Cornering: American Cars vs. European Cars

1) More open space to drive fast... then we get an imposed 65mph (105 km/h) limit.

2) Americans are discouraged from having fun

American roads are bigger and have less corners.

American cars are generally so much heavier and Newton's Laws describe different behaviour because of it. Also, the occupants of those cars are generally heavier too.

Other than that, it's very difficult to say...

Short answer is the average American driver doesn't need it, so is not willing to pay for it. For example a mountain road you call Pikes Peak is a bit faster and safer than the road to my parent's mountain village, but I don't make too much fuss about it. (LOL) S.M.

We don't call it Pikes Peek. We call it Pikes Peak or Pike's Peak.

Had made the correction before I saw your note. Thanks. S.M.

No problem....just having a little fun

You spelt it wrong twice......

Read back your first attempt - "Pikes Peek" is plainly wrong.........

Pike's Peak is also wrong!!!!

The reason I say this is simply that the Pikes Peak web site does NOT use an apostrophe " 's " at the end in any of the many times it is written on the website.

See here:-

Pikes Peak

So the other poster was entirely correct!!!! I assume for the moment that the Pikes Peak website knows their own Peak's name!!!!

This website here:-

about Pikes Peak

Changes its mind about the high comma in the first page several times, so they do not help in the slightest!!

If you look here:-

My search on Pikes Peak

You will notice that very, very few use the comma.......probably because its now a "noun". Though I am open to correction on that! Are you?

"Changes its mind about the high comma in the first page several times, so they do not help in the slightest!!

You will notice that very, very few use the comma.......probably because its now a "noun". Though I am open to correction on that! Are you?"

Since you are open to correction, it's called an apostrophe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe

I did not spell it wrong twice or even once. If you read post #7, SimpleMind stated:

"Had made the correction before I saw your note. Thanks. S.M.", as his original post spelled it Pikes Peek.

In my reply I used both Pikes Peak and Pike's Peak acknowledging the acceptance of not using the apostrophe (not a comma) and the original way it was referenced. Initially it was referred to as Pike's Peak (carrying an apostrophe) as it was explored by Zebulon Pike, Jr.

Regarding the use of the apostrophe:

http://gazettewonder.freedomblogging.com/2011/08/12/wheres-pikes-peaks-apostrophe/1939/ This states that:

The U.S. Board on Geographic Names was created by the President in 1890. It removed most of the apostrophes from the geographic locations including mountains, bodies of water, etc., because the apostrophe denotes possession.

While I can't vouch for the accuracy of that statement, it seems reasonable to me.

It is also very difficult to physically posses a mountain. Now a Titan like Atlas would easily be able to hold one but they're to big for puny mortals.

Government posses most of the land (and mountains) in the USA.

Hollywood owns Walton's Mountain.

Using 3 definitions of the word possess from dictionary dot com:

Considering the most common definition of possess is "to own", it is not difficult to possess a mountain. Just might be expensive.

Now if by possess you mean to dominate, occupy or control from within, then yes, I agree, it's difficult to possess a mountain.

And I can't resist this last one. If you meant to have sexual intercourse with, then again, I would tend to agree...although maybe not as difficult as we might think. I'm sure there are some who've tried and even succeeded. As a matter of fact, I may have a cousin who would qualify.

fundemental fundamental

Watch the American version the exact opposite is true, that should be your clue....

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1010_2011_2011_ford_mustang_gt_vs_2011_bmw_m3_comparison/viewall.html

Interesting link. Actual track times were about equal. However, the M3 and the Mustang are atypical cars, A.K.A. not your farther's Oldsmobile.

So you might ask yourself, does the fact that the Mustang costs half as much as the BMW, yet performs better across the board make it twice as good as the beamer, the answer is yes.....

BMWs are too expensive to keep running for most private people, even here.

If it was not for the fact that BMW sells mainly to leasing companies (at rock bottom prices), they would be out of business years ago......

They have a serious problem with all the Diesel engines of the N7 type (2007 - 2011 at least), where the timing chain assembly breaks and sometimes wrecks the engine completely. It comes at around 70,000 to 100,000 miles, when often a private person has now bought the car secondhand.

BMW does not assist anyone who has had a single service at a non BMW garage or business...they say that its the now the customer's problem!!

BMW does not understand the meaning of "customer Support" in that happy customers come back.......

They have serious problems with cars with so called "Run Flat" suspension once the "Run Flat" tyres are over half worn, but not worn out.....It makes the cars very unstable on high speed autobahn corners which are not absolutely flat. I know as I pick up and deliver cars all over Germany.....quite a few are BMWs, all are secondhand. US customers may never see this as 65MPH is too slow. I am talking about 120 MPH +....

A good quick fix is simply "normal" tyres, but then no benefit of "Run Flat" and no spare tyre.....UGH!!!

They have serious problems with the brakes on certain models not working in parallel on wet roads, causing a car to spin off. BMW has accepted that this is a problem and is working on it, till then its best to keep the speeds well down on wet roads for the X1, 3 (E46 and E90) and 5 series of relatively recent manufacture. Also models of 5er, 5er GT and Z4 can be affected too.....

The ESP does not help and the driver must react at the speed of a F1 driver to bring the car under control again....

See here if you can read German:-

BMWs - Braking in wet problems

How can that happen?????

A search on the web using "BMW problems" brings a whole host of such things to light from both new and older models.....

I would not ever buy one since I had one as a company car in the 80's, the maintenance and repair costs were far too high even then....

We used them as company cars with a full 2 years works guarantee only....we even had them taken to Munich on covered lorries, had most of the mechanical parts replaced and returned and it was only say a 20,000 KM service......new engines, new gearboxes and new rear axles.....was not uncommon.......all done secretly....you got basically a new car back!!!

Brakes Problems.

Here is a quick translation of the online article, AUTO BILD is a very good car magazine here in Germany by the way:-

Several recent models of BMW series cars can have brake problems on wet roads. It affects mainly BMW X1 models and the 3-series (E46 and E90), and occasionally 5, 5 GT and Z4.

The braking effect is a few seconds delay on one side only, so that the car pulls strongly to one side.

The ESP anti-skid electronics provides no help in such situations, the driver must actively counter-steer . Also in the endurance test car BMW X1, the AUTO BILD test driver could easily demonstrate the dangerous wet braking performance.

BMW acknowledged the problems with regard to the X1.

BMW acknowledged the problems on hearing AUTO BILD's demands for the X1 and 3 series with four-wheel drive, in which the same axle components are installed.

I get a 'module error' when trying to view the embedded video, but looking at the plan of the track that is provided, it looks to me like the track is somewhat 'American friendly'. I.e., the bends look too gentle compared to the roads I've driven on in England and Ireland. British secondary roads are much narrower and with tighter turns, plus the turns are usually flat, not banked, compared to that test track.

I'd like to see a comparison of the cars on actual roads between, say, Stonehenge and Stratford-Upon-Avon in England, or between Killarney and Dingle in Ireland.

The primary reason for this has to do with the customer, not the suspension topology.

Europeans are more driver-centric.

Americans are still a little in love with the idea of their vehicle being an extension of their living room.

Europeans generally like small cars that perform well. Note that most vehicles in Europe are manual transmission, too.

Americans generally like large cars, trucks, and SUVs, where 50% of new vehicle sales are SUVs and trucks. Obviously, the last two categories simply do not handle well by default.

Manufactures are savvy to those desires and that is why even American cars sold on the European market are different than those sold domestically (besides requirements bound by regulations of the state/country they are imported).

The suspensions are pretty much the same (MAcPherson Struts), but how the struts are valved, sway bar settings, and compliance of bushings are changed to provide a more comfortable ride. Americans like to be able to drive over a trash can and not feel it.

Because we sit on the left side of the car!

...like most of Europe, perhaps?

Here in the U.S. handling characteristics take a back seat to ride smoothness.

Unless you want to buy the "handling" package. $$$

Here's a comparison of a 2013 Audi RS5 a 2011 BMW M3 and a 2011 Cadillac CTS-V....pretty much even across the board....

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1009_2010_audi_rs_5_vs_2011_bmw_m3_vs_2011_cadillac_cts_v_comparison/viewall.html

As a European, I did not read that it was "even Stevens" as you imply. Far from it!!!

The critic of the gearbox and missing paddles on the Cadillac's are more than enough to put me off......no matter how good the rest was.....even forgetting a piddly trunk and an overweight chassis....

I don't like BMWs anyway, so for me personally, the Audi has it. I drive many models of Audi each month and some have high mileages and drive like a new car, look like a new car inside and out.....now that is a compliment......!

My personal favourite is the A6 with the big Diesel engine as an everyday sort of car, economical and fast. Though the A8 Diesel is also very nice to drive too...

Camaro vs BMW....

http://cars.findthebest.com/compare/1363-1931/2013-BMW-M6-Coupe-vs-2013-Chevrolet-Camaro-ZL1

Comparison:

BMW 335i vs. Cadillac ATS vs. Mercedes-Benz C350

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1302_2012_bmw_335i_2013_cadillac_ats_mercedes_benz_c350_comparison/viewall.html#ixzz2aXysbyW8

Which cars do you refer to as American? Most of the cars in the U.S. market are built in Europe, Asia, Mexico, and Canada with a few others dotted in there. Even the "performance" cars of America are designed by international teams and are a worldly mix of parts with the final assembly possibly taking place in foreign countries.

Those foreign countries are likely building those American cars which corner so badly.

Some BMWs are now built in the U.S. and so are some Mercedes vehicles (in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and Vance, Alabama, respectively).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_US_Manufacturing_Company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz

More than aware.

The Big Three.

Have you ever driven on the roads in Great Britain? (Or better, in Ireland where there is less traffic?) It's quite different than driving in the U.S. and Canada.

Their motorways are pretty much like 'our' freeways, but most of their secondary roads are narrow and twisty compared to most secondary roads in the U.S. So Great Britains and Europeans need the better cornering.

Gotta say, it's a real hoot to drive a stick-shift sports car on British roads, especially having to shift left-handed when one is used to shifting right-handed.

You will here...

Reminds me of success.

Not only has Porsche sold more than expected of the GT3 lineage, but the GT3 Cup car (and the GT3 RSR) has been one of the world's most successful race cars for its class. Actually, claimed to be #1, but who's counting. :)

That road looks familiar. I'd say it is US-50 in Nevada. I've driven it a couple of times going between the Bay Area and Bryce Canyon area of Utah. Otherwise popularly known as the Loneliest Road in America.

But honestly, nothing compares to Utah-21 between Milford, UT and Garrison, UT. That is 75 miles of absolutely nothing. That is the loniest road between the Bryce Canyon area and getting to US-50 headed west bound.

Southwest Utah is mostly nothing everywhere.

I lived in Cedar City (Cedar to the locals) for 6 months.

We Europeans like our Stick shift!

And we Americans love our hooters.

The fundamental difference is the American drivers are top heavy and European drivers are bottom heavy.

Not top and bottom heavy?

I think it has more to do with what Americans buy, rather than where the car was made.

Most Americans, (particularly with families, or who drive in snow), prefer the SUVs, crossovers, all wheel drive, etc., and like to sit higher off the ground. Comfort trumps performance and speed, so most of the vehicles we drive, (regardless of manufacturer), have a higher center of gravity.

My latest vehicle is a Chrysler town and Country, and I love the space in the drivers area, as well as climbing "up" into the driver's seat. My wife's Camry feels like a go kart.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/consumers-most-popular.html

I've asked my clients why they like their cars (I'm in the auto industry and sold over 3,000 cars to my clients). Here's a summary:

Japanese Cars: By far the most purchased. My clients favor the reliability, ease of maintenance, comfort and styling. Handling is typically not high on the list, except for S2000, FR-S, Nissan Z, STI, WRX, Evo, IS, Infiniti G, etc.

German Cars: A very distant second to Japanese Cars by volume. These clients like the quality of materials, comfort, performance, safety and the badge. Power and handling are important, but they don't want the "boy racer" image. They consider this a step up to the Japanese Cars, even Lexus, Infiniti and Acura.

American Cars: Slightly behind the German Cars by volume. These clients like big SUV's and trucks or are looking for an inexpensive used car. For the SUV buyer, they want something comfortable that they can throw the kids, dog, etc in. Comfort is the key here and they don't care about the handling. For the truck buyer, since the increase in gas prices, these buyers are using them for work. Utility is key and handling isn't a consideration. Finally, the person looking for an inexpensive used car will get a Chevy Cobalt, because it's $3K less than a comparable Corolla. Price/payment are important and handling isn't even talked about.

Sure, there are a few that don't fit the norm as there always will be. I can count the few Corvette, Camaro and Mustang GT buyers I've had. The V-6 Mustang is a different buyer and many times I have females looking for a nice sporty looking convertible.

http://www.ausringers.com/2008/05/13/2009-cadillac-cts-v-claims-nurburgring-nordschleife-record.html

Shortly after that claim, the 4-door Porsche Panamera beat it.

Still, nice to see Detroit doing what everyone knew they could do; produce world-class performance cars.

Well the record is now by a Radical SR8 /LM but looking at the picture, it doesn't look like a street legal car, the one in third at least look like a street legal car (Gumpert Apollo Sport)

Not in the 4-door category.

Fine...Cadillac being three (partial) seconds slower but did so naturally aspirated.

Of note is the Cadillac was pre-production with the Panamera being one year into life (production).

The (also) pumped-up Evo X GSR (4 door) nips on the heels of the Porsche by ~1 second.

Taxi!

I think the Cadillac was supercharged, which is not quite the same as naturally aspirated.

Either way, it was putting out a lot of horsepower to do what it did.

whoops...double-check confirmed...not naturally aspirated.

Some may think the Panamera is not a very good looking car, but it does have a unique look. And when you sit inside, you can feel the sportiness and quality. If I needed a large, sporty sedan, I'd choose the Porsche over an S550, 7 series or A8 and definitely over a Lexus LS.

I think it's amazing how Porsche was able to design and build a large, heavy sedan that performs as well as the Panamera. Merc, BMW and Audi couldn't do it. I haven't driven the Quattroporte, but I can imagine the maintenance cost for a Maserati.

I don't think it makes sense comparing Nurburgring times with a Mitsubishi EVO, since it's in a completely different class - you would never have a person shopping for a Panamera, but considering an EVO as an option.

I just delivered a CTS-V coupe the other day and the performance is impressive, however there are some very quirky items, such as the emergency door release (pull the key out of the fob, crouch down to find the hidden keyhole above the license plate, manually open the trunk with the key, stick your head in the trunk and look up toward the back of the seat to find the release lever, then pull it to release the trunk), fold down rear seat (very inconvenient - you must climb in the back seat, which is a big hassle), lack of paddle shifters (this is true) and no moonroof (I for one do enjoy a moonroof and most of our cars have one)? For a mid-upper $60K car, I think this is unacceptable. The folks at GM still don't get it.

There are two answers to your question.

1) Americans, as as been detailed above, like ride comfort and do not usually drive on roads where handling is important.

2) Most American cars have solid axle rear suspension. This is cheaper to make than an independent rear suspension but pays a penalty in handling.

I agree with your first point, wholeheartedly. Despite my following objection, this point IMHO overrides my modest objection.

As for the solid rear axle suspension, I must disagree. Since the preponderance of vehicles on the road today are front wheel drive, the suspension geometry of a dead rear axle is predominantly a factor of cost and not handling. Linking the dead rear wheels of a front wheel drive vehicle seems to me to be a more complicated (expensive) mechanical engineering task than having a fully independent (dead) rear axle.