, time to change the subject and move on to...




Cadillac CTS-V - 2004:

Engine
Cylinders: V8
Displacement: 5667 cc
Horsepower: 400 bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 395 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm

Performance
0-60 mph: 4.6 sec
Top Speed: 155 mph
Price: $49,995

Audi S4 - 2003

Engine:
Cylinders: 8
Displacement: 4163 cc
Horsepower: 344 bhp @ 7000 rpm
Torque: 302 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm

Perfomance
0-60 mph: 5.0 sec
Top Speed: 155 mph
Price: $45,000


the Audi is better, if only for fit and finish alone.

ok, here's one that's just gotta be asked.

911 or Corvette?

jcp123
11-05-2004, 11:02 PM
I would tentatively say Vette. The 911 is a lot more pricey for essentially the same performance, and the Vette's interior, while of arguably lesser quality than the 911's (I have never thought of either as being terribly high quality with all that plastic), I think is more functional. The 911 definitely has style points though.

all that said, however, the only Vette I'd ever spend money on is a C3. they others have never appealed to me that much.

Radoman
11-05-2004, 11:15 PM
^^^not at all surprised, although I'd take a C2 stingray anyday over a first generation Porsche 911. anything else, however...

if you had to choose between the two shown above, I'd take the Porsche any day of the week.

ok, how about a shiney new 997 and a C6?

jcp123
11-05-2004, 11:19 PM
i have no idea what a 997 is/looks like/is capable of, and since the C6 looks just like the C5 with new headlights, i'll just pick that for now.

P3RG4R3C
11-23-2004, 12:30 PM
What about Chrysler ME Four-Twelve versus Bugatti EB Veyron 16.4

RS6
11-23-2004, 12:46 PM
Chrysler, hands down.

I believe more in lightweight than high power, although it still has 850 bhp.

P3RG4R3C
11-23-2004, 01:00 PM
Yeah, it's my choice too. The bugatti is fast but in my opinion is a bit ugly.

Coventrysucks
11-23-2004, 04:33 PM
What about Chrysler ME Four-Twelve versus Bugatti EB Veyron 16.4

2 cars still at prototype stage. Not a great start for a comparison.

Strange that you consider the Chrysler to be "American" when you take into account its Italian chassis, British gearbox and German engine.

Even stranger is the need to bring the French into this argument.

P3RG4R3C
11-24-2004, 09:06 AM
Strange that you consider the Chrysler to be "American" when you take into account its Italian chassis, British gearbox and German engine.

Even stranger is the need to bring the French into this argument.


Really?

PerfAdv
11-24-2004, 10:39 AM
What's strange to me is the domino effect of calling the Veyron ugly. OK, they haven't delivered and many are unhappy but to start calling the car ugly? Maybe you should reconsider your sense of aesthetics. Just lusting after every Ferrari-clone, me too, midengine design is not good for one's art appreciation sensabilities. Look closely, this car is not ugly. :mad:

Afterall, it's trying to retain this shape that's lead to the aerodynamic woes!

P3RG4R3C
11-24-2004, 12:09 PM
OK, I might expressed a bit rough, but I just don't like the car.

Coventrysucks
11-24-2004, 12:32 PM
What's strange to me is the domino effect of calling the Veyron ugly?

A good point. It isn't especially ugly, but doesn't have the same effortless elegance of the bugattis of old.

They really should have been a bit less conservative with the design, but it is VW...

vansonrider
11-24-2004, 02:34 PM
i think it's safe to say german anything will beat the americans ...



German anything? I don't recall the German Army beating us twice..................Oops. :D German cars are nice, some american cars are cool, but I have to go with Japanese for quality. If I want to smoke someone I'll do it on my bike.

Vettribution87
11-24-2004, 07:58 PM
^^^why are politics even being mentioned in a Car-comparo? well, time to change the subject and move on to...






the Audi is better, if only for fit and finish alone.

ok, here's one that's just gotta be asked.

911 or Corvette?


http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=61667&stc=1&thumb=1

That Vette looks like a pre-1973 Corvette. I think they phased out the metal bumper bars from 1973-onward.
Those Vettes represented the last of the high output Corvettes we would see for a decade or so. Certainly they are worth more then the latter C3's that were subject to the restrictions of the mid to late 1970's.

What year would this Porsche be?
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=61664&stc=1&thumb=1

Radoman
11-24-2004, 10:23 PM
^^^that would be a '77-78-ish car. I'm not huge on Vette's, but I compared the two because they were both roughly the same age, same generation. If one were to compared the New C6 with the new Carrera S, I'd still take the Porsche. but niether of them have the same spirit, the same coolness that these older ones did, and still do.

But if we were comparing Vette's and 911's of the mid sixties, I'd have to go for a Stingray.

Vettribution87
11-24-2004, 10:31 PM
^^^that would be a '77-78-ish car. I'm not huge on Vette's, but I compared the two because they were both roughly the same age, same generation.

That OK. :)
It’s a much fairer comparison this way seeing as though the performance of the Vettes in the late seventies stank thanks to government interference.

charged
11-26-2004, 10:26 PM
I think Porsche has kept some visual links with the old and the new which I think is great,where the old vette and new vette has no real visual link,not that I think gm should dp a retro Vette.Porches original design was a more modern,contemparery design.

fiat850
03-11-2005, 10:14 AM
All i gotta say is BMW

rennsport
04-19-2005, 12:01 PM
Cadillacs are not luxury anywhere apart from North America. Never was...certainly never will be.

In general:

German cars are reknown worldwide for quality, technogical innovation, safety, status symbolism, economy, low depriciation and to some extent design.

American cars are only known for size, power and cup holders. Sure there are classics that we all dig, but in recent times american manufacturers have not produced anything that is respected internationally. A saleen maybe.

There's a joke in germany;
A texan is talking to a german: "My land, back home is so big, it takes me three days to drive through it."
The german replies: "Once, I also had a shit car like that."

Falcon500
05-01-2005, 05:17 AM
What a steaming pile of shit....ive worked with bmws and ive seem the few cads that come into canberra here and ill tell you hands down which id prefer...I have no idea where your getting these general observations from too....my time at a bmw dealership really did suprise me anything lower spec was lame...and anything higher spec had a price tag thatll make you freak....and parts and servicing on these things is woeful. and while the cads are not gems and i have not driven one id still prefer a cad over "almost" any bmw (i liked the z4 and the m3 we had there)