European v US automobile technology

No, I think YOU don't understand. Proportional means that there is a
CONSTANT of proportionality. In the case of engines, there is no such
constant because:
1. Different gear ratios will cause big differneces between the
ratio of engine torque and accelleration
2. Even considering the same gear ratio, factors such as transmission
loss, drag, etc. will mean that there is no constant ratio between
accelleration and torque.


Hint: if you have to say that the CONSTANT of proportionality changes,
then it is not proportional.

 

Bingo - right on the money. The Mustang remains true to its heritage
as the least expensive traditional pony car out there.

 

I thought the comment was that torque causes acceleration. This isn't
the same as saying that torque is a measurement of acceleration.
Gravity causes things to fall to the ground, but it isn't a measurement
of falling.


Matt

 

I agree that many US cars score in the kW/$ stakes and can outrun many
European cars in a straight line. Even Jeremy Clarkson agrees with that.
However, I must say I recollect driving a (what I thought large) car many
years ago in the US that had a massive 300 cubic in (c. 5 l) and at just
above 90 mph it ran out of puff, whereas our humble family Opel Rekord (GM)
and its 1700 cc engine was good for 100 mph. Of course things have moved on
but the essence remains.

Engine efficiency is kW/unit volume and many US engine just don't compete.
At the end of the day it is a matter of horses for courses and the engines
developed in different environments (demands on cars, fuel prices, taxes
etc).

Bang per buck does not necessarily refer to a literal buck

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

 

Whoever wrote:

You STILL don't get it, do you? When you shift gears, the constant
multiplier between engine torque and wheel-to-ground force changes, but
the force at the rear wheels is STILL directly proportional to engine
torque. That is ALWAYS true, regardless of gear ratio- increase engine
torque, and acceleration increases.

No, that wasn't the point at all. The point was comparing a car (or
almost identical class of car) with an "American engineering" approach
(v8, solid axle, etc.) to a "European engineering" approach (which is
specious, because there are many big torquey European v8s, but I
accepted the original as stated for debate purposes). You can't
arbitrarily start saying "let's use a Miata sized car instead of a
Mustang for comparison."

 

Whoever wrote:

Time for a review of freshman math.

"Proportionality" is preserved across a constant multiplier. Its not
preserved against non-linear operators (exponents, logarithms,
trigonometric operators, etc.). Gear ratios are constant multipliers,
therefore proportionality is preserved: if you double the engine torque,
you double the wheel torque, no matter whether or not the intervening
gear ratio is 2.76:1 or 5000:1. Its STILL proportional.

 

I disagree with great vehemence ;-) The ONLY measure of efficiency is kW
output/(BTU/hour) input. Or in the case of a complete vehicle, its
miles/gallon or liters/km. It doesn't matter if you get 30 MPG from a
3.5L engine as an Intrepid does or from a 7L engine as the Corvette does.

Agreed on that point. But the argument that there is any "technological
merit" in high horsepower/displacement numbers has always been bogus. In
fact, it has many DISadvantages (long term reliability being the most
obvious).

 

From Dictionary.com, definition of proportional:

3. Mathematics. Having the same or a constant ratio.

See that: "CONSTANT RATIO". It does not say "constant ratio if you ignore
factors that cause the ratio to vary".

In any case, even if you ignore the differences due to different gear
ratios, there are also many other facts such as drag, transmission losses,
etc, which mean that even in the restricted case of a single gear,
accelleration is not proportional to torque (although it will be close
for a narrow range of speeds).

Go back to the original article. It was discussing the merits of cars
designed in US and Europe -- there was nothing that limited the discussion
to similar types of cars. In fact, the point of the article is that the
different markets has produced substantially different cars -- lightweight
cars with good dynamic handling in Europe vs. heavy cars with large
engines that have very good straight line performance in the US.

Having read the original article, then read the first comment on it by
MoPar Man:

See that: he directly relates accelleration to torque in the context of
dicsussing different types of cars. My point has been all along that
torque is a different measurement than accelleration -- that accelleration
is a factor of many things, only one of which is torque, the other major
factors being gearing ratios, power curves, and overall mass.

 

If you have a 5.0 in a lincoln continental or grand marquis (about as
big as America builds)it will (in many cases) have a "governed" top
end of 145kph - or 90mph which is part of the emissions system.
Nothing to do with the power of the engine.
Same engine in a Mustang MAY have the same limitation. My 3.0 liter
Aerostar "hit the wall" at 140kph. Pulled pretty strong right 'till it
hit the governor.

Prior to emission controls and "big brother" getting involved, I had
several 225 inch sixes that would do over 105 MPH. ( and one 170 inch
(2.7 liter) that did well over 120) They were American. The big
difference between the 8 and the six (and the Rekord wagon) is how
quickly it got to 90. The 1700 Rekord didn't set any "records" getting
there. I've driven them.

 

If you are going to insist on twisting the original poster's words to
make him mean "torque is the same thing as acceleration" rather than
"more torque gives better acceleration" which is what he said IN
CONTEXT, then you win by default. Congratulations. You win the pedantic
award for this month.

 

Now look what you did. You got everyone in an uproar discussing horsepower
and torque. It is actually quite comical, thanks!

For the casual reader, let me say that horsepower is torque x RPM. Same
thing as Watts = Volts X Amps.

For example, I can easily produce 1000 ft lbs of torque using a bicycle
attached to a gear box having a 100:1 ratio. With this I can lift a 1000 lb
load, though not very fast. Reverse this set up and I can easily spin a
shaft at 10,000 RPM, with no load attached. With this in mind, read the
discussions and have a good laugh.

Gyz

 

That's nice -- fall back on ad-hominem when your argument fails.

However, to respond: I notice that you did not include the text that I
pulled from the orginal posting and put in my last response. The text that
shows quite clearly that the OP was directly equating torque and
accelleration. Now why would you not include it? Perhaps because it shows
that you are wrong?

Other people in this newsgroup have accepted that the OP was making such
an equation.

In other words, you are out of context, not I.

 

I did not know that speeds are governed at such low levels (even in the
70s?). Those European cars that are limited are so at no lower than 155 mph
(250 km/h).

I also vaguely recollect putting my foot down at lower speeds and hearing a
very satisfying whawhawha but not any quick reaction...

Still, I am sure that has changed. The cars I have had more recently in
North America have been more 'normal' by my standards and I haven't tried to
push them to 100 mph plus.

A couple of years ago I had arranged a Hertz Mustang but the bar stewards
would not let me take the car away when I produced my licence. The British
one has two parts, the main one being a credit-card-type object with photo
and signature, and a second part that is a piece of paper that, among other
things, lists one's traffic offences. Unbeknownst to me at the time Hertz
insists on seeing this, but I did not and do not carry it, as the other
rental companies don't demand it. I wound up with a Budget box-on-4-wheels
from Korea..

So I never got the Mustang... (I have mentioned this incident before in this
NG, so sorry of it's a repeat to you.). I was all ready to enjoy its
performance, as I had many miles ahead of me...

BTW, our 12-year-old two-litre (Merc 190E) gets to 100 mph very quickly and
doesn't take much longer for the next 15 mph (indicated, not calibrated).

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

[...]

 

"Never mind the brands, comment on the priciple"

Did you mean "principle" ?

It is human nature to justify our decisions and opinions, and this article
demonstrates this principle. This is the fundamental reason why opinion
surveys such as those conducted by Consumer Reports and JD Power & Assoc.
are worthless.

The article is poorly written, and really showcases the author's limited
knowledge about the subject matter. It lacks meaningful content.

The first half is an empty rant aimed at US car makers. The second half
being somewhat of a review of the new Ford Mustang. The latter contains no
data to support the author's opinions.

Even though the author regards US cars to be the scum of the earth, in the
end they are tempted to purchase a Ford Mustang. Very wishy-washy in my
opinion.

The only positive things I found in the article are the grammar and
spelling.

Quotes are from article in question, followed by comments.

"The new Pontiac Solstice is America's first attempt at making a sports car
in more than 50 years."

The opening sentence reveals what little the author knows about the US
market. The rest of the article seems to confirm this for me. Perhaps the
sales of US cars in the UK is on the upswing and this article is an attempt
at damage control.

"Alfa Romeo can make a sports car using steel so thin you can read through
it ..."

This is good? Sounds like they do not perform crash safety tests in the UK.
I would like to see a comparison of fatal crashes to population for the US
and UK car makers.

"As a result we still have an innate sense that a car is something you save
up for."

And in the UK, because of the cost you are stuck with that car for a long
time. The US market is completely different. We like variety and change cars
every three to five years. I believe the US market reflects consumer demand.

"In Europe we talk about style and how fast a car accelerates..."

I find it amazing that only Europe talks about style and acceleration. Seems
to confirm my comments in the first paragraph, doesn't it?

"If you do encounter someone over there [US] who's fond of performance cars
they're only really interested in how much g can be generated in the bends,
whereas here [UK] 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."

More Gs in the bends would keep the UK drivers out of the hedge, don't you
think? I would bet the author majored in liberal arts and knows nothing
about cars, other than how to start one. Probably refills at a full service
station. I would love to hear their explanation of horsepower and torque. :O

"From day one American motor sport was all about sponsorship, which is why
the oval raceway was developed."

Why is this bad? I don't know this for a fact, but I would bet the US has
more forms of racing than any other country. We can do this because
sponsorship pays for it. Racing is a great way for manufacturers to prove
their designs, US and foreign.

"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."

Now the author is comparing a pickup truck to sports cars. I feel so
embarrassed for them.

The author doesn't mention any of the British Leyland brands. Did they go
bankrupt? Mention Lucas Electronics to any mechanic familiar with UK cars
and watch them run!

"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 author has been to the US once and rented a Ford Mustang, and is using
this experience as the basis for this article.

"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"

Probably learned about these terms from a car magazine while waiting for the
Mustang to be refueled.

The Mustang is built Ford cheap. Ford uses the cheapest design possible to
accomplish the goal, even if it means the engine will blow spark plugs out
through the hood. People buy Fords because they are cheaper. It's sad, but
true.

"Its engine has wasteful, unused capacity that turns fuel into nothing"

Totally incorrect! There is no unused capacity. Ford HAS to use that large
of an engine to produce 300 HP because of the cheap design. To produce 300
HP out of a 2.0L engine requires a much better engineering design, superior
materials, precision manufacturing, and a much more sophisticated engine
control system.

Personally, I would rather have diareaha than a Ford, of any kind. I have a
'98 Mustang. It's built Ford cheap, and deserves to wear the Ford sad oval.
But if a Flaccid 150 could go from "0-60mph in a millionth of a second" I
would probably buy one, but only with an extended warranty.

I believe the Ford Mustang would best be described as a fantasy car; it is
what the buyer imagines it to be. At least until a slightly tweaked 2.0L
turbo charged Mitsubishi Eclipse blows its doors off!

Gyz

 

2.5 engine is a big piece of shit
i can't tell u how many are losing oil pressure and locking up

 

Well, I haven't heard of it happening except when the water pump
impeller lets go and the engine is overheated. Mine let go, but I
caught it without overheating the engine. It is one sweet running
little engine, and very strong for it's displacement. It IS a bit of a
bear to work on, I'll admit - but the whole package is more than the
sum of it's parts. A very nice handling machine in the european
sporting tradition - yet quite practical.

 

Sadly, with a Mitz it's usually a few other parts it blows off - of
itself.

I've had much worse luck with Mitz's than with fords. I've owned at
least 3 of each, and currently own a Ford - would be hard pressed EVER
to buy another Mitz. (would have to be almost free to make it anywhere
near worth the hassle).

 

Hi Gyzmo...

A few comments below.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

DAS: Of course. Just an example of the lack of attention many of us give
to spelling (and grammar) when belting out e-mail or e-mail-type messages.
I hope you are at least a bit pleased I did not write "principal"...

DAS: Perhaps you have not experienced Jeremy Clarkson before, though he is
known, I gather, in NA. One needs a GSoH. Much of a JC review is devoted
to general musings. Also bear in mind that these reviews are published in a
general Sunday newspaper, and I doubt many readers would want to plow
through some lengthy and tedious technical review. For that one can turn to
the specialist automobile magazines, which have pages and pages of
'objective' articles with worthy comparisons.

JC quite often criticises a car in specific areas but then says he likes it
for its overall impression. This is a case in point. And what's wrong with
that? How may times have you known objectively that something you are
thinking of buying is not suitable/no good on some counts but you buy it
anyway?

DAS: I doubt it. Well, the 300C is coming to the UK next year. But don't
forget, the UK car market is already dominated by US manufacturers, namely
GM (Vauxhall) and Ford.

DAS: It seems to me that you missed the criticism. Alfas have a bad press
in the UK with very poor residual values. Traditionally they are thought to
rust very quickly, among other things, so they are good for southern Italy
and the Nevada desert. Actually I personally think that the Alfa 147 is the
best-looking car in its class by far and the 1.9-litre turbodiesel I drove
one with is a gem. I just prefer Avis to own it rather than me.

Not sure what you mean by UK car makers. If you include major car
components then the big ones are Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, Toyota and
Peugeot. The other day I saw some figures: IIRC about 2.6 m cars are
produced here, the majority being for export. Local sales are roughly 2 m
p.a. incl imports. Most 'European' Fords are now made in Spain and Germany,
possibly also in Belgium. (Personally I could not care less where the car
is made.)

DAS: I think JC was being complimentary, albeit in a slightly back-handed
way. He is saying that in the US the car was almost immediately accessible
to 'the masses' whereas in Europe it was not.

DAS: All racing needs sponsorship, and gets it whether the billboard is in
view all the time or not. An oval race track is so BORING... but, I
suppose, it does give one an overview of the race at all times... I could
not take you up on your bet as I have no idea.

DAS: I suspect you missed the point. The US environment is more conducive
to the development of the F-150 than a Lotus, Ferrari etc.

DAS: Sunshine, JC does not mention any Leyland brands because there aren't
any. (In case you missed it, BL lives on in MG Rover, which itself should
have been killed off years ago but went on to collapse with millions of
pounds of workers' savings being lost, and is now been bought in pieces by
two Chinese companies, the Mini being owned by BMW).
The UK industry comprises the companies listed above, plus a slew of
specialists like Bristol, Caterham et al. And, of course, all the suppliers
to F1 and Indy.

DAS: Probably. ) And you are probably right where you said elsewhere
that JC got a liberal arts degree. JC himself makes no secret of the fact
that he is no techie or that he knows how cars work, exactly. However, he
knows how to drive well and he is pretty bright, so I am pretty sure he has
picked up the basics. What do I care how ABS works, for example, as long as
I know that it does work?

BTW, the author has been to the US numerous times.

DAS: Maybe JC does not know about the cheap-cheap approach, but I suppose
he means that a 3-l engine could do so much better. You see, I don't get it
either, given that Ford of Europe's engines are or have been at the cutting
edge. Ford just needs to look into its spares box in Europe... But then
Ford fired its brilliant Europe manager soon after he moved to the US.

DAS: (Expected) long-term reliability is rarely mentioned in such or any
reviews, more's the pity. As for your overall opinion of Ford, I am sure
others -- such as nospam.clare -- will beg to differ.

I sometimes wonder if the journalists are concerned at upsetting their
advertisers. However, Jeremy Clarkson has no hesitation is slamming a car
and/or manufacturer if he feels it is deserved, and he regularly does so.

 

Never thought 25 years ago I'd be standing up for Ford - I've owned
and/ordriven long term british GM (Vauxhall HA and HC and Victor
Special) BMC (1961 Morris 850 "Mini") Rootes (Sunbeam Arrow and
Sunbeam Alpine),Rover (Landrover high clearance Series 3) and 200TC,
VW (1949 and 1975 Rabbit"Golf") Peugot 204,toyota corolla, tercel,
starlet, Hilux. Land Cruiser, Prada (LC90), Mitsubishi Gallant/Colt
(1972/1975/1994) Dodge (1953 coronet, 1957 Fargo P/U, 1963 Valiant,
1969 dart, 1974 Dart Sport, 1976 Ramcharger, 1985 Lebaron (mitsubishi
2.6 engine) 1988 New Yorker (3.0 Mitz) AMC (1965 Classic, 1975 Pacer,
1973 Ambassador)Ford (1976 Granada Ghia, 1989 Aerostar, 1990 aerostar,
and current 1996 Mystique(mondeo), as well as several American GMs
including my current 1994 TransSport. I've missed a few, I'm sure

I've worked on just about anything you can imagine, from Moskovitch to
Rolls. The last few years Ford builds as good a car as any of the
other major brands - fewer quality problems than Chrysler, better
engineering and quality than GM, and less expensive than most of the
imports. A far cry from the CRAP they built in the seventies and early
eighties

 

Ford has always been my second pick, and if Daimler screws Chrysler up
too much more then Ford will be my first choice. My first car was a Ford
('68 Ranchero, of all things) and it was tough as nails. The couple
I've owned since then were equally robust, if not always inspired. Right
now, Ford's weakest point is the Modular v8 engine, especially the
run-of-the-mill cast iron version (the aluminum version on which the
Intech, Cobra, and GT40 engines are built is essentially a whole
different engine). It was originally designed as a light-duty FWD v8
engine, and then got pressed into truck and hi-po duty when budget cuts
killed the 302/351 engines. They've done a good job of beefing it over
the years, but its now an aging design covered in layers of engineering
band-aids. The Chrysler 4.7 adn 5.7 blow it so far in the weeds its
ridiculous. But Ford has ALWAYS built tighter, quieter chassis than GM
and Chrysler, consistently had better overall engineering than GM, and
been a close second to Chrysler. I'll never understand why Ford has so
many electrical problems (including fire hazards) and that's the other
thing that keeps them second on my list. But they're so much better than
GM and Japanese dispose-a-cars in most other respects that its laughable.