German cars VS American cars

[Fleet 500]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[Coventrysucks]

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]

Just wait till you get the new Corvettes. Those have good engines, handling, and build quality.

[Fleet 500]

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]

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]

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.