Here is a cool article on jalopnik.
http://jalopnik.com/how-americans-can-s ... 1669849525
It is interesting. I agree with almost everything said here, 70's and 80's cars sucked, etc. The interesting part is that they actually acknowledge that American cars starting from the last 5 years ago to present are actually really good. I know Americans have noticed, but it is nice to see that that mentality is spreading.
Another note, the writer said if they lived here, they would own a Z-28 and a Ford Raptor. Sounds good to me, that is what I would own also if I won the lottery.
British take on American cars
Re: British take on American cars
Good comment. I thought everyone understood this but apparently not.
The answer is really simple, but still a big page worth. Americans are all "embarrassed millionaires" and the standard for success was Cadillac and Lincoln. Most of America is flat, and the roads are arrow straight. So the standard for comfort for all cars, was to absolutely not feel the road underneath you. Because our country was founded on a rebellion against taxes, it's better to pay less taxes and have shitty roads full of potholes, than to pay more in taxes and have properly maintained roads. So every car aspired to be a Cadillac. If every car in Europe aspired to be a Rolls Royce, you could have had the same thing.I don't understand how the consumers of two such similar continents on either side of the Atlantic have ended up being offered cars with such different dynamic priorities.
Car commercials of the 1950s and 1960s had two priorities. Igniting the dream of the family vacation, hence the need for immense trunk space and interior space, and passing power with that load in the car. So you needed size for capacity, and a big engine to pass that carload of losers on a two lane road going uphill. You didn't want to spend any more time risking a head on collision than was necessary.
In Europe, the same cities have stood where they are, or were villages for hundreds of years. In America, cities grew to accommodate cars. Those towns in all the old westerns, grew to massive cities. There was a lot of unoccupied land around those towns in the westerns. Prior to the white conquest of the land, the indigenous folk weren't using much of it either, in the sense of permanent settlements. Those westerns didn't take place that long ago. Wyatt Earp was a consultant to Hollywood in the 1920s for the making of those movies. And Los Angeles in the 1920s, was practically one of those western towns itself. I tiny island in an ocean of desert.
Last, what made European cars what they were, was Germany. Detroit is located in an area so flat, the state has to make a landfill mountain to ski on. Germany has mountains nearby, and rolling hills that encourage curves in the road for the easiest grade.
When Hitler had the Autobahn designed, it was designed with curves in the road to keep drivers alert. In America, our priority was that every Interstate be capable of being used as an airfield in an emergency, in an era of longer take off jets. Also supporting an argument for roads that were straight down to the vanishing point, is the long distances involved in America. A straight road is the most efficient route between any two points.
And last, again because we're cheap. It takes less concrete to make a straight road than a curved one. Even now in America, there isn't a lot of reason to have a car that is optimized for high speed curves. Which is why pickup trucks and SUVs dominate our market as soon as the price of fuel drops.
Re: British take on American cars
Another one:
I think it'd help here to have some perspective on the US interstate system that Eisenhower kicked off versus the Autobahn that the Nazi (not trying to Godwin the thread, just history) government put into place.
I'd be hard pressed not to admit that the Autobahn system is some of the finest designed, maintained, and well mannered highway systems in the world. But it operates on a completely different scale both geographically and by total distance of the road itself.
German Autobahn: 8,026 miles
USA Interstate System: 47,714 miles
The Autobahn is 16.8% the size of the US system (sourced both numbers from Wikipedia). But let's look at that geographically:
Total area of Germany: 137,903 square miles
Total area of USA: 3,119,885 square miles (just contiguous USA, with Alaska and Hawaii, that number jumps to north of 3.8M square miles)
Germany makes up just over 4.4% of the total area of the USA, and, if it were a state, would slot between New Mexico (121K square miles) and Montana (147k square miles).
Population wise, Germany has about 80.62M people as of 2013, and the USA has 316.1M as of a 2013 estimate (source for area and populations is Google). So Germany is 25.5% the size of the USA, or the population of New York and Texas put together.
When you're designing a car for German roads, this comes into play. Commutes are smaller, cars are not expected to last as long with as much abuse as our highways don't compare. With notable exceptions, most folks live in relatively flat areas with long straight roads. Gas is significantly cheaper (mostly on account of low taxes) which means bigger cars with less concern toward fuel economy. Your assumptions about urban design are correct: German cities and towns had cars as an afterthought. Most US cities had urban areas sprout up late enough that cars were already in the picture, meaning that their use was more integral to the average American's daily life.
On a subjective note (and as someone who has a Corvette) American cars do not multi-task well. Historically, they are either 1.) Comfortable 2.) Rugged or 3.) Fast. Pick one. Lately, we've gotten the memo that the rest of the world prefers not to live in the squalor that is the average American interior (as a former owner of a third-gen Camaro, I can say this with authority.) That said, we are capable of producing cars with character. At the end of the day, that's what matters.
Re: British take on American cars
Onto rentals. So far, Chrysler products are not fairing well.
I've had a couple of the older 200s and Sebrings as loaners over the last few years and while I didn't like them much, they weren't the worst cars I've ever driven, not even close. The worst new car I've ever driven was a friend's leased Mitsubishi Colt. That was just the definition of "penalty box". Slow, unsafe in a crash with anything bigger than a 10 speed bike, uncomfortable in every way, it was truly a POS. The sad thing was his divorce had killed him so badly financially, that about 18 months after he got it, money problems forced him to turn it in early. His hand me down car (thanks to is twin brother) for the next two years was a frosty blue Taurus with no options other than A/C. After the Taurus died (it threw a rod on I75 at 70MPH, every scary), he drove a rusting to the death '85 Caravan that ended up being declared unsafe and scrapped, even though the engine and transmission were still going strong. After that, he drove a Ford Ranger, IMHO, the penalty box of little pickups, especially in base trim, like his was.
Worst car I ever drove period was the first loaner I ever had, a '73 Ford LTD, shit brown over darker shit brown, with a scary shake over 45. It was only a year old with 25,000 miles on it! Best loaner was the Cruze with 55,000 miles on it I had this spring. It was pretty quick if you kept the turbo spooled up, and other than being too small for my oversized self, was a decent car, no rattles or squeaks, everything looked ok in and out. I have to admit though, I have never understood the appeal of most Honda or Toyota vehicles. Boring is being nice, and in a lot of cases, boring and ugly. The old ones rusted with amazing speed, even compared to 70's and 80's US built junk. My cousin and business partner has alternated between ok and awful cars. Currently he's in love with Subs. I don't get it at all. I've ridden in the last two a few times, and I don't get the appeal. They haven't been all that great mechanically, either. Years ago, he and his wife drove identical Grand Cherokees, and I did too. We all kept them for over 7 years, so I guess we liked them pretty well. Then he went to Explorers, while I went to a Sierra and a Ram.
Re: British take on American cars
Back to Buicks. Someone complained about his Dad having rented some American car, after asking for something similar to a 323i. I'm sure that ended badly. Anyway, someone asked if it was this:
Comments ensued.
My Grandmother drove one of those for years. It was ok, just not remarkable in any way. I remember the engine and transmission made a strange sound. Like combining a vacuum cleaner with a lawn mower. For its era it did have a shitload of whistles and bells. But the entire car was done in the most tasteless manner possible. Somehow she put 260,000 miles on it before trading it in for a Buick LeSabre which she still owns.
GM A/C FTW.My Grandmother had one of those, I think it was called a Park Avenue , but looked exactly the same. I was way to young to know if it was shitty or not. She seemed to like it, and I liked how the leather seats made so much noise when I moved around, that rubbery, farty noise. My grandparents were hard of hearing, so I would sit back there and try to find ways to make the best fart sound out of the seats. That, driving micro machines in and out of the ashtrays that were in the armrests. No wonder modern cars have to have dvd players in them for kids, there are no things to mess with in them anymore, especially since you can lock the windows now so the kids cant roll them up and down.
Ha ha! Yeah, hers made those "farty" noises as well. I also remember the car smelled and not in a good way. Whatever was used to make the interior pieces stank horribly even when it was new. Like if somehow there was such a thing as a plastic wet dog. Even her newer one smells that same way. The one thing it DID have that worked really well was the AC. We drove to Florida in it one year and the AC worked better than in any car I've either owned or driven in.
What was bad about it? Most people like those Buick V6 engines.
In my area, on the roads today, I see more 1988-1994 Buicks than I see of any other car make.
Slow compared to what? This pictured Buick has more power than any Accord or Camry of the same year. It's not a sports car, but it's quick enough to keep pace with modern traffic.
Boring? You are entitled to your opinion on this, of course. I find it less boring than most midsize cars of its day, and not nearly the most boring car you could buy running for a thousand bucks today.
Wallowy- yes, very correct. They were built for comfort, not handling.
If the goal is to simply show dislike of old American boatlike cars, you have a fair point that can be made, but you must go further into the past to find exemplars which are absolutely uncompetitive cars. I do not understand the hate for 90s Buicks particularly among Europeans. Heck, Jeremy Clarkson once sang the praises of a Lincoln Mk VIII, and then when he became successful, went around saying that a Buick Park Avenue was the worst car ever. They're not all that dissimilar.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: British take on American cars
And back to ze Germans:
Those are good cars. But the new stuff... not so much. 50,000 miles on an Audi and you are into the danger zone.
Unfortunate reality of modern (past 15 years or so) of European cars (German cars especially) is you really have to do your research to make sure you're getting one that has a strong probability of being reliable. Materials/fit/Finish/Paint/Interior all top notch (at least of the Euro cars sold in the US), but damn it to hell pisses me off that reliability can be hit or miss even within the same Make. Much of which is b/c of design decisions that have little regard to reliability/longevity. Perfect example is BMW making all the hard connectors out of cheap ass plastic, so replacing much (if not all) of the cooling system (with different parts that can last +100K) becomes expected/routine maintenance item, which is fucking ridiculous
I don't really agree with this one but obviously I like the Caprice reference.Yeah that's my point. Pretty much any American car will do 200k miles these days without all the strange problems that would kill a BMW, Audi, VW. My friend had a mid 2000s Jetta and the interior started flaking apart. WTF!?! People knock 'hard plastic' but I'll take hard plastic over flaking rubberized interiors any day.
European cars can't go the distance eh? Just a small sample of cars that would beg to differ, including the current mileage record holder (last pic.) who's at over 3million miles now on the same car (Volvo P1800). Only American cars that come close to competing on longevity with 70s and 80s Mercedes are the Crown Vics & old ladder fame Caprices. Plus there are many others Peugeot 504, air or watercooled VWs etc... Hell I've personally taken 2 VWs to 300K and I'm on my 3rd (223K and counting). BTW ladder frame light trucks (American) are really comparable to commercial (ladder frame) vans in Europe and both often can go 500K or more
Re: British take on American cars
Most disingenuous thing I've seen on this post: people happily referencing "shitty" 70s and 80s American cars with no apparent regard for the fact that most things sucked in those decades, compared to what we have today.
Re: British take on American cars
Here's one "perspective:"
As an immigrant from Europe, I also had a bit of culture shock in the way American cars looked on the outside and felt from the inside. Shittiness however, is universal. The Pontiac Aztec is shitty but so are dozens of Peugeot and Renault french crap along with the usual Italian and British (yes, I said British) pieces of engineering and stylistic garbage that puttered around Euro roads.
The identifying mark of an American car is its vastness. An American car is truly humongous. An 80s Cadillac 2-door coupe takes up more room than a delivery truck that hauls furniture in Europe. The insides also has a distinctive tackiness that is very American. Fake wood, fake chrome, velour upholstery rendered in the worst shades of blues and reds that your average German brothel would reject. You'd think you'd stepped into the vehicular version of a western cowboy movie saloon.
Oh and the "performance" of American cars... what pass off as performance cars here were the heaviest steel-laden gigantic tuna boats outfitted with V8s that displaced more than most commercial fishing boats operating off the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Handling? We don't need no stinkin' handlin' - it makes the back tires smoke and that's all we need...
I will give credit where it's due though. Living in the arid Southwest, there is no better environment to be in on a 110 degree summer day than a GM car with its steroided out AC on "medium" setting while you're chattering your teeth in the cold cabin. There's something miraculous about steering a 4 ton piece of metal using nothing but your index finger barely hooked by the furthest knuckle to the steering wheel. And everything about a GM car is cheap. Looks cheap, feels cheap, but also fixes cheap, so drive away, whatever breaks will be fixable under some kind of modest budget.
Re: British take on American cars
So...American's aren't elite enough for European aristocrats? Ok?As a corollary, I think there's also a fundamental class-based component to this. In a nation that is superficially "classless" (a myth if there ever was one), the US has no viable independent, "upper class", automobile manufacturers. Since the likes of Cord, Duesenberg, etc. withered on the vine, there have been no American equivalents to Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Aston Martin, Jaguar, Maserati, etc. Obviously, due to the ongoing march of globalization, by now all those European brands have since been swallowed whole by the big manufacturers, but their essence carries on. They are makers of exclusive machinery for a very small subset of wealthy clients, and they make no bones about it.
Even the openly aspirational cars on the American automotive landscape have had a distinctly blue-collar chip on their shoulders: the Lincolns and Cadillacs, the Corvettes, Camaros, and Mustangs, even the Viper (hell, that one started out with a TRUCK engine). And, they are all closely related to their more pedestrian and proletariat cousins, the Chevys, Fords, and the Pontiacs. They wear this connection like a badge of honor: "We're exclusive, but not TOO flashy, we haven't forgotten where we come from." The very LAST thing a Lamborghini dealer wants you to be doing is bringing up its ties to VW.
Re: British take on American cars
First time I've heard anyone go back to horses. But this at least carries a little water...
It goes back before cars. Western bred horses, which is more laid back and for traversing long distances on the range. English saddle bred riding leaves riders more upright and ready to maneuver quick on the equestrian course or fox hunt. This difference carries over directly in the motorcycles with the Harley resembling the Western style and cafe racers resembling the English bred.
This difference somewhat reflects in cars, where people here want to get the biggest car they will need to be the most comfortable on that long commute or road trip on long straight roads. Most of the US was laid out in long straight grids, a big contrast to most European roads.