Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > General Discussions > General Chat
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-27-2004, 02:56 AM   #16
StiMan
CF Retired Post Whore
 
StiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Posts: 2,964
Zook you are stupid. You need to THINK. TYPE. SUBMIT.
__________________
John

StiMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2004, 08:13 PM   #17
zook
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 12
Yes,I think your right.Butt...reameber me,what cubic capacity is ferari 360 engine.Thans and goodbye.
Your trully MORON.
zook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2004, 09:38 PM   #18
SuperJew
I like pie.
 
SuperJew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Suburbia Central, New York
Posts: 2,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by zook
Yes,I think your right.Butt...reameber me,what cubic capacity is ferari 360 engine.Thans and goodbye.
Your trully MORON.

well, that's not our problem, is it?
__________________


CF's Resident Pimp Slapper

Pimp Slap Count (as of 30 May 2004): 34
SuperJew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2004, 04:18 AM   #19
What
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Costa Nocha
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by zook
Yes,I think your right, but...remind me,what cubic capacity is the ferrari 360 engine? Thanks and goodbye.
Yours truly, MORON.

I'm sorry, but I had to spell check your response, it was hurtful to read that jumbled mess. I hope I did it right.

Zook, I understand what you're getting at. You believe that America waste engine capacity. You believe that American cars use "inferior" motors since Americans traditionally have a relatively low hp per liter(litre) ratio. Well, it may be true that American cars use larger engines than most, but does it really matter? We get the same, if not better, performance as our overseas competitors....and at a cheaper price.

The Chevrolet Z06 can comfortably run with a 360 Modena at a race track, and beat it at the drag strip, for about $100,000 less than the retail price of the Ferrari.

The Mustang has relatively small output for its engine size, but it's very affordable, and very tunable. In fact, the engine size of the Mustang, and most other American muscle cars, is the REASON WHY WE BUY THEM. So much horsepower can be extracted from them. How much more do you think can be pulled from the Honda S2000?

American car motors are big because we like them that way. And as far as I can see, the big motors aren't hindering the performance of American cars.
What is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2004, 04:09 PM   #20
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by zook
Yes,I think your right.Butt...reameber me,what cubic capacity is ferari 360 engine.Thans and goodbye.
Your trully MORON.


And why isn't the Modena's engine still the same size as the F355, or the 348, or the 328, or the 308? Hmmm. And the new replacemetn engine is bigger, smaller or the same size?

The Porsche 911 engine is what displacement? What was the displacement in '80? What was the displacement of the 911 engine in 1970? Can't modern tuners get the same hp that the new 911 has out of the same displacement the 1970 911 had? If it's so easy, why doesn't a $100k car just used a tuned version of that smaller displacement engine? Apperently COST isn't a concern, right? So why have an engine that is nearly twice the displacement?

If Honda can get 135 hp from a 600 cc street 4 cyl engine in their motorcycles, why doens't the 1.8 liter RSX make 300+ street hp? Why doesn't the ITR make 450 hp? That would be the same hpliter as Honda's own motorcycles! Tuners easily get 200 hp from a Honda 1.8 liter engine. So why did Honda go to a larger engine for that hp? And why did they increase displacement again for the NEW S2000?


Because increasing displacement doesn't just increase power, and reduce hp/liter, it improves power delivery across the whole rpm range, increasing driveability. And that's more important for a street car than ultimate hp/liter.

The Ferrari can get away with it because they assume that the car won't be driven very much and they can spend silly amounts of money on tuning the car to the edge. The same level of tuning and money in a Corvette engine as in teh Ferrari engine and the Corvette engine will make 750 hp in normally aspirated form. Seen it done. But GM sees no need in making a Corvette that expensive or that radically tuned as to make it unsuitable for daily driving (when was the last time you saw a Ferrari go 100k miles of daily driving?).

Get a clue, zook. Or at least explain why your country is such a hotbed of automotive design..
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com

Last edited by ChrisV : 11-01-2004 at 04:11 PM.
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2004, 11:18 PM   #21
abless
CF Anti-Mullet
 
abless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The American Empire
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
If Honda can get 135 hp from a 600 cc street 4 cyl engine in their motorcycles, why doens't the 1.8 liter RSX make 300+ street hp? Why doesn't the ITR make 450 hp? That would be the same hpliter as Honda's own motorcycles! Tuners easily get 200 hp from a Honda 1.8 liter engine. So why did Honda go to a larger engine for that hp? And why did they increase displacement again for the NEW S2000?


Most I4 street bikes make so much power because they don't redline until 15,500 rpm. Getting up in the rpms is a breeze for a 400 lb sportbike, but these engines wouldn't work too well in a car. BTW, the RSX has only 4 valves per cyclinder, and the Yamaha YZF-R1 (1,000cc bike) has 5 valves.


FYI - I'm not trying to argue with you, I just wanted to mention a point I think you missed.
__________________
abless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2004, 01:54 AM   #22
StiMan
CF Retired Post Whore
 
StiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Posts: 2,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by zook
Yes,I think your right.Butt...reameber me,what cubic capacity is ferari 360 engine.Thans and goodbye.
Your trully MORON.
Are you calling me a moron? Im lost...
__________________
John

StiMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2004, 07:12 PM   #23
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by abless
Most I4 street bikes make so much power because they don't redline until 15,500 rpm. Getting up in the rpms is a breeze for a 400 lb sportbike, but these engines wouldn't work too well in a car. BTW, the RSX has only 4 valves per cyclinder, and the Yamaha YZF-R1 (1,000cc bike) has 5 valves.


FYI - I'm not trying to argue with you, I just wanted to mention a point I think you missed.

it's not a point I missed. i'ts in fact part of teh reasoning I wanted him to see. A syou yourself said "these engines wouldn't work too well in a car." Why? they make 125 hp, right? that's only 10 hp less than my RX7 had, stock.

But the reason they wouldn't work well is that they are tuned to the edge, and are very peaky, and not suitable for around town use. Which is why a smaller engine with a higher specific output is not necessarily the best choice. As I stated, a larger engine at the same hp levels will have a larger, wider powerband, with a lot more useable low end power. And that's better for the same reason a bike engine doesn't make a good car engine. You pointed out exactly what I wanted him (and oitehrs like him) to see.

His argument was that more hp/liter is better. An R/C model ariplane engine makes 400-500 hp/liter. But would you want to use an R/C model airlplane engine to power a car? No. For the reasons you mentioned.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2004, 10:32 AM   #24
426HEMI426
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Federal Way,WA
Posts: 3
Forget it guys... this kid isn't listening because he doesn't want to. He needs his country's dictator to spell it out for him before he'll ever believe it.
426HEMI426 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2004, 05:23 PM   #25
StiMan
CF Retired Post Whore
 
StiMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Posts: 2,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by 426HEMI426
Forget it guys... this kid isn't listening because he doesn't want to. He needs his country's dictator to spell it out for him before he'll ever believe it.
I believe it is obvious he listened eventually because he didnt post again!
__________________
John

StiMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2004, 12:37 AM   #26
cinqyg
CF Freak
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 851
Well just picking up on a point that was made previously about national regulation. In Europe there is definitely more regulation in relation to tax of displacement and fuel tax making economy an immediate concern. If you were paying $6.20 a gallon I am sure it would be higher up the list of priorities.

This impacts on a lot of things about cars.

1. European cars are generally smaller, the range of sizes is there but there is much less difference in size between the different sized cars, less weight makes them more efficient (in general terms)
2. due to the age of the road network layout dating back over 2000 (Romans) years then most of the routes werenít designed for cars, especially in towns and city. Roads are narrower etc.
3. This also leads to more bends etc which effects the system and steering setup. The suspension in the usa on most off the shelf cars is softer as high-speed cornering is deemed to be less important then in Europe because many of the roads are straight and when you go around a bend then its usually after a traffic light therefore you would have probably slowed down. Cars are expected to corner with relative ease at 50-60mph around a round about with a radius of 40 feet. Which is relatively Sharpe at those sorts of speeds. This also impacts on the mount of power assistance is given to the steering. Most European cars in Europe have very progressive steering to help with parking but it drops away quickly to leave the feel in the steering to aid with the higher speed cornering.
4. Our countries are more crowded, meaning more cars in smaller spaces, making some of the typical assumptions about traffic control systems in the usa not necessarily true, hence more roundabouts and less traffic lights.
5. most cars are have manual gearboxís to be more fuel efficient and cope with the more varied terrain and road type.
6. I am sure that most people will agree that balance in a car and weight distribution is important to the handling. Because European cars are smaller and many of the American V8ís are quite heavy + the extra weight of a auto gearbox then this would make the smaller cars unmanageable and really impossible to produce.
7. Power requirements are lower on European cars because of all of these points, manual transmission waste less power, lighter weights means less torque and power needed to have the same effect, no aircon means no drain on power etc.
8. The amount of money that has been invested on lighter weight technology for the car industry and suspension settings etc etc has been relatively low because the lower fuel prices and road layout have not demanded such improvements.

The American consumers are generally wanting to pay less or have other things as standard such as air conditioning which in Europe wasnít and still isnít standard on all models. The addition of air-conditioning as standard in most cars didnít appear until the mid 90ís where it has been in American cars since the 60ís.

This has lead to many American ďsportsĒ cars being relatively, mechanically more simple hence live axle and leaf springs on the mustang, where apart from on commercial vehicles live axles have disappeared in Europe over 20 years ago.


SAFTEY

1. because cars are smaller and the different type of road layouts between Europe and the usa then the types of collisions, speed and relative size of the objects and vehicles change.
2. Most cars are designed to avoid collisions to start with and in Europe that means coping with a more enclosed road space. Which leads to shorter bonnets(hoods) and more emphasis on the inhabitants survival rather than the cars.
3. because European cars are smaller as previously mentioned then the amount of space the protections systems have to work in is smaller leading to crumple zones, intelligent airbags (adjust to seat position and weight/height of occupant), pretentioners, more airbags.
4. There have been many problems experienced in moving models from one continent to another weather its safety or emissions or just market taste and some of these things are easier to tackle than others, the crown vic/towncar floor pan is the basis of the jag s type. But when it first come over it wouldnít pass a collision test for love nor money, because the panels on the crown vic/towncar are heavier and larger because they donít have the economy problems as we do over here, the filing everything with polystyrene isnít a practical solution when cars shrink because the space requirement for the energy absorbed is to high.
5. generally speaking I would prefer to tbe in a European car in Europe and a big American SUV thing in America, to be in a slow speed collision any way.
6. Because of the light stering and stone age suspension added to the American fetish for high heavy SUVís then they are positively scary if you swerve, at speed. The original explorer was recalled and refunds issued in eurpoe when a number of them rolled down the carage ways and off the road.


There are many other points we could make, but its really a case of horses for courses. The American market is big enough not to venture outside of the usa/Canada. Just as many American never venture outside the usa, only 1 in 10 own a passport.
cinqyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2004, 01:19 AM   #27
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinqyg
Well just picking up on a point that was made previously about national regulation. In Europe there is definitely more regulation in relation to tax of displacement and fuel tax making economy an immediate concern. If you were paying $6.20 a gallon I am sure it would be higher up the list of priorities.

This impacts on a lot of things about cars.

1. European cars are generally smaller, the range of sizes is there but there is much less difference in size between the different sized cars, less weight makes them more efficient (in general terms)
2. due to the age of the road network layout dating back over 2000 (Romans) years then most of the routes werenít designed for cars, especially in towns and city. Roads are narrower etc.
3. This also leads to more bends etc which effects the system and steering setup. The suspension in the usa on most off the shelf cars is softer as high-speed cornering is deemed to be less important then in Europe because many of the roads are straight and when you go around a bend then its usually after a traffic light therefore you would have probably slowed down. Cars are expected to corner with relative ease at 50-60mph around a round about with a radius of 40 feet. Which is relatively Sharpe at those sorts of speeds. This also impacts on the mount of power assistance is given to the steering. Most European cars in Europe have very progressive steering to help with parking but it drops away quickly to leave the feel in the steering to aid with the higher speed cornering.
4. Our countries are more crowded, meaning more cars in smaller spaces, making some of the typical assumptions about traffic control systems in the usa not necessarily true, hence more roundabouts and less traffic lights.
5. most cars are have manual gearboxís to be more fuel efficient and cope with the more varied terrain and road type.
6. I am sure that most people will agree that balance in a car and weight distribution is important to the handling. Because European cars are smaller and many of the American V8ís are quite heavy + the extra weight of a auto gearbox then this would make the smaller cars unmanageable and really impossible to produce.
7. Power requirements are lower on European cars because of all of these points, manual transmission waste less power, lighter weights means less torque and power needed to have the same effect, no aircon means no drain on power etc.
8. The amount of money that has been invested on lighter weight technology for the car industry and suspension settings etc etc has been relatively low because the lower fuel prices and road layout have not demanded such improvements.

The American consumers are generally wanting to pay less or have other things as standard such as air conditioning which in Europe wasnít and still isnít standard on all models. The addition of air-conditioning as standard in most cars didnít appear until the mid 90ís where it has been in American cars since the 60ís.

So far so good, with one exception...
Quote:
Because European cars are smaller and many of the American V8ís are quite heavy + the extra weight of a auto gearbox then this would make the smaller cars unmanageable and really impossible to produce.

As my RX7 proved, that's simply incorrect. That RX7, with an American V8 and American automatic gearbox, weighed less than the stock RX7 Turbo of the same year. A Miata is about as tiny as they come, and yet it fits an American V8 and American transmission. the point however is that tiny economy cars aren't teh kinds of cars that V8s would be fitted to even in Europe. Interestingly the types of V8 the Europeans use (with the exception of Ferrari) are in larger cars, and the engines weigh more than American V8s.

So basically, just strike your whole point from the list, as it's not applicable.


Quote:
This has lead to many American ďsportsĒ cars being relatively, mechanically more simple hence live axle and leaf springs on the mustang, where apart from on commercial vehicles live axles have disappeared in Europe over 20 years ago.

The Mustang isn't a sports car. It was supposed to be an inexpensive performance car, but it was built at a time when drag racing was becoming a major motorsport, so it had to be good at both. A live axle is. What led to them being more simple was that Americans dont' feel that power is only for the wealthy, so we built cars that were powerful, fast, and reasonably competent that ANYONE could afford. And then let the aftermarket specialize the car from there (and the Mustang was very successful in road racing, and still is).


Quote:
SAFTEY

1. because cars are smaller and the different type of road layouts between Europe and the usa then the types of collisions, speed and relative size of the objects and vehicles change.

True.

Quote:
2. Most cars are designed to avoid collisions to start with and in Europe that means coping with a more enclosed road space. Which leads to shorter bonnets(hoods) and more emphasis on the inhabitants survival rather than the cars.

Hold up, are you implying that cars here aren't designed around inhabitants survival? In fact, the US required more occupant safety regulations than Europe, including side impact beams in the doors, larger crumple zones, deforemable dashes and A pillars, etc, long before Europe adopted them.

Quote:
3. because European cars are smaller as previously mentioned then the amount of space the protections systems have to work in is smaller leading to crumple zones, intelligent airbags (adjust to seat position and weight/height of occupant), pretentioners, more airbags.

GM invented airbags, and the US was the first to require passive safety systems. Volvo invented retractable safety belts, and a number of other things, but trust me, we were working on airbags back in the '60s.

Quote:
4. There have been many problems experienced in moving models from one continent to another weather its safety or emissions or just market taste and some of these things are easier to tackle than others, the crown vic/towncar floor pan is the basis of the jag s type. But when it first come over it wouldnít pass a collision test for love nor money, because the panels on the crown vic/towncar are heavier and larger because they donít have the economy problems as we do over here, the filing everything with polystyrene isnít a practical solution when cars shrink because the space requirement for the energy absorbed is to high.


Now you've gone off the deep end. The Crown Vic (panther platform) was not the basis for the Jag S type, nor was it ever even SUPPOSED to be. the S type had it's own chassis developed in England, which was then used on the Lincoln LS and the Thunderbird. The DEW platform (S Type) had zero to do with the Crown Vic, and there were no crash test issues. In fact, the problem is that European cars can't bmeet US specs without additional parts (like side intrusion beams in the doors).

Quote:
5. generally speaking I would prefer to tbe in a European car in Europe and a big American SUV thing in America, to be in a slow speed collision any way.
6. Because of the light stering and stone age suspension added to the American fetish for high heavy SUVís then they are positively scary if you swerve, at speed. The original explorer was recalled and refunds issued in eurpoe when a number of them rolled down the carage ways and off the road.


Because Europeans, like the average Americans, are incapable of using the vehicles as designed, and think that a tall 4x4 not only does, but SHOULD handle like a low slung sedan. That's like thinking an S calss will turn like an Elise. Well, shouldn't it?


Quote:
There are many other points we could make, but its really a case of horses for courses. The American market is big enough not to venture outside of the usa/Canada. Just as many American never venture outside the usa, only 1 in 10 own a passport.

I'm one.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2004, 01:44 AM   #28
cinqyg
CF Freak
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
So far so good, with one exception...


As my RX7 proved, that's simply incorrect. That RX7, with an American V8 and American automatic gearbox, weighed less than the stock RX7 Turbo of the same year. A Miata is about as tiny as they come, and yet it fits an American V8 and American transmission. the point however is that tiny economy cars aren't teh kinds of cars that V8s would be fitted to even in Europe. Interestingly the types of V8 the Europeans use (with the exception of Ferrari) are in larger cars, and the engines weigh more than American V8s.

So basically, just strike your whole point from the list, as it's not applicable.

.

RX7 isnt exactly small, i guess i should have added to this futher, there is the FWD issue to contend with, this is an aread where I4 and V6's are more suitable due to space constraints. I am not sure if they are, the Rover V8 which admitadly was origianlly for the buick skylark. is very light for a V8 mainly due to the use of aluminium, the use of aluminium has poliferated more quickly in europe. In addition to this most modern inline 4's/ flat 4's are going to be lighter than an american V8.

the need for torque is less as the overall car weight is lower.


[quote=ChrisV]
The Mustang isn't a sports car. It was supposed to be an inexpensive performance car, but it was built at a time when drag racing was becoming a major motorsport, so it had to be good at both. A live axle is. What led to them being more simple was that Americans dont' feel that power is only for the wealthy, so we built cars that were powerful, fast, and reasonably competent that ANYONE could afford. And then let the aftermarket specialize the car from there (and the Mustang was very successful in road racing, and still is).


I am thinking of the new mustang which still uses live axle suspention, it is possible to produce a car for similar amount of money with more technical advances and better perfromance, look at the hot hatches of the 90's in the uk Cossie escort and XR4x4

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV

Hold up, are you implying that cars here aren't designed around inhabitants survival? In fact, the US required more occupant safety regulations than Europe, including side impact beams in the doors, larger crumple zones, deforemable dashes and A pillars, etc, long before Europe adopted them.

.

ummm i dont think more is the right term, may be diffrent would be better. For a land of the free the regualtions imposed on manufacutres are very dictatorial, the airbag ruling of '97 removed some vehicles from the market landrover defender for example which it could be argued wasnt really designed for the types of activities which the regulations were degined to cover.

Secondly side impact bars are pretty much standard over here.

Thirdly, the dictatorial aproch has stifeled some inovation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
GM invented airbags, and the US was the first to require passive safety systems. Volvo invented retractable safety belts, and a number of other things, but trust me, we were working on airbags back in the '60s.

.

yeah i admit, and in doing so the 4mph impact bumpers defenced some truely great sportscars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Now you've gone off the deep end. The Crown Vic (panther platform) was not the basis for the Jag S type, nor was it ever even SUPPOSED to be. the S type had it's own chassis developed in England, which was then used on the Lincoln LS and the Thunderbird. The DEW platform (S Type) had zero to do with the Crown Vic, and there were no crash test issues. In fact, the problem is that European cars can't bmeet US specs without additional parts (like side intrusion beams in the doors).


It was origionally a crown vic chasis, we worked with jag to try an implement a platform based on the crown vic and it wouldnt meet the pedestrian saftey tests. Due to the right hand drive layout the chasis was substantially weaker and they had alot of problems with the front foot wells rising being pushed into the cabin.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Because Europeans, like the average Americans, are incapable of using the vehicles as designed, and think that a tall 4x4 not only does, but SHOULD handle like a low slung sedan. That's like thinking an S calss will turn like an Elise. Well, shouldn't it?

I think your missing the point, it was droped in europe with out taking into account the wiggly roads and layout diffrences. The higher traffic volumes etc etc. Thats what made it unsafe.
cinqyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2004, 06:24 AM   #29
Bobafe6604
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by zook
I am from Lithuania,and I dont understand,why thees huge engines is so weak.
Europeen cars are so much better.
Like this one.

Are all you Lithuanians so judgemental? Dang!
Bobafe6604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2004, 03:52 PM   #30
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinqyg
RX7 isnt exactly small, i guess i should have added to this futher, there is the FWD issue to contend with, this is an aread where I4 and V6's are more suitable due to space constraints. I am not sure if they are, the Rover V8 which admitadly was origianlly for the buick skylark. is very light for a V8 mainly due to the use of aluminium, the use of aluminium has poliferated more quickly in europe. In addition to this most modern inline 4's/ flat 4's are going to be lighter than an american V8.

The point is you act like we don't have or make small engines, and you're wrong. We've had 4 and 6 cyl cars for a long time. We went to FWD across the board at the end of the '70s, about the same time Europe did, but following Japan. Europe only had a few FWd cars (which we also got, like the Mini, the Austin America, the Citroen DS, Fiat 128), but most of the cars were RWD well into the '70s, just like us. And jus tlike Europe and Japan, we used transverse I4s and V6s in those FWD cars. V8s were reserved for the large cars and performance cars, just like Europe.

The kinds of cars our V8s go in, you have I6s and V8s that are physically larger and heavier than our V8s. Like Jags, BMWs, and Mercedes.

Quote:
the need for torque is less as the overall car weight is lower.

Again, this goes back to the assumption that at the time Europe was switching to FWD tiny cars, all we had were big V8 cars. Not true.

OTOH, we still tuned our cars for torque, even with small engines, as with a 55 mph national speed limit, torque was more important to daily driving than revving the piss out of something to make it move, regardless of how small the car was.


Quote:
ummm i dont think more is the right term, may be diffrent would be better. For a land of the free the regualtions imposed on manufacutres are very dictatorial, the airbag ruling of '97 removed some vehicles from the market landrover defender for example which it could be argued wasnt really designed for the types of activities which the regulations were degined to cover.

Secondly side impact bars are pretty much standard over here.

NOW. They weren't THEN. We had to have them FIRST. Part of the deal with companies like Sun International and others as registered Importers, is they had to add that stuff to European cars being imported. I've worked with grey market cars that were imported and this was a common issue. Multi-layer safety glass had to be added, side impact protection beams, stronger bumper mounts, etc. We had MORE regulations. thats why American cars being imported to Europe didnt' have things added, and European cars being imported to America DID. I'm not going to go into lighting, as every country around has differnt regs, from rear fogs, towhether teh marker lights were clear, yellow, or inbetween, etc. And of course, in the '80s there was teh CHMSL issue (center brake light). Not saying that the regs were necessarily a good thing, but the fact is, we had more safety regs, designed to keep occupants protected, than Europe did. It's why manufacturers in the US stopped making convertibles in the '70s. Pretty much everyone is on teh same page NOW, but the point is, we did most of it FIRST. So saying Europe was dealing with occupant safety and we weren't is non-factual at best.

Quote:
Thirdly, the dictatorial aproch has stifeled some inovation.

Can't argue there. But look what the EU is doing over on your side of the pond, wth the new pedestrian regs. Instead of telling people that it's rather stupid to walk in front of a moving car, cars are going to end up being big bubbles that are designed not to hurt retarded people that walk in front of them. We'll see how all your lovely aerodynamic supercars fare...


[quote]yeah i admit, and in doing so the 4mph impact bumpers defenced some truely great sportscars.[/i]

Double agree on that point! Unfortunately, that particular requirement was driven by the insurance lobby, as they said they were spending too much money fixing parking lot damage to bumpers and cars, and they wanted something stronger that would eliminate that cost (even if ti cost the manufacturers more to start with).

We've backed of to a 2.5 mph impact absorbtion regulation, as it was found that the added cost of making the 5 mph bumpers didn't provide the insurance savings regulators wanted, as it now cost more to replace the 5 mph bumpers after the average crash than the earlier bumpers. Smack the front of a BMW 2002 and it would be $500 to replace teh bumper, brackets, and repair the body around it. Smack a later BMW, and it would cost $1000 just to fix a bumper gouge.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.