European v US automobile technology

Never mind the brands, comment on the priciple:
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1794313,00.html

What do you guys think?

DAS


Ford Mustang
By Jeremy Clarkson
Bite the Bullitt, buy the fantasy



The new Pontiac Solstice is America's first attempt at making a
sports car in more than 50 years. And not since David Beckham's wayward
penalty kick against Portugal have we seen anything go so wide of the mark.
It is comically awful.
And that sets a question. How come America's massive car
industry can't make what is basically beans on toast? A light, zesty,
pine-fresh car with an engine at the front, a simple foldaway roof in the
middle and rear-wheel drive at the back? Lotus can make a sports car using
nothing but a melted-down bathtub and the engine from a Rover. Alfa Romeo
can make a sports car using steel so thin you can read through it, and an
engine that won't start. Then there was Triumph, which made a sports car
even though its entire workforce was outside the factory warming its hands
around a brazier and chanting.

So what's America's problem? Well, here in Europe early cars
were expensive coach-built luxury goods for the tweedy and well-off. It
wasn't
until the 1940s that cars for the common man came to France, Germany and
Britain, and it wasn't until the 1950s that they came to Italy. They haven't
arrived in Spain even today.

As a result we still have an innate sense that a car is
something you save up for, something a bit decadent and exciting. Whereas in
America the everyman Model T Ford came quickly after the introduction of
internal combustion so there was never a chance for cars to earn that
upmarket cachet. As a result, they've always seen the car as a tool: nothing
more than an alternative to the horse.

In Europe we talk about style and how fast a car accelerates. In
America they talk about how many horse boxes their trucks can pull and how
much torque the engine produces.

If you do encounter someone over there who's fond of performance
cars they're only really interested in how much g can be generated in the
bends, whereas here those of a petrolhead disposition don't care at all
about grip, only what happens when it's lost and the car is sliding. Then
you are into the world of handling. A world where nothing but skill keeps
you out of the hedge.

There's more, too. From day one American motor sport was all
about sponsorship, which is why the oval raceway was developed. It meant the
whole crowd could see all the sponsors' names all the time. The cars never
zoomed off into a wood.

Here, they did. Motor racing was a rich man's game, held far
from hoi polloi on airfield perimeter roads. And on twisty tracks like this,
grip was nowhere near as important as decent handling.



Add all this together and you start to
understand why we have Lotus, Ferrari, Maserati and Aston Martin. And they
have the Ford F-150 Lightning pick-up truck: 0-60mph in a millionth of a
second. Enough space in the back for a dead bear. And on a challenging road
about as much fun as a wasabi enema

Add all this together and you start to understand why we have
Lotus, Ferrari, Maserati and Aston Martin. And they have the Ford F-150
Lightning pick-up truck: 0-60mph in a millionth of a second. Enough space in
the back for a dead bear. And on a challenging road about as much fun as a
wasabi enema.

They also have the Ford Mustang and last week that's what I was
using to cruise up the 101 from Monterey to San Francisco. The sun was
shining, 104.3 the Hippo was massaging my ear bones with soothing West Coast
sounds and, like everyone else, I was doing a steady 65mph, my heart beating
in slow monotonous harmony with the big V8.

This new version has been styled to resemble the original from
1965, and that's a good thing. Less satisfactory is the news that it's also
been engineered to resemble the original with all sorts of technology that
in Europe would have been considered old fashioned by Edward Longshanks.

There's no complex double-stage turbocharging here; no elegantly
machined swirl chamber to extract the best possible power and economy from
the smallest possible engine. It's a 4.6 litre V8 with just one camshaft,
three valves per cylinder and the sort of power output the average European
would expect from a juicer.

The platform for the new Mustang comes from a Jaguar S-type. But
then the Americans take it back in time by fitting a solid rear axle such as
you'd find on a Silver Cross pram, and a Panhard rod, dismissed by Newcomen
as being "a bit too last year".

So what's it like to drive? Well, the previous day I'd taken it
on a hard lap of the extraordinarily beautiful Laguna Seca raceway, which,
because it's the curliest track in North America, is regarded by racing
drivers all over the world as one of the greats. Mansell. Villeneuve. Even
Top Gear's Stig go all misty eyed at the mention of it.

And frankly it was more than a match for Ford's big daft horse.
Its brakes were cooked by turn six; the final slow corner completely
overwhelmed the live rear axle; and through the fearsome Corkscrew, which
twists down a gradient so steep you can't even walk up it, I'm afraid Mr Ed
was about as pin sharp as a punt gun. I damn nearly soiled myself.

Is it fast? Well, you get 300bhp, which is about 200bhp less than BMW gets
from a similarly sized engine. But nevertheless it will get from 0-60mph in
5sec and reach a top speed of 150. That's not bad for an ox cart.
But by European standards this car is rubbish. Its engine has wasteful,
unused capacity that turns fuel into nothing, it couldn't get from one end
of a country lane to the other without running out of brakes and it handles
like a newborn donkey.

There's more, too. It's got a gruff engine note, its interior has the
panache of an Afghan's cave and . . . and . . . and I can't go on. You see,
I'm running through all this car's bad points but I'm afraid my mind is
consumed by the bit where I was doing 65mph on the 101, listening to some
Eagles on 104.3.

And then by the subsequent memory of grumbling along the waterfront in San
Francisco itself, the city setting for Bullitt, the film that etched the
Mustang for all time on the petrolhead's radar.

You see, I kept thinking I'm in a Mustang in San Francisco on a glorious
September afternoon. And I liked that a lot. I liked it so much that I
became consumed with the notion of maybe taking a small part of the
experience home with me.

The numbers look good. Because the Mustang is made from pig iron and lava it
is extraordinarily cheap: $25,000. And £13,800 for 300bhp is tempting. Even
if you factor in the cost of shipping, changing the lights and paying Mr
Blair some tax, it'll still only be £22,000.

For that you could have a Golf GTI, which, alongside Ford's canoe looks like
the Starship Enterprise. It's more practical, easier to run, and around
Laguna Seca undoubtedly it'd be a whole lot more competent. Whenever I drive
a GTI I'm always full of admiration for its abilities, but when I was
driving that Mustang I liked it. And that's sort of more important.

Of course, the American way means they'll never be able to build a sports
car. It explains why the Pontiac Solstice is so dire. But the simplistic,
covered wagon approach doesn't really matter on a car like the Mustang, not
when you're doing 65mph in the sunshine and the Doobies are serenading you
with Long Train Running. Not when it means you get a car this handsome for
13 grand.

The only worry is that if I did buy a Mustang, I'd get the car over here and
on a wet November night realise that, actually, what I wanted to bring home
was San Francisco.

The Mustang, then, is a great car in America. But here you're better off
with a Golf.

VITAL STATISTICS

Model Ford Mustang 4.6 litre
Engine 4600cc V8
Power 300bhp @ 5750rpm
Torque 320lb ft @ 4500rpm
Transmission 5 speed manual
Fuel 18/23mpg urban/extra urban
CO2 N/A
Acceleration 0-60mph: 5 sec
Top speed 143mph
Price $25,225 (not sold in UK)
Rating 3/5
Verdict Horrid but very loveable

 

The Solstice is a sports car?

The author is too hung up on badges. If the Solstice is technically a
"sports car", then maybe it has been 50 years since a US car company
has come up with a new badge to slap on a "sports car". But that's
wrong. The Viper came out in what - 1992? That's not 50 years ago.
Is the Crossfire a "sports car" ? That's not 50 years ago.

Again, UK auto journalists let truth and accuracy give way to
exageration and embellishment.

"Zesty" RWD convertible? Chrysler used to make that - try a 1970
'Cuda.

Who does he think will buy a bathtub on wheels?

Get over it buddy - that's exactly what it is.

Ok, acceleration.

What's a horse box?

Ok, acceleration.

Is this guy on drugs? He just said that US/Europe talks about the
same thing (acceleration/hp/torque) while trying to make it seem that
US/Europe talks about different things.

Irrelvant side-track here. Anyone and everyone is outsourcing major
chasis components. You want to talk about handling and grip, then it
comes down to tires - and OEM tires will not be the sticky ones that
cost $200 each or over-sized cross-drilled rotors.

What decade is this guy living in?

Win on Sunday, sell on Monday is long gone in the US.

Which crowd is he writing to?

Sucks to be a Brit living in Britain then eh?

Then go back to your bathtubs on wheels with paper-thin sheet metal.

As much as we'd like to, it's very rare to be able to unwind on an
empty, curvy, 2-lane road on your commute to work. His opinions and
evaluations are hardly useful for the typical car buyer. A 4.6L
Mustbang is more than enough car for most people.

Most people I know in their (late) 30's are too busy choosing which
minivan they're going to buy. They already own 1 or 2 Nissan's or
Maxima's or Honda's or VW's. Oh well, no accounting for taste.

 

<grin>

Keep the comments coming...

BTW, a horsebox is a tariler in which one carries a horse.

Handling is not just a function of tyres. How about suspension? Rear-axle
design?

Do you not think a BMW or Merc two-seater qualifies as "zesty"?

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

 

Uh, no. Torque is not the same as acceleration.

acceleration is fairly closely linked to HP, but torque is different.

Max torque usually occurs at much lower revs than the revs at which peak
power occurs, so by measuring max torque you are not measuring maximum
power. (if all engines had flat torque curves, then power and torque would
be linked VERY closely, but they don't). It is quite possible to take two
engines (of similar displacement) and find that one produces the highest
torque and the other produces the highest peak power. The one that
produces the higest torque will produce more power than the other at lower
engine speeds and thus will probably make the vehicle in which it is
installed easier to drive and better suited to pulling large loads.
Engines that are optimised for the maximum power usually produce that peak
power at higher engine speeds and thus take more effort (at least in a
stick shift) to use that power.

Secondly, acceleration is a function of many things, not just torque:
the 2 major items being power and WEIGHT.

 

One of the best handling "American" Sports sedans is the very european
Ford Contour / Mercury Mystique (aka Mondeo) built for 5 short years
in both Kansas and Mexico for the north American market. With the
(Cosworth head equipped Porsche derived) 2.5 Liter V6 pumping 170+HP
it is"zesty" too. Too bad it's not RWD ---.

 

And power has 2 components - RPM and Torque.
You FEEL the torque. You HEAR the RPM.
Without torque, the RPM cannot exist - and the more torque you have
for a given weight, the quicker the RPM will climb - which IS
accelleration.

All else being the same, more torque = more accelleration.

 

So, according to you, I can get quicker accelleration by staying in higher
gear, which I may get more torque, than by changing down to a lower gear,
where I can increase the engine revs to get more power out of the engine
and a better gear ratio (better in this case meaning more engine
revolutions per mile)?

Yes, but "all else" is not equal. Weight (mass reallly), engine speed,
power curve, transmission efficiency, gearing ratio, all have a
significant effects.

 

So what you are saying is that one of the best "American" sports cars is
in fact a European designed car, with a European designed engine?

 

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

IOW, its simple, reliable, powerful, efficient, and doesn't sound and
feel like a weed-whacker when you need to merge into traffic.

If Europeans really use 300+ horsepower juicers, I'll eat my computer.
Patently stupid statement.

Beautiful, isn't it? Unlike the Jaguar (and unfortunately unlike the new
Charger and Magnum), it'll actually launch HARD and in a straight line
without wheel-hopping your fillings out. Yeah a solid axle gives up a
*little* on cornering on rough surfaces, but actually gains in cornering
on smooth roads (better roll center, less demand on a stablilizer bar).
never needs alignment or camber adjustments either.

This guy needs to get a grip on the difference between "engineering a
car to perform a task" and "engineering for engineerings sake," which is
also called "dog-lick engineering" and is what European carmakers are
increasingly good(?) at. Just ask BMW owners how they like that "one
knob does everything" control...

 

Whoever wrote:

Uh, yes.

Torque pretty much IS the same as acceleration. Remember "F=MA" from
physics? Rearrange the equation to solve for acceleration:
Acceleration=(Force applied)/(Mass to be accelerated). Torque IS the
(Force applied) term when multiplied by gear ratio and divided by tire
radius and various other constants (none more complicated than "pi"). So
acceleration is DIRECTLY proportional to torque.

 

Yes, but that is force AT THE WHEELS -- not at the output of the engine.
Also you correctly point out that MASS is a major factor.

Torque is only proportional to accelleration if the gear ratio remains
constant. My cars have transmissions that change the gear ratios. The
engines in my cars don't have perfectly flat torque curves. I don't
know about your cars though.

Tell me, if you are give the max torque number for a car, can you tell me
the 0-60 time that car will achieve? It could be hugely different
depending on the mass of the car, the power/torque curves, tranmission,
etc. Torque does NOT measure accelleration.

 

Let me say it again: the force AT THE WHEELS is exactly proportional to
the force AT THE ENGINE, so for all intents and purposes
torque=acceleration.

But you can't change the mass of a car a great deal. Sure, you can
completely change CLASS of car and get a Miata instead of a Mustang, but
I don't think that was the point of the point. The point was to deflate
some blow-hard weed-whacker driver who thinks that 200 HP from 1.8
liters at 8000 RPM or with twin turbos is somehow "technologically
superior" to 300 HP from 4.6 liters at 5000 RPM.

Duh. Again, ALL cars have transmissions, but the more torque the engine
produces the better.

But the 4.6L v8 has a HELL of a lot flatter torque curve than some
twin-turboed 2-liter class engine that the writer seems to think is so
"superior" to a simple v8.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point.

But we're not comparing different cars. We're talking about whether the
"American engineering style" car with a big simple v8 accelerates better
than the sime size car with "Eurpoean style" engineering (allegedly
according to the writer- Mercedes makes some NICE big v8s!) and a
small-displacement "high tech" engine.

 

It might be all the things you say, but it's not EFFICIENT, or at least not
as efficient, in terms of bang for the buck (KW/l)

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

 

I disagree... where can you get ANY other car with a Mustang GT's
performance at that price? Since there's no longer a Camaro/Firebird and
the Corvette is now up close to Viper prices, the answer is "nowhere."

Any BMW or Mercedes that can keep up with the Mustang will cost a whole
lot more than it does.

 

It is only proportional if you have one gear. As soon as you change gear
the ratio changes. Also, your claim of "exactly proportional" is untrue
even if you only consider one gear because it ignores the effects of power
loss in the transmission.

Completely missing the point. The claim of the OP was that torque =
accelleration when comparing different cars. This is clearly wrong, since
one must consider gearing, mass, etc. when comparing different cars. It's
quite possible that a lightweight car with a 1.8L, 200 HP engine could
out-accellerate a heavy car with a 4.6L/300HP engine. That's why torque
does not equal accelleration.

All other things equal, yes. But that's not the point. All other factors
are not equal.

No. You are missing the point. The original poster said that torque =
accelleration. Clearly more torque is generally better, but a lighweight,
car may be able to out-accellerate a heavier car which has an engine with
a higher torque rating. That's why torque does not equal accelleration:
IT'S ONLY ONE FACTOR OUT OF MANY.

Ah, but that is your mistake: who said we are talking about the same size
car? Or more to the point, the same weight car?

Anyway, as I was explaining, the major factors are the usable power at the
wheels and the weight of the car. An engine with a higher peak torque may
put out less power, because the smaller, higher power engine puts out more
torque when both engines are running at their peak power speed (and each
engine will have a different speed for peak power). Of course, the
smaller, higher-revving engine will require a transmission with different
ratios in order to make use of that power. These are all factors that
affect accelleration.

 

No, you will have less torque at the rear wheels in a higher gear. A
gearbox multiplies torque, but power is unchanged at a given RPM.
Acceleration is largely a function of torque as was stated. Top speed
is a function of horsepower.

But all of these, except weight, are taken into account when the torque
at the drive wheels is measured. And torque at the drive wheels is what
provides acceleration.


Matt

 

Yes, and force at the wheels comes from torque at the drive axle which
comes from torque out of the engine. Simple.

Torque is proportional to acceleration in any gear. More torque = more
acceleration no matter what gear you are in. You multiple torque at the
gears with ratios greater (numerically) than 1:1 which is why the lower
gears (higher numerically) provide greater acceleration. They multiply
the engine torque more. Acceleration is less in higher gears because
there is less torque multiplication. There are other factors such as
wind drag which increases rapidly with speed, but the proportionality
still holds.

Nobody said torque was a measure of acceleration. Everybody said that
acceleration was proportional to torque.

Matt

 

Bang for the buck doesn't have units of kW/l, it has units of kW/$ or
hp/$!!! In that regard, most American engine designs are well ahead of
many European designs.


Matt

 

It is still proportionality, it is just that there is now a different
constant of proportionality. I think I now see the problem. You don't
know what proportional means.

Matt

 

Uh, no. I think you need to go back and read the original postings.
Someone posted that discussing accelleration was the same as discussing
torque -- in the context of comparing cars.