RE: PH Blog: Why US muscle still rules - for now
Discussion
LuS1fer said:
Surely the Taurus already is the world car. Isn't it basically a Mondeo?
Yep.. although our Mondeo will be a Taurus.. sort of.I can't see the next Mustang being built on that though. At least, I hope not - but the Taur-deo is a really handsome thing in person. How it drives is anyone's guess.
The same goes for the Camaro - the next model is on a new platform (in 2014/2015) and there are lots of scary rumour stories around turbo'd sixers replacing the v8s. Again, I doubt it - although it will be smaller and lighter so the v8 could at least be downsized to make it cleaner and maintain the figures.
willisit said:
Yep.. although our Mondeo will be a Taurus.. sort of.
I can't see the next Mustang being built on that though. At least, I hope not - but the Taur-deo is a really handsome thing in person. How it drives is anyone's guess.
The same goes for the Camaro - the next model is on a new platform (in 2014/2015) and there are lots of scary rumour stories around turbo'd sixers replacing the v8s. Again, I doubt it - although it will be smaller and lighter so the v8 could at least be downsized to make it cleaner and maintain the figures.
That would be a shame, but I can imagine it happening especially if they brought them here, turbo four replacing a NA V6 and a turbo V6 replacing an NA V8. I imagine the SC V8 would remain as the top model mind.I can't see the next Mustang being built on that though. At least, I hope not - but the Taur-deo is a really handsome thing in person. How it drives is anyone's guess.
The same goes for the Camaro - the next model is on a new platform (in 2014/2015) and there are lots of scary rumour stories around turbo'd sixers replacing the v8s. Again, I doubt it - although it will be smaller and lighter so the v8 could at least be downsized to make it cleaner and maintain the figures.
The V8 is part of the Mustang for me, (I know they have had I4's before and a 6 pot of some kind since their inception in the 60's) I never even considered a V6 car when I bought my 06 GT three years ago. One V6 owner tried to convince me to get a V6 because "you can get one two years newer for the same money" I'd rather have an older car with a V8 thanks.
It's just as well that I don't get along with the styling of the mooted concepts and the current 10+ car because I'd be sorely dissapointed to have to have a Turbo 6 rather than an NA V8, the IRS is also the nail in the coffin (before you get to road tax and the potential RHD car) for the 2015 car for me already and I haven't even seen what it looks like yet.
The new Fusion is Ford's latest "world car", not the Taurus. New Fusion is new Mondeo.....well, the new Mondeo we'll get next year.
Fusion/Mondeo
Taurus (slightly bigger than the Fusion....think Granada to Cortina!)
The next Mustang won't share that platform......it's FWD afterall. The 2015 IRS Mustang will be mostly (if not totally) new. The current car is known as the S197....the 2015 is the S550. This is the platform that may underpin a future Lincoln, too.
The 2015 IRS mule
Oh, and here are the spyshots of the Chevy SS
Fusion/Mondeo
Taurus (slightly bigger than the Fusion....think Granada to Cortina!)
The next Mustang won't share that platform......it's FWD afterall. The 2015 IRS Mustang will be mostly (if not totally) new. The current car is known as the S197....the 2015 is the S550. This is the platform that may underpin a future Lincoln, too.
The 2015 IRS mule
Oh, and here are the spyshots of the Chevy SS
300bhp/ton said:
I think it's a little more complex than that. My opinion is GM don't really care and totally suck at marketing.
Monaro/VX should NEVER NEVER NEVER ever in a month of Sunday's been badged as Vauxhall. What where those pillocks and GM UK thinking???
They should have kept them as Holdens. They also needed to smarten up their dealer network and actually inform all of their dealers about the cars properly and then look after their customers.
A bit of advertising wouldn't go a miss either. Even today it's amazing how many people don't know what a Monaro is. And you get idiots who'd rather pay £2k more to get an Insignia VXR over a Bathurst VXR8
You are SO RIGHT THERE. Why an earth they still continue to market the VX as a Vauxhall I will never know. This bit is even more true: They also needed to smarten up their dealer network and actually inform all of their dealers about the cars properly and then look after their customers.Monaro/VX should NEVER NEVER NEVER ever in a month of Sunday's been badged as Vauxhall. What where those pillocks and GM UK thinking???
They should have kept them as Holdens. They also needed to smarten up their dealer network and actually inform all of their dealers about the cars properly and then look after their customers.
A bit of advertising wouldn't go a miss either. Even today it's amazing how many people don't know what a Monaro is. And you get idiots who'd rather pay £2k more to get an Insignia VXR over a Bathurst VXR8
I won't drag up the whole Stratstone scene when they were responsible for srewing XXXX selling/promoting the Corvette, but if any dealership defined how to bury a brand in one easy hit they were it.
LuS1fer said:
Soory, Dave, a typo on my part. It was indeed 145hp but then that was what a Trans Am was pumping out in 1982 as well. They torqued the torque but didn't so much walk the walk in the hungry years....
The IRS on the Mustang Cobra was compromised by having to use the same mounts as the live axle - which most drag racers immediately refitted.
As you both said, the 1974 Mustang II was not available with a V8, which they rectified in 1975, with the optional 302 (4.9 L) V8. Mustang fans probably would've killed for a 145 hp engine because even that figure would've been an improvement. The IRS on the Mustang Cobra was compromised by having to use the same mounts as the live axle - which most drag racers immediately refitted.
In 1974, the Maverick was available with a 140 hp 302 V8. Keep in mind that 1974 was the last year that cars had no catalytic converter in the US, and that power figures dropped across the board in 1975 due to its addition. The cat-equipped 1975 Maverick put out a whopping 122 hp with the V8. The 1975 Mustang II did a little better with its 129 hp rating. These engines had a two-barrel carburetor.
As for the 1982 F-body cars (Firebird and Camaro), the base V8 was indeed a 145 hp 5.0 L (305 cu in) V8 with a four-barrel carburetor, but the optional engine with throttle-body injection available only on the Camaro Z28 and Firebird Trans Am produced 165 hp.
Captain Muppet said:
Yes there is, there is better technology. Just because a statement rhymes doesn't mean it's true.
Sure, a 1980's turbocharged Formula 1 engine put out far more power than any completely standard small block Chevy, but that's hardly the point. People who like pushrod V8's don't like Subaru turbo four or Honda V-Tech engines. Harley fans don't like Ducati or Suzuki high revving, high tech engines no matter how much power they have, in large part because to them an engine has to fire unevenly, sound awkward, and have lots of low-end grunt in order to be any good. The statement implies "all else being equal," not to mention that it's a philosophy that dates back to before all of this technology was available and coined by people who wouldn't be able to afford it if it were.Corvette owners don't want their beloved pushrod V8 engine replaced with a turbo five-cylinder from an Audi TT RS or a small displacement Ferrari engine that redlines at 9000 RPM no matter how great others think they are. Conversely, those who like such an engine probably won't want a Vette, anyway. Along the same lines, British car buffs who swear up and down that no engine configuration could possibly be as good as a proper straight-six (let alone better), don't want a V8. If all else is kept equal, extra displacement will improve its performance.
Gadgeroonie said:
i would like to see the claimed horsepower proven on an engine dyno
American horsepower is recognised as 15 to 20% higher than what we get here in the UK
There are two factors here, the type of unit used and the measuring standards. Both the US and the UK use the same English unit, not (obviously) the metric version used in non-English speaking countries, which is a tiny bit smaller, about 1.4%. So that's not an issue. Until recently, the standard for most countries outside the US and Japan was DIN and SAE net in the US. These two have the same exact parameters and are exactly equivalent, requiring no conversion between the US and UK and only unit conversion from hp to metric (PS) when appropriate.American horsepower is recognised as 15 to 20% higher than what we get here in the UK
Several years ago, Europe switched from DIN to ECE, which has less room for fudging. Starting in 2006 with the Corvette Z06, the US also changed to the current SAE net certified standard probably for the same reason. I don't know if these two are exactly equivalent as the SAE net and DIN were, but each yields results that are anywhere from no different than before to a very low 1-3% difference, depending on the individual car, so I say it's a wash between the current standards of both countries. So if the US spec Camaro ZL1 has 580 hp under the current US system of SAE net certified hp, then I'd just say that by the current Euro standards it has 580 hp ECE because if it's not exactly that, it's close enough. You can also say to non-English speaking Europeans that it has 588 of their horsepower.
Autocar magazine has the bad habit of acting as if the power figures of American cars are in metric horsepower rather than English horsepower, which makes no sense, and constantly does an incorrect and unnecessary conversion such as it did recently when they had an article on the Camaro ZL1 and stated that it had 572 instead of the correct figure of 580 hp. They constantly do this with the power figures of American cars not sold or before they're sold in the UK. I wish Chris Harris would tell his buddies at Autocar to stop, not that they would listen.
Here's where the problem comes in: Until 1971, all cars sold in the US used the old SAE gross standard, which would yield a minimum of 15-20% higher numbers than SAE net or DIN. American cars switched to the SAE net standard in 1972, while foreign cars sold stateside continued with the SAE gross system and finally changed to the new system in 1973. The problem is that a lot of old school-muscle car fanatics still talk as if it never changed. I can't tell you how many people I've heard talk about old cars going on and on about the huge drop in power from 1971 to 1972, never realizing that 80-90% of that drop is not lost power but instead a lower number due to a different system of measuring the power.
What creates even more confusion is that a lot of engine rebuilders and high-performance engine companies in the US keep building and selling these engines and quoting power in the old standard, which sounds more impressive due to the larger numbers, but it's possible that that's not even the reason. It may very well be that the crowd that buys them is still used to the old gross numbers. Even factory crate engines, until recently, had their power quoted in SAE gross numbers. That changed recently, but I still wonder about the old-style engines.
So if you buy a Ford modular V8 or Chevy LS crate engine brand new from a dealer, the power quoted is probably a net figure, but if you buy a brand new pushrod V8 of the old design from the factory, I honestly don't know what it is. If you buy one of these engines from a high-performance builder, even if the company is reputable and the engine is a modern American design such as the LS or modular, I don't trust their power numbers because they're in large part catering to the old-school crowd. Hence, British Ultima builders buy a crate engine from a US company, and the engine seems to put out less power than they claim, or the Germans who say that 20% of the power gets thrown overboard as the engine is shipped from the US.
However, when it comes to brand new cars and the power claims from the factory, they are totally trustworthy and comparable to what you're used to in the UK.
Great post, Miguel, even if it completely ignores 3 fundamental points:
(1) European fuel is magic and good enough to power American Apollo rockets.
(2) Every claim Americans claim is a lie when it is better than anything European because that's actually impossible.
(3) However bargain bucket the price is, however good or powerful the car,the car will always be somehow "crap" because it isn't actually European.
(4) Whatever the American cars achieve, they actually don't have that European "magic bean" in the computer that makes them totally infallible.
4...4 fundamental points...blimey, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition..
(1) European fuel is magic and good enough to power American Apollo rockets.
(2) Every claim Americans claim is a lie when it is better than anything European because that's actually impossible.
(3) However bargain bucket the price is, however good or powerful the car,the car will always be somehow "crap" because it isn't actually European.
(4) Whatever the American cars achieve, they actually don't have that European "magic bean" in the computer that makes them totally infallible.
4...4 fundamental points...blimey, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition..
Miguel said:
Autocar magazine has the bad habit of acting as if the power figures of American cars are in metric horsepower rather than English horsepower, which makes no sense, and constantly does an incorrect and unnecessary conversion such as it did recently when they had an article on the Camaro ZL1 and stated that it had 572 instead of the correct figure of 580 hp. They constantly do this with the power figures of American cars not sold or before they're sold in the UK. I wish Chris Harris would tell his buddies at Autocar to stop, not that they would listen.
This really really bugs me too about Autocar. A magazine claiming to be about cars and can't even get something as simple as this right, or worse intentionally gets it wrong.300bhp/ton said:
This really really bugs me too about Autocar. A magazine claiming to be about cars and can't even get something as simple as this right, or worse intentionally gets it wrong.
It bugged my brother enough that he actually wrote them at least two letters. One of them did get printed under the heading of "Hate Mail," which they did in the letters section for a while. I don't think that the correction of something that they should've never gotten wrong in the first place counts as hate, but what do I know? 
LuS1fer said:
Great post, Miguel, even if it completely ignores 3 fundamental points:
(1) European fuel is magic and good enough to power American Apollo rockets.
(2) Every claim Americans claim is a lie when it is better than anything European because that's actually impossible.
(3) However bargain bucket the price is, however good or powerful the car,the car will always be somehow "crap" because it isn't actually European.
(4) Whatever the American cars achieve, they actually don't have that European "magic bean" in the computer that makes them totally infallible.
4...4 fundamental points...blimey, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition..
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Please, not the comfy chair. (1) European fuel is magic and good enough to power American Apollo rockets.
(2) Every claim Americans claim is a lie when it is better than anything European because that's actually impossible.
(3) However bargain bucket the price is, however good or powerful the car,the car will always be somehow "crap" because it isn't actually European.
(4) Whatever the American cars achieve, they actually don't have that European "magic bean" in the computer that makes them totally infallible.
4...4 fundamental points...blimey, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition..
I appreciate the corrections, LuS1fer, but you forgot two important points:
1) American cars are always heavier than European cars, even the European cars that weigh more.
2) American pushrod engines always have terrible specific power (hp/L) even when a far more expensive and complex Euro engine produces specific power numbers within a few percentage points, not to mention how irrelevant that figure is for most road-going cars.
Let's not even get into the Corvettes have ox-cart springs or such nonsense...
Miguel said:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Please, not the comfy chair.
I appreciate the corrections, LuS1fer, but you forgot two important points:
1) American cars are always heavier than European cars, even the European cars that weigh more.
2) American pushrod engines always have terrible specific power (hp/L) even when a far more expensive and complex Euro engine produces specific power numbers within a few percentage points, not to mention how irrelevant that figure is for most road-going cars.
Let's not even get into the Corvettes have ox-cart springs or such nonsense...
Sure a Ferrari have a high revving high hp/l engine but look at how much and what it takes to keep one on the road, if you were using it as a daily driver doing say 10k per year. The equivalent Corvette/GT500/Viper... will cost around the same as a hot hatch to maintain, and the standard GT's around the same as a family barge. Mine costs around £60 per year for two oil changes. Other service items are similar such as coolant changes, pollen, air and fuel filters, gearbox and axle oil etc. nothing exotic, nothing expensive. Yet the performance on offer is brilliant for such little outlay.I appreciate the corrections, LuS1fer, but you forgot two important points:
1) American cars are always heavier than European cars, even the European cars that weigh more.
2) American pushrod engines always have terrible specific power (hp/L) even when a far more expensive and complex Euro engine produces specific power numbers within a few percentage points, not to mention how irrelevant that figure is for most road-going cars.
Let's not even get into the Corvettes have ox-cart springs or such nonsense...
PanzerCommander said:
Sure a Ferrari have a high revving high hp/l engine but look at how much and what it takes to keep one on the road, if you were using it as a daily driver doing say 10k per year. The equivalent Corvette/GT500/Viper... will cost around the same as a hot hatch to maintain, and the standard GT's around the same as a family barge. Mine costs around £60 per year for two oil changes. Other service items are similar such as coolant changes, pollen, air and fuel filters, gearbox and axle oil etc. nothing exotic, nothing expensive. Yet the performance on offer is brilliant for such little outlay.
Right, and that's exactly the point. What you just said is important, whereas specific power figures are usually just about bragging rights and irrelevant for the street. Of course, those comments usually come from someone who owns a 1987 Diesel Golf or Peugeot 205. Miguel said:
Captain Muppet said:
Yes there is, there is better technology. Just because a statement rhymes doesn't mean it's true.
Sure, a 1980's turbocharged Formula 1 engine put out far more power than any completely standard small block Chevy, but that's hardly the point. People who like pushrod V8's don't like Subaru turbo four or Honda V-Tech engines. Harley fans don't like Ducati or Suzuki high revving, high tech engines no matter how much power they have, in large part because to them an engine has to fire unevenly, sound awkward, and have lots of low-end grunt in order to be any good. The statement implies "all else being equal," not to mention that it's a philosophy that dates back to before all of this technology was available and coined by people who wouldn't be able to afford it if it were.Corvette owners don't want their beloved pushrod V8 engine replaced with a turbo five-cylinder from an Audi TT RS or a small displacement Ferrari engine that redlines at 9000 RPM no matter how great others think they are. Conversely, those who like such an engine probably won't want a Vette, anyway. Along the same lines, British car buffs who swear up and down that no engine configuration could possibly be as good as a proper straight-six (let alone better), don't want a V8. If all else is kept equal, extra displacement will improve its performance.
Please read my previous answers about how it's possible to make a better, yet slightly slightly smaller, pushrod V8. Then imagine that I used to design engines for a living.
Also you could have a little think about why it is that huge american V8s aren't any biger than they are. Bigger is always better, right? Why stop at 8 litres (or whatever)? It's the law of diminishing returns. Sometimes it's just better to stick a supercharger on it, like they do with Corvettes and Mustangs.
Also "all else kept equal" you get to a combustion chamber size that starts reducing power as it gets bigger.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff